·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the flip flop canidate
the flip flop canidateFollow
The problem is that when called on our exagerations most of us will admit error and go from there, you on the other hand will continue to post 20 paragraphs to defend yourself even when you are proven to be wrong or exagerating as if the sheer weight of taking the time to write 20 paragraphs will redeem you.
Any of you guys watch C-Span? Around 1AMCST Clinton was giving a speech in (yet another) Democrat party Unity confrence.
Anyway, he raised alot of good points.
Kerry has been getting down and dirty with alot of issues the country has had, and helped fix them. Bush just sat back and got arrested, and learned his lines, doing what Daddy Bush said.
I don't like Kerry all that mouch either, but he's the smartest of the 3 that have any real bearing in the election. I could make a shell script that governed the country better than Bush.
I'm also suprised that Clinton reversed positions so well, from having Clark as his golden boy as to supporting Kerry. Oh well, whatever it takes to get into power, I suppose
Nader is the complete idiot though. "Look at the TV and Radio stations and networks. The government pays for them out of tax, yet the viewers and listeners have no networks or stations"
That's because once a viewer or listener makes a network or sation, THEY'RE NO LONGER A VIEWER OR LISTENER! Idiot.
Anyway, he raised alot of good points.
Kerry has been getting down and dirty with alot of issues the country has had, and helped fix them. Bush just sat back and got arrested, and learned his lines, doing what Daddy Bush said.
I don't like Kerry all that mouch either, but he's the smartest of the 3 that have any real bearing in the election. I could make a shell script that governed the country better than Bush.
I'm also suprised that Clinton reversed positions so well, from having Clark as his golden boy as to supporting Kerry. Oh well, whatever it takes to get into power, I suppose
Nader is the complete idiot though. "Look at the TV and Radio stations and networks. The government pays for them out of tax, yet the viewers and listeners have no networks or stations"
That's because once a viewer or listener makes a network or sation, THEY'RE NO LONGER A VIEWER OR LISTENER! Idiot.
flishtaco wrote:
The problem is that when called on our exagerations most of us will admit error and go from there, you on the other hand will continue to post 20 paragraphs to defend yourself even when you are proven to be wrong or exagerating as if the sheer weight of taking the time to write 20 paragraphs will redeem you.
So you're basically saying gbaji is a bloated windbag incapable of ever admitting he's wrong? Funny...I seem to remember saying the same thing myself not too long ago. I also seem to remember seeing many other posters here comment on the same traits.
Obviously, of course, gbaji says we're all wrong, so we must be.
/em sighs at the impending, inevitably long-winded, completely inane response from the board's biggest mouth.
You're waiting for Thundra to reply? ;)
7 posts
Thundra can, if so inclined, "cut someone to pieces" in one sentence or less. Gbaji would take 10+ paragraphs just to say "Oh yeah?".
WorkFell wrote:
Thundra can, if so inclined, "cut someone to pieces" in one sentence or less. Gbaji would take 10+ paragraphs just to say "Oh yeah?".
Sure. And if my objective was the "cut someone to pieces", you'd have a valid point.
I write long posts because I don't argue the person, I argue the topic. We could alternatively sit here and just argue using a varient of schoolyard debasing, but I don't see how that's very productive. I do find it amusing how predictably some posters move from the topic to personal attacks though. It tells alot about who's lost the debate really...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You write long posts because you think the length will better obfuscate the massive amount of ******** you smear all over the place to avoid having the simple courage to say "oops, I was wrong".
It's ocassionally facinating to watch in a train wreck sort of way, actually. I have to admit that on several occasions I've continued to press you things I don't care about at all just to witness the ever growing "Wall of ************** (Trademark Pending). I've noticed there's a direct proportion between the length of your posts and how outgunned you are in an argument. The less the facts are on your side, the more you type. The more the facts are on your side, the less you type.
Just an observation.
Hey, by the way, you were wrong about Kerry there. You partisian Republican hack.
