The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • Hopefully this will clear up some of the lies put forth by the Republicans about Kerry at their convention...

  • Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
 #18549  by ManaMan
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:02 am
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... p2.html</a>

Hopefully this will clear up some of the lies put forth by the Republicans about Kerry at their convention...</div>
 #18551  by ManaMan
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:13 am
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '><b>GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Votes</b>

<i>By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01</i>

Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.

As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.

For instance:

• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry opposed a huge Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of congressional deliberations over restructuring the military in the post-Cold War era.

• Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)

• Both Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.

In remarks prepared for delivery last night, Kerry denounced the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and criticized Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the statements made by convention speakers, though he declined to address details beyond supplying the campaign's citations of votes. "Whether it was in the '70s, '80s or '90s, Sen. Kerry has demonstrated a general pattern of hostility to a strong national defense," Holt said.

Votes cast by lawmakers are often twisted by political opponents, and both political parties are adept at combing through legislative records to score political points. Former senator Robert J. Dole's voting record was frequently distorted by the Clinton campaign eight years ago -- as well as by his GOP rivals for the Republican nomination.

One document frequently cited by Republicans is a 350-word article in the Boston Globe, written when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts and battling to win the Democratic nomination for senator in 1984 -- a period of soaring deficits in the wake of a huge defense buildup by President Ronald Reagan. Calling for a "strong defense," the article said, Kerry proposed to slow the rate of growth in defense spending by canceling 27 weapons systems, in part to reduce the deficit and also restore cuts Reagan had made in domestic programs.

While Cheney said Kerry opposed Reagan's "major defense initiatives," the campaign does not cite any votes against such defense programs while Reagan was president, relying instead on a campaign speech before he was elected senator.

Six years later, Kerry took part in a complex and serious debate in Congress over how to restructure the military after the Cold War.

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.

On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."

Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."

Appearing on CNN, Miller said he had "gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about."

Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.

Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.

"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.

Kerry's vote last year against the administration's $87 billion proposal to fund troops in Iraq and pay for Iraqi reconstruction has also been the focus of Republican attacks. "He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty and support for military families," Cheney said.

Kerry actually supported all those things, but as part of a different version of the bill opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line.

In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground -- "I support our troops in Iraq and their mission" -- but faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction. He complained that administration "has only given us a set of goals and vague timetables, not a detailed plan."

Yesterday, the State Department said that only $1 billion of that money has been spent in the 11 months since the bill was passed.

<i>Researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.</i></div>

 #18559  by Flip
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:42 am
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>The left media whining about things being taken out of context made me laugh so hard i choked on my bagel and couldnt finish reading the article.</div>

 #18562  by Flip
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:08 am
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>To ellaborate, where were they when 'Out Foxed' was circulating or all the BS in 'F 911'? Talk about out of context!</div>

 #18564  by Derithian
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:07 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>have you seen either? I'm guessing no. so you can't go whining about something when you don't even know what's in it.</div>

 #18569  by Kupek
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:31 pm
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Last I checked, Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald weren't running for president.</div>

 #18574  by Flip
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:01 pm
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>I've seen F911, read plenty on it, and have read plenty on Out Foxed. Are you seriously trying to say they set up and gave the whole story for everything they blasted and saying that nothing was out of context?</div>

 #18575  by Flip
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:05 pm
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>So you think its ok for influential propaganda films to take things out of context? I'd prefer if noone did, i was just laughing at how hypocritical it is from the author and from ManaMan (who, if i remember correctly, endorses Out Foxed)</div>

 #18577  by Kupek
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:33 pm
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>You missed my point entirely, which was an answer to your "where were they?" question. Major newspapers are going to spend more time scrutinizing presidential candidates than documentaries. And for the record, I saw Out Foxed, and I have no problem with it.</div>
 #18578  by ManaMan
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:46 pm
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I think that was an assumption on your part that since I'm a progressive-leaning guy, I would endorse it. I don't think that I've ever mentioned the movie on this board (I may be wrong though) and did I mention that <i>I've never even seen the movie?</i> However, I have mentioned how I dislike FOXNEWS' politics and spin and their "Fair and Balanced reporting" BS so I can see where you might have gotten the idea from.

