No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
Posted By: is what it is, and sm on 2008-09-06
In Reply to: Romney is not running, Biden is... - sam
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.
Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.
Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
I voted in our primary
on Tuesday. As soon as I put the card in the electronic machine it said invalid card even though I watched the woman run it through her little machine to clear it and saw it say clear twice. It took 3 people about 5 minutes to figure out how to get the card out of the machine. Then I got a new one. Everything went along fine until one choice. There were 4 people on the ballot; it would let me vote for 3 of them but not the 4th which was the one I wanted to vote for. I told them about this but nothing will happen. I think we should either have a paper trail or write them out long hand. Even if these machines were not suspect to begin with as far as tampering goes, just plain not working makes a huge difference in the vote.
I know that Bush did not win Florida in 2004. Thousands of African Americans did not stand in lines for hours to vote for Bush. You can take that to the bank and bet the farm on it too. My personal favorite though is a county that counted something like 10,000 votes for Bush and there are only 5,000 registered voters in the entire county !!! Go figure.
during a primary campaign. Now that JB is onboard,
x
That was just primary campaign retoric that happens... sm
in every campaign democrat and republican. Did you not see that on both sides during the primary?
primary opponent versus people
from own party who make their living promoting the repub cause. Big difference in motivation.
I worry about that too. My primary accout is oncology...sm
an he does not only have simple skin cancer but recurrent melanoma of the face. His age and medical history make me very nervous. I would not want SP to be president period.
The conversation took place during the primary season
If they had a casual conversation on these issues before any official selections were even possible, they would have been purely speculative, dontcha think? During the heat of the primary compaign, HC would have been the last person he would have had in mind for either position. Sounds like a fairly innocent chat between friends to me.
The reason is because FL insisted on moving up the primary, despite being told NOT to. nm
x
Embarassing isn't it? The primary words being ignorant redneck. sm
I know lots of hicks here in Vermont that are not ignorant rednecks. We like people to call us hicks or tree-huggers. There are a few people here who hang out signs that say "Take Back Vermont" mostly to do with civil unions, but they are in the minority and Vermonters are by and large very tolerant people who mind their own business and don't abide fools. No kidding, life is good here in the Green Mountain State, with a socialist/progressive/independent senator. Go Bernie! We have affordable health care and health care for every child. We care about the environment. Go Obama!
Wanna revist the Romney/McCain primary wars?
Then he was "honored" to share speeching spotlight with Cindy and SP at RNC. Did he lie? Which time? SP's ebay claim was presented to the entire nation as a feather in her fiscal responsibility cap. This flies in the face of information found on this most interesting link, authored by a Wasilla woman who has personally known SP since 1992. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp
The fact that an article was written does not make it fact. I hope you know that. nm
.
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric
Per Onelook:
▸ noun: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking) (hmmm...yep)
▸ noun: using language effectively to please or persuade (okay, I get it)
▸ noun: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
▸ noun: loud and confused and empty talk (that's the nuts and bolts of it)
As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered.
Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it. Get over it. If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.
Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric. Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done. And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do? Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes. ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?
I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain? Your statement makes no sense. The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east. Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on? Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US? Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there.
Why would I care about your opinion? I don't. There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board. Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what? Most of them disagree with me on most everything. LOL
I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.
Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric
Fox News Crosses the Line
Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters
For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.
For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."
If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.
Link below to sign petition.
No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm
How many more lies before everyone wakes up?
Editorial Toledo Blade: Another lie on Iraq
WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.
They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.
No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.
The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.
And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.
Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.
Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.
So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.
Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm
Translation: I watch a lot of Fox News and stick strictly to party rhetoric.nm
z
Non-stop hate rhetoric for weeks and weeks on end
Red camp has been making character the issue by their own choice. They copped out on the national crisis and decided to go with the culture war. Well, now they have it and I am sure that GP is not the only one who is feeling a bit surly at this point. What is the O camp (and I am not assuming that GP is going that way since she has not said so) supposed to do? Did you think that they would simply quietly sit back and take lash after lash after lash and wait for the tribal warriors to suddenly develop a conscience and call a cease fire?
The only difference between
Rudolph and Osama bin Laden is that one is Christian and one is Muslim. Other than that, there is no limit to their hatred.
To say that clinic workers at an abortion clinic are just as guilty as Rudolph is, at its best, INSANE. Those clinic workers broke no laws. Rudolph not only broke the law, he violated the "Thall shalt not kill" commandment that you all claim to believe in.
But, as with Bush in Iraq, it's okay if people kill, as long as they're the people you worship. I truly don't understand people like you, and I don't wish to. Frankly, you all frighten me, and I won't be reading your posts any more because I find them too disturbing.
Difference
I think it is a little bit different when it is coming from the president of the USA than someone driving on a freeway. At least, that is my opinion. Maybe you dont have high expectations for the leaders, I do.
big difference
The attorney is helping the person wronged by the corporation. The corporation is paying lobbyists to change laws so the little hurt guy cant get any satisfaction in court for being hurt. That is the difference. Big difference, if you ask me. Do you think Kenneth Lay lost sleep over all of his employess who lost jobs because of his criminal activity? He says he did but I doubt it.
I see the difference
The government is corrupt. The people are good. I'm so glad that you are posting here. I'm sure the people of Iran only want peace and freedom and to be out from under the rule of mean, evil people. Some people in the United States cannot comprehend what being under a tyrannical leader is all about. They have not experienced it like many countries in the Middle East have. We have a good leader, but many have been led to believe that he is not good. They don't understand that people around the world are being brutally killed and terorized by their own leaders who are supposed to have their best interests in mind. They are the truly oppressed and I pray for them daily. I pray that a peaceful solution will happen in Iran, and that the president will come to understand that he cannot win a war with the rest of the free world who will not let him have nuclear weapons because he has proven to be a man most untrustworthy and threatening to many countries including Israel and the U.S.