It's ocassionally facinating to watch in a train wreck sort of way, actually. I have to admit that on several occasions I've continued to press you things I don't care about at all just to witness the ever growing "Wall of ************** (Trademark Pending). I've noticed there's a direct proportion between the length of your posts and how outgunned you are in an argument. The less the facts are on your side, the more you type. The more the facts are on your side, the less you type.
Just an observation.
Hey, by the way, you were wrong about Kerry there. You partisian Republican hack.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
You write long posts because you think the length will better obfuscate the massive amount of ******** you smear all over the place to avoid having the simple courage to say "oops, I was wrong".
Ah yes. Like you saying "Oops, I was wrong", when I showed that Kerry made the "foreign leaders" statement more then just the one time, right?
I suppose if I'd just said: "I'm right and your wrong", my argument would still give you enough room to be "right". How unfortunate for you that I produced a "wall of ************** that included things like a precise timeline of events and specific quotes from the individuals involved in such a way as to leave no doubt that you were wrong and I was right.
So yeah. Feel free to say: "oops, I was wrong" at any time here Smash.
Quote:
Hey, by the way, you were wrong about Kerry there. You partisian Republican hack.
Lol. Keep dreaming Smash...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
No, the Wall of ******** (Trademark Pending), was you trying to justify yourself to every other poster here who can clearly see your cowardice like sunlight on a clear day.
I'm not sure what your "presice timeline" is attempting to prove. Kerry is misquoted, and then responds to being misquoted by saying that he won't betray conversations he's had in private?
Let's examine logically what you're attempting to prove here.
You post this:
[qoute]
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him. There are no points where he could have recieved false information.
[/quote]
Your "proof" of the above is, apparently, this:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
The problem for you is that the above in no way conveys this: "He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him."
A change in leadership in the united states is not the same as foreign leaders telling him directly that they support Kerry. Sorry, it isn't. They could support Nader. They could support a violent takeover by Scientoligists, whatever. They could support Kerry. It might even be likely they support Kerry.
What it isn't, however, is proof.
ERGO barring some sort of assumption based on something other than fact it's impossible to prove what you stated. THUS considering you stated an absolute fact regarding Kerry claiming he was told directly by foriegn leaders that he had their support, you are incorrect.
QED, *****.
Let the Wall of ******** (Trademark Pending) begin!
Or alternately, run off and hide like the coward you are.
I'm not sure what your "presice timeline" is attempting to prove. Kerry is misquoted, and then responds to being misquoted by saying that he won't betray conversations he's had in private?
Let's examine logically what you're attempting to prove here.
You post this:
[qoute]
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him. There are no points where he could have recieved false information.
[/quote]
Your "proof" of the above is, apparently, this:
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
The problem for you is that the above in no way conveys this: "He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him."
A change in leadership in the united states is not the same as foreign leaders telling him directly that they support Kerry. Sorry, it isn't. They could support Nader. They could support a violent takeover by Scientoligists, whatever. They could support Kerry. It might even be likely they support Kerry.
What it isn't, however, is proof.
ERGO barring some sort of assumption based on something other than fact it's impossible to prove what you stated. THUS considering you stated an absolute fact regarding Kerry claiming he was told directly by foriegn leaders that he had their support, you are incorrect.
QED, *****.
Let the Wall of ******** (Trademark Pending) begin!
Or alternately, run off and hide like the coward you are.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Context and reading comphrehension are your friends Smash.
Go back and read. This statement by me was in response to whether the alledged statements by Kerry would qualify as a "lie", or just "wrong information". I made it after Joph (I think), compared that statement by Kerry to Bush claiming that Iraq had WMD. If you actually read the surrounding paragraphs and possess at least a high school reading level, you can see that I was presenting cases and comparing them. Not making a statement of fact.