I <i>have</i> seen F-9/11 and, to be truthful, I was underwhelmed. It was completely over-hyped, and although Moore made some good points in the movie (and found some great newsreel clips), I think that he stretched the truth a bit and yes, took many things out of context. We expect this from Moore, but from our Vice President (among others)? I never wrote a review on the movie (like many others here did) because I truthfully didn't know what to think of it. I've seen Bowling For Columbine (several times) and I liked it, although I disagreed with some of Moore's logic as to why there's so much gun violence in the US.

I don't take anything Moore says all too seriously because I know that he stretches the truth at times and seems only capable of seeing the world from one perspective. Do you know what? I can also say the same thing for Seam Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly! My problem is that I can't see how you can possibly place the author of this article in the same category of these partisan talking heads. He is simply defending a man from (mostly) baseless personal attacks, not from the type of people I just mentioned, but from high-ranking government officials (especially the V.P.). Also, if I remember correctly, there were several articles that I read in the NYT and Wash. Post (the flagships of your hated "liberal media") criticizing F-9/11 and Moore for extreme partisanship and distorted facts (although, in all fairness, I do remember *more* articles in support of the movie).</div>

 #18579  by Flip
 Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:56 pm
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.tows.cc/cgi-bin/rpgboard/vie ... DA.html</a>

Sorry, thought it was a safe assumption when i reflected back on this thread.</div>

 #18580  by Derithian
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:12 am
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Oh no. I'm very liberal and I didn't like F9/11 it's just most people when they talk about it talk about what they heard and never see it. I give you full right to criticize it and I criticize it myself because I have seen it. but to people that havn't shut the fuck up</div>

 #18581  by Derithian
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:14 am
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>oh, and outfoxed was a hell of a lot better than f/911 as it wasn't full of the vague connections that moore makes between things. I watched it and thought it did a much better job than f911 because it doesn't make vague assumptions.</div>

 #18583  by Flip
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:45 am
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>You must be blind, because the major newspapers do write about those movies, in pleasing tones no less</div>

 #18584  by ManaMan
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 12:09 pm
<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>That preview was pretty cool. I heard that it's out on video now in St. Louis, I'll have to go rent it this weekend to see for myself.</div>

 #18585  by Zeus
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:36 pm
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Never even heard of it. I'll have to check it out (going to Overnet right now to check for a d'load). On a related note, has anyone heard about when Michael Moore Hates America is supposed to come out?</div>

 #18586  by Kupek
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:33 pm
<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I read criticism in the WP and NYT, but whatever, you've already made up your mind.</div>

 #18588  by Flip
 Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:58 pm
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>As have you. I'd do better trying to convince a wall.</div>

 #18590  by Derithian
 Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:19 am
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>The same could be said the other way around</div>

 #18593  by Zeus
 Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:39 am
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>And this is why Republicans never change their minds, why they are, by definition, Republicans: they don't have open minds to the possibility that what they believe in passionately and wholeheartedly can be wrong. That's the card the GOP has been playing for YEARS and why your country's a mess</div>

 #18594  by Flip
 Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:52 am
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>For the love of god, dont even try to get all high and mighty on me. Your declaration of liberals being such great people and Canada being a superior run country is as rediculous as you believe Republicans to be. For example, isnt it closed minded to think all Repubs are like this? hmmm...</div>

 #18601  by Zeus
 Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:15 pm
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You put a great deal of words in my mouth there, you simply deduced that based on your own opinions. Hell, at no point have I EVER said I liked most liberals either. And I think that Canada is a worse run country. Also, not all Republicans are like this, just a stereotype you refuse to dispell</div>
 #18609  by Flip
 Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:15 am
<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '><b>And this is why Republicans never change their minds, why they are, by definition, Republicans: they don't have open minds to the possibility that what they believe in passionately and wholeheartedly can be wrong.</b>

So, you think Repubs are bad people for not being open minded. The opposite of a Repub is a Liberal, therefore it is relatively safe to think you think Liberals are open minded, which would mean you do not think they are bad people and and better than Repubs. No where did you say only some Repubs are like this.

