Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches

Lies, Damned Lies, and Convention Speeches
Setting Kerry's record right—again.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004,

Half-truths and embellishments are one thing; they're common at political conventions, vital flourishes for a theatrical air. Lies are another thing, and last night's Republican convention was soaked in them.

In the case of Sen. Zell Miller's keynote address, "lies" might be too strong a word. Clearly not a bright man, Miller dutifully recited the talking points that his Republican National Committee handlers had typed up for him, though perhaps in a more hysterical tone than anyone might have anticipated. (His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers who used to be guests on The Joe Pyne Show.) Can a puppet tell lies? Perhaps not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2106119/

Ah, more even handed stories from Slate.

Yeah! Damn you, Slate, for using facts against an ignorant rant!

[quote name='MrBadExample']Yeah! Damn you, Slate, for using facts against an ignorant rant![/quote]

Whoops, forgot where I was posting! I'll correct it. Unfortunately I have to run the correction through the PlainSpeak(TM) filter.

"I don't agree with what was posted/said/done, so it must be wrong. I will post a link to a website that presents only the 'facts' that would support my position to show that you are indeed wrong, and I am right."

Be careful not to lose that one. I know that'll be tough since it's pretty much the same as...well, every other post on this board.

That's funny. When I fed your post through my PlainSpeak(TM) filter, I got this:

"Your post questions my fundamental beliefs therefore I must attack your source rather than address the issue. It does not matter to me if the article was pointing out facts that refute my argument, I will dismiss it all as Democratic spin."

Maybe your PS filter has the BS Bug.

Thanks for providing a shining example of what I was talking about. I make a humorous reference to an earlier post, and the whole playground argument begins. I guess I could tell you not to take it personally, but that would be wasting my time.

The only fundamental belief I've put forth on this thread is that every other thread is the exact same thing, only key words change. It's like CAG Mad Libs. I hoped that maybe it would change with a little humor or with guys like JSweeney adding a little decorum and class. But it appears that nearly every one on here wants to 'win.' Win what or how, I dunno. But hey, don't let me crush your dreams.

Incidentally, although your post met the equivalent of 'nah nah nah boo boo', you did NOT include links to the NY Times or Saloon, so I'm afraid you're disqualified.

And before I get myself disqualified, here's my own external link.

Oh, you were trying to be funny. Well, better luck next time.

Kerry's voting record speaks for itself - no matter what radical liberals try to say about it.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but it's in black and white in the library of congress, and it shows that he was against the same military that he now claims to be a hero of.

As usual this is typical liberal tactics - avoid the facts and bash the speaker so as to get the other radicals in a frenzy of hatred and lack of common sense.

Again somebody is ignoring the truth. Cheney was trying to cut the military more than Kerry back then. That's in black and white too.

The facts are right there in the Slate article. It's Republicans who are avoiding them because it destroys their argument.

And it is amusing that you would direct a phrase like "frenzy of hatred and lack of common sense" at Democrats in a thread about Zell Miller's speech. It would be more amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Cheney is NOT the ing president so I don't care what his record is.

Kerry IS running for president so I DO care what his record is.

Next time try to spin it a little more.

There's no spin there, my friend. You're just not used to seeing straight facts.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Yeah! Damn you, Slate, for using facts against an ignorant rant![/quote]

mmmm....speaking of ignorant rants....

did you watch any of the Democratic Convention by chance...?

[quote name='Scrubking']Cheney is NOT the shaq-fuing president so I don't care what his record is.

Kerry IS running for president so I DO care what his record is.

Next time try to spin it a little more. [/quote]

you should care. With all the terror talk the president speaks up, don't you think an assination attempt is likely before he leaves office? I will never forget what he did while at Haliburton, and I still think him and Karl Rove make George their puppet.

That said I do not like Kerry either. He bought the nomination with his wife's money.

[quote name='John Kerry']"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
[/quote]

"Reach out"

What do you think that really means? It should be rephrased to : "reach in". As in reach into our American pocketbook and let other countries dictate terms for approval by allowing them to extort a negociation. Rather than rely on what may be right or wrong in any given situation, we will do our best to kiss the asses of foreign leaders and dictators in order to get some illusion of a coalition in order to appease the american voting public.


"effective", "thoughtful","strategic", "proactive","sensitive".....
I feel so good after all those adjectives I could touch myself!!

You people that buy into this load of politikspeak should at least eat some of it before you start passing it around for everyone else. It really smells like shit, but they'll tell you it's caviar.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='John Kerry']"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
[/quote]

"Reach out"

What do you think that really means? It should be rephrased to : "reach in". As in reach into our American pocketbook and let other countries dictate terms for approval by allowing them to extort a negociation. Rather than rely on what may be right or wrong in any given situation, we will do our best to kiss the asses of foreign leaders and dictators in order to get some illusion of a coalition in order to appease the american voting public.


"effective", "thoughtful","strategic", "proactive","sensitive".....
I feel so good after all those adjectives I could touch myself!!

You people that buy into this load of politikspeak should at least eat some of it before you start passing it around for everyone else. It really smells like shit, but they'll tell you it's caviar.[/quote]

when people in other countries start to think you are practicing jingoism then there is a diplomatic problem surfacing.

Again somebody is ignoring the truth. Cheney was trying to cut the military more than Kerry back then. That's in black and white too.

Click to expand...

Cheney is NOT the shaq-fuing president so I don't care what his record is.

Kerry IS running for president so I DO care what his record is.

Click to expand...

Kerry's votes for cuts in the early 90s were all cuts that Cheney and Bush Sr. supported. So, what your saying is, its ok that Bush Sr. and Cheney voted for these cuts, but it makes Kerry weak on defense because he voted for them too?