Don't blame me for your lack of reading skills Smash. The thrust of this statement was not about what Kerry claimed, but whether that claim *would* qualify as a lie. Clearly, if someone says he heard something directly from someone else, and really didn't, then they are lying about it (or have a really really really bad memory). What exactly it was he claimed was said to him is irrelevant within that context. I could have used the example that Kerry claimed space aliens told him to kill his Mother, but then couldn't back his statements up afterwards. That would still have been just as valid for proving what I was trying to prove as the sentence that I used.
This quote was in response to your insistence that there was no issue with Kerry needing to establish some credence to his statements about conversations with foreign leaders. It has nothing at all to do with the earlier statement by me. Why you would string these two unrelated quotes together is beyond me. Spurious arguing 101 perhaps?
You are completely missing the point here Smash. At issue is not exactly what these foreign leaders alledgedly said to Kerry, but the fact that he's claiming to have had these conversations in the first place. That's what calls Kerry's credibility into question. Regardless of whether he comes right out and says: "I met with this specific list of foreign leaders and they told me they want me to win the election", or whether he simply implies it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he's not just implying but out and out saying that he's been in communication (or at least recieved communication) with some unnamed foreign leaders, when no one can find more then one instance in the last 3 years where he's even been in the same room with any sort of foreign leader at all (I'd have to go back to find the specific reference for that one, but it was like an ambasador to a minor nation).
That was the issue Smash. Not exactly what was said, or anything else. Once again, you're pulling a strawman and trying to deflect the issue. The specifics of my statement when talking about whether something is a lie or not does not change the facts of what Kerry said. Nor does it change the fact that Kerry has claimed to have recieved communication from foreign leaders when there's no record of that having happend. Nor does it change the fact that the mistranscribed speach was not the only time Kerry made that claim.
Get it? Stop trying to deflect the issue into something it's not. Someone made a statement about Kerry's conversations with imaginary foreign leaders. You argued that he really didn't make that claim. I showed a second speach where he did indeed make the claim again. Thus, it's still valid to say that Kerry is BSing when he made that claim. End of story.
Quote:
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him. There are no points where he could have recieved false information.
Go back and read. This statement by me was in response to whether the alledged statements by Kerry would qualify as a "lie", or just "wrong information". I made it after Joph (I think), compared that statement by Kerry to Bush claiming that Iraq had WMD. If you actually read the surrounding paragraphs and possess at least a high school reading level, you can see that I was presenting cases and comparing them. Not making a statement of fact.
Don't blame me for your lack of reading skills Smash. The thrust of this statement was not about what Kerry claimed, but whether that claim *would* qualify as a lie. Clearly, if someone says he heard something directly from someone else, and really didn't, then they are lying about it (or have a really really really bad memory). What exactly it was he claimed was said to him is irrelevant within that context. I could have used the example that Kerry claimed space aliens told him to kill his Mother, but then couldn't back his statements up afterwards. That would still have been just as valid for proving what I was trying to prove as the sentence that I used.
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
This quote was in response to your insistence that there was no issue with Kerry needing to establish some credence to his statements about conversations with foreign leaders. It has nothing at all to do with the earlier statement by me. Why you would string these two unrelated quotes together is beyond me. Spurious arguing 101 perhaps?
You are completely missing the point here Smash. At issue is not exactly what these foreign leaders alledgedly said to Kerry, but the fact that he's claiming to have had these conversations in the first place. That's what calls Kerry's credibility into question. Regardless of whether he comes right out and says: "I met with this specific list of foreign leaders and they told me they want me to win the election", or whether he simply implies it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he's not just implying but out and out saying that he's been in communication (or at least recieved communication) with some unnamed foreign leaders, when no one can find more then one instance in the last 3 years where he's even been in the same room with any sort of foreign leader at all (I'd have to go back to find the specific reference for that one, but it was like an ambasador to a minor nation).
That was the issue Smash. Not exactly what was said, or anything else. Once again, you're pulling a strawman and trying to deflect the issue. The specifics of my statement when talking about whether something is a lie or not does not change the facts of what Kerry said. Nor does it change the fact that Kerry has claimed to have recieved communication from foreign leaders when there's no record of that having happend. Nor does it change the fact that the mistranscribed speach was not the only time Kerry made that claim.