I believe the difference...
is between free speech and slander/libel. Everyone has a right to an opinion and to voicing that opinion as long as one does not libel and/or slander a particular individual(s). Since the widows were named and The ***WTC victims*** were not, one is free speech, albeit lunatic fringe free speech, and one is not.
To weigh in on the subject of Coulter; she makes her living saying and writing outrageous stuff. She is a shock jock. If she started writing books like William Safire does, no one would read them and she would not be on every talk show on the airwaves. It is her job to be repugnant and she does it quite well. I don't listen to her, don't read her books. I don't listen to Howard Stern either; nor Rush, nor Grover, nor anyone who makes my blood boil. It is an exercise in futility to try to change anyone's mind on the stuff these people say. You love them or hate them and so I just avoid them.
Same difference
Within 24 hours of taping? I reiterate the point I made above. And when you buy things from a private company unless they state it outright they might turn around sell your information to other advertisers. Unless you can produce where you signed a waiver of privacy, like you do at a doctor's office, you are not guaranteed that your information will be kept private.
I guess any good consumer could elect not to have phone service. That's one way to keep your conversations private. It's a bummer when it comes to communcation, but unless your plotting something illegal you really shouldn't have a problem should you?
Here's the difference between you and I.
I don't expect an apology. I do wonder though, why you rail so against Ann and had not a word to say about Ward Churchill. I would have liked some liberal input on that post and got none. I think what he said was a lot worse.
What's the difference?
It's okay for President Bush to get political but it's not okay for his employers (the American citizens) to do the same thing? That would be the norm in a fascist government ruled by a dictator like Iran. Is that where we're heading in America today?
Grandma's comment regarding the number of American troops killed in Iraq approaching the number of civilians killed on 9/11 was a very relevant comment, considering Bush himself exploited 9/11 in order to justify invading and occupying Iraq when it turns out Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
there IS a difference
i just stated in my above reply that yes I should have clearly stated I meant the people that use it as a form of birth control, who does THAT? not for medical reasons. I see there is a reason for it sometimes, of course.
the difference is
UAW workers were offered the same as workers in the U.S. who work for Honda, Toyota, etc. (not what they are paid working in foreign countries)
Yes, but there's a big difference between - sm
working in the government while concurrently believing in and practicing one's religion for their OWN USE.
What I have a huge problem with is when people use it to try to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, too many overzealous religious groups worldwide are doing just that.
key difference
Obama has proven himself over and over as thoughtful, knowledgible, and decent. SP has shown she has been heavily coached and has no real understanding or knowledge about foreign affairs. She has to have a teleprompter or a speech written for her. You in fact stated she kept the money from the Bridge to Alaska, confirming she has been repeating a lie about rejecting it on the campaign trail everyday..As far as Obama on O'Reilly. Of course I did not watch. The last thing I watched about Bill O'Reilly was where he threw the temper tantrum and ripped off the mike and threw on the counter and shouted obscenities at the staff because he did not understand the cue card.
I do believe him. What is the difference in....
believing him and believing what Obama says? Obama had lobbyists working for him; until just a month ago Joe biden's son was a professional lobbyist. Indeed, let's try to be objective here.
What's the difference?
xx
difference
One of the big differences between Palin and Clinton was their educations and years of experiences. How many years and how many colleges did it take Palin to get a journalism degree? Shows me that she really isn't that bright.
The difference is......
If it's not being put on this country's balance sheet as a HUGE debt, which is proper protocol for any business, that means they are saying it doesn't exist, it will just go away, and it will not be counted as liability. Who in the heck does that? You take your books to your local CPA and tell him you want him to do that and watch the look he gives you....... the look will be "fraud", and his response will be, "Uh, no, that is illegal", I don't do that".
If they want to pretend it is not our country's debt, then ask yourself who is overlooking the debt and what are they really doing with it......or better question, ask what they are really doing with your money? Without it being on the top line of the balance sheet, there is nothing that regulates they have to pay anything off. Get it?
There is a difference between the two
The consertatives you list are political commentators. They can have their own shows and columns, etc. Many liberals do.
Huffington Post puts itself out there as a newspaper, a NEWS source if you will. Problem is, they are all biased to the left so it's not being fair. Should not be called a newspaper if they can't be fair on both sides.
JMHO.
The difference is you believe her, I don't. S/M
And please, Sam, spare me the "sheeshes" and "good griefs." I don't belittle YOU because YOU don't agree with me. I never said anything about throwing her under the bus. She is looking out for herself and I feel sure her eyeballs are on the nomination for the 2012 election. If they are elected and I am wrong about them, you'll see me here fessing up.
What's the difference?
Investigating voter fraud and/or fraudulent candidate is one way to fix the economy. Do you really want someone in charge of your money that has paid a corrupt organization to pay people to go out and enlist voters, the same voter over and over, which by the way is illegal, as well as doctor documents and fraudulently sign people up that do not exist, including those already deceased, just to get the job? Anyone who would want that deserves whatever economy they get I suppose.
Obama's taxing us more to pay for all his social programs sure as heck isn't a way to fix the economy or have you overlooked that very significant point?
I think even you know the difference between the
xx
For those of you who don't know the difference...
between American news and real world news, here's a suggestion:
http://www.linktv.org/
Before you start in by saying, well that's just more liberal media, look who contributing authors are and where they are from. This is just one example of real world news. Step outside of the box for a while.
|