<b>That's the card the GOP has been playing for YEARS and why your country's a mess</b>

If you think our country is a mess due to it being under Repub control for the last 4 years then you must be comparing it to some other country, because a mess compared to nothing is nothing. You live in Canada, so you must be referring to your own country not being a mess. Now, you say, Canada is a worse run country, so it is even a bigger mess?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, i'm thinking like any normal person would after reading your post. If this is wrong then the fault lies with the author for not getting his point across. Kupek does this all the time, saying someone missed his point. We're all smart people here, if someone is missing the point then it is more likely that the point wasnt remotely clear to begin with.</div>
 #18618  by Zeus
 Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:46 pm
<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>1) To you, Democrats are opposite of Republicans, not to me. I don't live in your country, remember? I simply take a look at those who claim to be Republicans and notice that they refuse to question what they believe in or just don't listen to the other side. I think this is close-minded and stupid and people who think of themselves as mature and/or intellectual simply shouldn't act this way, regardless of political affiliations. It just so happens than basically every passionate conservative I've met (Republicans in the US, PCs up here) simply refuse to take an intellectual/scientific look at their beliefs. They simply believe in something and nothing in the world will change their minds, even a mountain of evidence proving their belief is wrong (in psych, they call that "cognitive dissonance").

2) I am referring to what I know of American politics, which basically consists of the Bushs' (both of them) and Clinton administration and some of Reagan's. I saw Sr. reverse the absolute mess that Reagan made during the 80's and try to get re-elected to actually take advantage of his administration's actions. The economists did it, not the politicians, 'cause they absolutely had to and it takes a few years to reverse, years he didn't end up having having 'cause the war ended too early. Clinton did NOTHING for 8 years, he rode the wave, period. On a side note, I have hated Clinton more than any other president I have seen and bitched endlessly about him on this site. He and his presidency epitomizes everything I hate about politicians and politics in general. Then, we see Bush pull the same shit Reagan did (deceiving the public and covering it up with politics, this time with war like daddy did). Only difference this time is there's a whole bunch of people on cable, the internet, films (not just Moore), and other forms of media who, although liberal minded, are just not letting Jr get away with it. They fell asleep at the wheel in the first two and a half years but not the last year and a half.

So, the "mess" I was referring to is that of Reagan's (even the Republican nuts can't shy away from that fact) which took Sr to clean up, Clinton to avoid doing anything substantial at all, just to see Jr do the same shit all over again using basically the same tactics (use patriotism to hide the shit in the background). Not to say that the Democrats don't do it either (Clinton and his Chinese shit), but the Republicans are unreal about it. This is how you end up with the Patriot Act, and only the real Republican nuts like that pile of used toilet paper disguised as law.

And yes, Canada is a mess. Thank the Lord the Liberals have a minority 'cause now we'll start to see a little bit of proper democracy at work (they need the help of one of their rival parties to get anything passed, that's true democracy). They simply got too comfy, did whatever they wanted, and were just sloppy (like lose $1 billion; not deficit, misplaced...yeah, my ass), all because the Conservatives and Reform were warring among themselves (those were our two conservative parties). They finally merged and can actually stand up against the liberals.

But the one main difference which helps make the US a better-run country than Canada is the fact that you people will NOT take shit from anyone, not even your own politicians. People down there actually pay attention and care, the vast majority of people here don't. That better helps keep the politicians in check, it's just too bad your media is shit and doesn't do fuck-all.</div>

 #18633  by SineSwiper
 Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:46 am
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>So you've read plenty on both movies, yet you say "where were they when 'Out Foxed' was circulating or all the BS in 'F 911'?"</div>

 #18634  by SineSwiper
 Wed Sep 08, 2004 4:49 am
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>*cough* Reaganomics *cough*</div>