Get it? Stop trying to deflect the issue into something it's not. Someone made a statement about Kerry's conversations with imaginary foreign leaders. You argued that he really didn't make that claim. I showed a second speach where he did indeed make the claim again. Thus, it's still valid to say that Kerry is BSing when he made that claim. End of story.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I see we're going with the WALL OF ******** (Trademark Pending).
So we agree then, that this :
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him.
is a factually false statement?
Yes or no will do. I realize that's not possible for you because it removes the WALL OF ******** (tmp) qualification spin process, but I thought I'd point out that when asked a yes or no question that it was possible, at least for other people, to actually just answer yes or no.
So we agree then, that this :
Quote:
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him.
is a factually false statement?
Yes or no will do. I realize that's not possible for you because it removes the WALL OF ******** (tmp) qualification spin process, but I thought I'd point out that when asked a yes or no question that it was possible, at least for other people, to actually just answer yes or no.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Here Smash. Let me repeat what I already said (why do I keep having to do this?):
At the time that I made the statement you quoted, I had not yet seen a quote of what Kerry said, nor did I know *anything* about this issue beyond what people had stated about it.
Here. Let me refresh a bit more. At one point, I said this:
EDIT: Um... The word "either" was a goofup. Must have started typing the sentence one way then written it another. I'm going to leave the goof in there since I don't want you to accuse me of changing my own quotes.
Note the use of the word "IF". Note that I don't say he's got the "support of foreign leaders". I said "If he is using some statements by foreign leaders as support for his candidacy for president...".
Get it? I'm not arguing what he said at that point, because I didn't *know* what he said.
Joph then responds with this statement:
When I made my statement about foreign leaders "supporting him", I was paraphrasing Joph's statement. Simple as that. As I'm sure he was paraphrasing me.
Again (for the really really slow). When I made that statement you quoted Joph and I were arguing a completely different issue. The context was very clear if you bothered to follow it. It was about whether the claims of conversations with "foreign leader's" when there weren't any would be a lie.
We were both presenting cases, not attempting to prove any specifics about Kerry's claims. Sure. We paraphrased and simplified the issue. But we did so because neither of us cared or were debating the specifics of what Kerry was claiming. Only the part about having conversations with foreign leaders. If you can't understand that Smash, then you really need to just go back to the shallow end of the pool.
And it's not like its a huge stretch to look at what Kerry actually said and conclude that he's claiming that foreign leaders support him for the presidency. Why the hell else do you think he made the statements?
I find it amusing that it's abundantly obvious to any objective reader that Kerry phrased those statements specifically to imply that he did have "support" (or at least that Bush did not) from some unnamed foreign leaders, but you'll argue over incredibly small sematic issues. Sure Smash. He didn't actually say specifically that any foreign leaders "supported him". But then again, I don't recall putting any of that stuff into quotation marks either (not until just now that is. You are aware that I'm quoting myself and not Kerry, right?).
Sheesh. Dude. Just admit it. Your buddy Kerry made a couple of really dumb statements (among others). He got called on it. Deal with it...
Edited, Mon Mar 29 23:43:02 2004 by gbaji
gbaji wrote:
What? Um... Look. I just responded to statements made by others in this thread. I didn't make up the bit about Kerry's statement. I simply responded to it. Find me a statement that I said that was incorrect please.
My argument was not about whether Kerry made the statement or not. Heck. When it was mentioned in the thread was the first I'd heard of it! My argument was that if Kerry made the claim that he had the support of foreign leaders, that he should in fact suppoort those claims. End of story.
My argument was not about whether Kerry made the statement or not. Heck. When it was mentioned in the thread was the first I'd heard of it! My argument was that if Kerry made the claim that he had the support of foreign leaders, that he should in fact suppoort those claims. End of story.
At the time that I made the statement you quoted, I had not yet seen a quote of what Kerry said, nor did I know *anything* about this issue beyond what people had stated about it.
Here. Let me refresh a bit more. At one point, I said this:
gbaji wrote:
If Kerry is using some statements by foreign leaders as support for his candidacy for president of the US, then those statements need to either be confirmed for them to be taken at face value
EDIT: Um... The word "either" was a goofup. Must have started typing the sentence one way then written it another. I'm going to leave the goof in there since I don't want you to accuse me of changing my own quotes.
Note the use of the word "IF". Note that I don't say he's got the "support of foreign leaders". I said "If he is using some statements by foreign leaders as support for his candidacy for president...".
Get it? I'm not arguing what he said at that point, because I didn't *know* what he said.
Joph then responds with this statement:
Jophiel wrote:
Regardless of context, regardless of motive, regardless of anything, either foreign leaders told Kerry they supported him or they didn't.
When I made my statement about foreign leaders "supporting him", I was paraphrasing Joph's statement. Simple as that. As I'm sure he was paraphrasing me.
Again (for the really really slow). When I made that statement you quoted Joph and I were arguing a completely different issue. The context was very clear if you bothered to follow it. It was about whether the claims of conversations with "foreign leader's" when there weren't any would be a lie.
We were both presenting cases, not attempting to prove any specifics about Kerry's claims. Sure. We paraphrased and simplified the issue. But we did so because neither of us cared or were debating the specifics of what Kerry was claiming. Only the part about having conversations with foreign leaders. If you can't understand that Smash, then you really need to just go back to the shallow end of the pool.
And it's not like its a huge stretch to look at what Kerry actually said and conclude that he's claiming that foreign leaders support him for the presidency. Why the hell else do you think he made the statements?
I find it amusing that it's abundantly obvious to any objective reader that Kerry phrased those statements specifically to imply that he did have "support" (or at least that Bush did not) from some unnamed foreign leaders, but you'll argue over incredibly small sematic issues. Sure Smash. He didn't actually say specifically that any foreign leaders "supported him". But then again, I don't recall putting any of that stuff into quotation marks either (not until just now that is. You are aware that I'm quoting myself and not Kerry, right?).
Sheesh. Dude. Just admit it. Your buddy Kerry made a couple of really dumb statements (among others). He got called on it. Deal with it...
Edited, Mon Mar 29 23:43:02 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yes or no? Whenever you get around to it. I'm not bothering to read the WALL OF ******** (tmp) anymore. In point of fact, I'm only going to ask and will only answer from you Yes or No questions from this point forward. That will avoid all the confusion that seems to exist when one of us makes a declarative statement that turns out to mean the opposite when context is correctly applied.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Sure Smash. I will freely admit that Kerry made this statement:
And I simplified the statement to this:
And the Jophiel further simplfied the statement to this:
And then I responded back with a further simplification to this:
Sure. I'll say that as many times as you want. Here. I'll say it again:
The above quote is Kerry attempting to claim that foreign leaders support his bid for presidency of the United States.
There. want it again?
The above quote is Kerry attempting to claim that foreign leaders support his bid for presidency of the United States
What the hell are you having a problem with Smash? Are you saying that every time I reference Kerry's statement(s) I must provide an exact quote? Are you crazy?
Look. Here's a better one. Explain to me exactly how that statement by Kerry (the one I *did* quote) can be interpreted as anything other then Kerry trying to imply he's got the support of foreign leaders. It's not like there's a whole lot of question that this election is between him and Bush you know. Who exactly do you think benefits if people think that Kerry is being told by foreign leaders that they want Bush out of the White House?
C'mon Smash. Even you can't believe the garbage you are spewing.
I'd also like to point out that none of this changes the fact (which was the whole point of this in the first place) that Kerry did in fact claim to have conversations with foreign leaders that did not actually happen.
Look. I'm perfectly clear with admiting that I simplified Kerry's statement down to a more manageable size. I'm also not the only one who did so. Joph did it. Totem did it. I'm pretty sure half the posters on this thread at some point posted some varient of the "Kerry claimed X from Y" statement. See... If there aren't quotes around something. It's not a quote. And even if there are, it's not always a quote (as in the example in my last sentence).
So... Will you accept that Kerry made claims about conversations with foreign leaders that he did not actually have? That's all I care about. Everything else is just me bringin up "what if" cases. The thrust of my entire argument has been that if Kerry claimed to have conversations with foreign leaders, and he *didn't*, then that seriously calls his credibility into question.
So. Simple question Smash. Did Kerry actually have conversations with foreign leaders, or didn't he? If he didn't, then would you not agree that he was *lying* when he made the statement quoted above?
That's all I care about. Everthing else in here has been argument to make that point. Nothing more.
Edited, Tue Mar 30 00:20:53 2004 by gbaji
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States.
And I simplified the statement to this:
Quote:
If Kerry is using some statements by foreign leaders as support for his candidacy for president of the US, then those statements need to either be confirmed for them to be taken at face value
And the Jophiel further simplfied the statement to this:
Quote:
Regardless of context, regardless of motive, regardless of anything, either foreign leaders told Kerry they supported him or they didn't.
And then I responded back with a further simplification to this:
Quote:
He claimed that foreign leaders told him directly that they supported him. There are no points where he could have recieved false information.
Sure. I'll say that as many times as you want. Here. I'll say it again:
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States.
The above quote is Kerry attempting to claim that foreign leaders support his bid for presidency of the United States.
There. want it again?
The above quote is Kerry attempting to claim that foreign leaders support his bid for presidency of the United States
What the hell are you having a problem with Smash? Are you saying that every time I reference Kerry's statement(s) I must provide an exact quote? Are you crazy?
Look. Here's a better one. Explain to me exactly how that statement by Kerry (the one I *did* quote) can be interpreted as anything other then Kerry trying to imply he's got the support of foreign leaders. It's not like there's a whole lot of question that this election is between him and Bush you know. Who exactly do you think benefits if people think that Kerry is being told by foreign leaders that they want Bush out of the White House?
C'mon Smash. Even you can't believe the garbage you are spewing.
I'd also like to point out that none of this changes the fact (which was the whole point of this in the first place) that Kerry did in fact claim to have conversations with foreign leaders that did not actually happen.
Look. I'm perfectly clear with admiting that I simplified Kerry's statement down to a more manageable size. I'm also not the only one who did so. Joph did it. Totem did it. I'm pretty sure half the posters on this thread at some point posted some varient of the "Kerry claimed X from Y" statement. See... If there aren't quotes around something. It's not a quote. And even if there are, it's not always a quote (as in the example in my last sentence).
So... Will you accept that Kerry made claims about conversations with foreign leaders that he did not actually have? That's all I care about. Everything else is just me bringin up "what if" cases. The thrust of my entire argument has been that if Kerry claimed to have conversations with foreign leaders, and he *didn't*, then that seriously calls his credibility into question.
So. Simple question Smash. Did Kerry actually have conversations with foreign leaders, or didn't he? If he didn't, then would you not agree that he was *lying* when he made the statement quoted above?
That's all I care about. Everthing else in here has been argument to make that point. Nothing more.
Edited, Tue Mar 30 00:20:53 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
This is what was said an exact quote. Lets let everyone besides Gbaji and Smash decide which one is right. Clearly you 2 are not going to agree no matter what the other says.
First quote.
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that,"
Then.
I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," he said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
Then.
I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago," said Kerry. "I'm talking about people who ought to be on our side in Iraq (news - web sites) and aren't because this administration has pushed them away."
Then,
I'm not making anything up at all," Kerry told The Associated Press. "They're just trying to change the subject.
Then,
"No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," Kerry told reporters.
I will make only one comment. The thing that bothered me most about this whole thing was not the statements about "foreign/more leaders". When the guy asked Kerry at the town hall meeting who these leaders were he was really nasty about it being none of that man's business (this is questionable as Kerry is a public servant and lives a public life and well he brought it up) However what was even worse was that he asked the man what I would consider a question about something sacred and most definitly private. Who the man voted for. Is Kerry saying that anyone who voted for GWB in the last election is beneath asking him a question? What does the man's past voting record have anything to do with the question of which leaders Kerry was talking to? I think Kerry did more damage to himself taking this stance and tone than making the original statement without backing it up. Doesnt he remember when Dean attacked the man in Iowa during the primary? Duh. The news media was all over that and I think it spelled the ultimate demise of Dean. Just my 2cps.
First quote.
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that,"
Then.
I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," he said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
Then.
I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago," said Kerry. "I'm talking about people who ought to be on our side in Iraq (news - web sites) and aren't because this administration has pushed them away."
Then,
I'm not making anything up at all," Kerry told The Associated Press. "They're just trying to change the subject.
Then,
"No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," Kerry told reporters.
I will make only one comment. The thing that bothered me most about this whole thing was not the statements about "foreign/more leaders". When the guy asked Kerry at the town hall meeting who these leaders were he was really nasty about it being none of that man's business (this is questionable as Kerry is a public servant and lives a public life and well he brought it up) However what was even worse was that he asked the man what I would consider a question about something sacred and most definitly private. Who the man voted for. Is Kerry saying that anyone who voted for GWB in the last election is beneath asking him a question? What does the man's past voting record have anything to do with the question of which leaders Kerry was talking to? I think Kerry did more damage to himself taking this stance and tone than making the original statement without backing it up. Doesnt he remember when Dean attacked the man in Iowa during the primary? Duh. The news media was all over that and I think it spelled the ultimate demise of Dean. Just my 2cps.
I'll answer only yes or no questions that are each an entire post. Anything else I'm ignoring as just more of the WALL OF ********* If you don't want to play by those ground rules, that's fine I was perfectly happy ignoring you in the past and would be again.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
A BOSTON GLOBE reporter at the center of a growing controversy over comments made by John Kerry last week in Florida now claims he "screwed-up" -- and John Kerry never bragged how "foreign leaders" privately backed his presidential bid!
"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.
"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."
Dunno but the guy who wrote is admitting an error, seems like it doesnt make such a good debate if you ignore his retraction.
"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.
"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."
Dunno but the guy who wrote is admitting an error, seems like it doesnt make such a good debate if you ignore his retraction.
Illia the Tulip wrote:
Besides, in what passes for democracy in north america, we don't elect people to lead us, we elect them to represent us.
That is what a lot of folks believe we are, a democracy. In fact, as Illia states, These United States are a representative Republic, not a democracy. A true democracy would never work, no matter what Sid Meir's Civilization game tries to tell you.
Phreda the Hand wrote:
If you really believe that most left-wingers are stupid, poor, promiscuous, immoral, and generally repulsive, you're a sucker.
Hmmm, those terms all seem to refer to Slick Willy Clinton. I am not the sucker, America is when they had to listen to Slick Willy Clinton say "I did not have sex with that woman (meaning Hillary, not Monica; of course he had sex with Monica)
Quote:
I am not the sucker, America is when they had to listen to Slick Willy Clinton say "I did not have sex with that woman (meaning Hillary, not Monica; of course he had sex with Monica)
You're absolutely right. America was a huge sucker when it was somehow convinced that the President getting blown in the Oval Office was 1)worth spending millions of tax payers dollars to investigate or 2)had anything to do with his ability to lead the country.
I mean it's not like the guy was a former Alcholoic coke adict frat boy who owned a baseball team. I mean he was a Rhodes Schollar for God's sake.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
flishtaco wrote:
A BOSTON GLOBE reporter at the center of a growing controversy over comments made by John Kerry last week in Florida now claims he "screwed-up" -- and John Kerry never bragged how "foreign leaders" privately backed his presidential bid!
"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.
"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."
Dunno but the guy who wrote is admitting an error, seems like it doesnt make such a good debate if you ignore his retraction.
"I mistranscribed a key word," explains Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the BOSTON GLOBE who covered the event in a pool capacity.
"Listening to the audio recorder now, in the quiet of my house, I hear 'more leaders' and I am certain that 'more leaders' is what Senator Kerry said."
Dunno but the guy who wrote is admitting an error, seems like it doesnt make such a good debate if you ignore his retraction.
Thank you flish! Finally. Back on track.
Yes. I agree 100%. This is what I was originally talking about. This was also the point that Smash brought up about 30 posts ago.
The problem is this. The quote that the Boston Globe reporter mistranscribed was this one, made by Kerry on March 8th:
Quote:
"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that,"
That's all well and good. The reporter made public on March 15 that he mistranscribed the word "foreign" in that quote. It was actually "more".
My point. Which Smash has completely ignored. Is that on March 14th. A day before the reporter retracted the quote, and after almost a week of people questioning him on the subject, Kerry also made this statement:
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
Now do you see the problem? It doesn't matter if the reporter retracted the quote from March 8th. There is another quote from March 14th where Kerry again says he's having conversations with foreign leaders. And this is *after* he already got some heat for making the first statement. This was after the Reps had already started asking him who these foreign leaders were, and looking at records to see if he could have actually talked to any at all.
Whether you interpret that quote as Kerry claiming the support of foreign leaders or not, it's very clear that Kerry is claiming to have been in communication with foreign leaders. First off, it's extremely bad form for a presidential candidate to try to get endorsements from foreign leaders. Secondly, at the time of the statements, there was little record of Kerry even having been in the same room with any foreign leaders in over 3 years. The only report I found mentioned a minor ambassador from one country (don't remember which one it was, but it may have been Spain, which makes sense given more recent events).
This is the issue. Kerry is inferring he's having conversations with foreign leaders (plural!), and that they are indicating to him that they'd rather have him in office then Bush. Given that Kerry was not know to have talked to "foreign leaders" (plural), there was a lot of questioning as to the validity of his statement(s). It's not really that important what exactly was said. What's important is that he's directly claiming to have been in contact with foreign leaders, which no one can verify, and he's implying they support him over Bush. I think that given those conditions, it's pretty reasonable to question his source. As far as anyone can tell, he just made this up (or at the very least is hugely exagerating).
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Smasharoo wrote:
I'll answer only yes or no questions that are each an entire post. Anything else I'm ignoring as just more of the WALL OF ********* If you don't want to play by those ground rules, that's fine I was perfectly happy ignoring you in the past and would be again.
Ok. Fine. Here's your question:
Please read this quote by Kerry, dated march 14th. Also note that this is not the one that was mistranscribed:
Quote:
"I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody," Kerry said Sunday. "I have heard from people, foreign leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."
Would you agree that in this quote, Kerry is implying that he has heard from foreign leaders who support his bid for the US presidency?
Yes or no?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
No.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Would you agree that the only way to draw the conclusion that the foreign leaders in question support Kerry is to infer things that are not in that quote?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Would you agree that the only way to draw the conclusion that the foreign leaders in question support Kerry is to infer things that are not in that quote?
Certainly. But can you honestly say that Kerry did not intend to make that inference? (that's your question btw).
Gonna throw up a "wall of *************** Read or dont as you wish:
Kerry is the Democratic Nominee for President of the US.
Bush is the current (Republican) president.
It's pretty much guaranteed that if the Republican candidate doesn't win, the Democratic candidate will.
Given all that:
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if someone says that foreign leaders "don't appreciate the Bush administration", and would "love to see a change in the leadership of the United States", that the person making the statement is inferring that those leaders want a Democrat to win the election.
If that statement comes from Kerry (which it did), and Kerry is the Democratic candidate (which he is), then I can't see how you can interpret this as anything other then a claim that those "foreign leaders" support Kerry's bid for the presidency.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 314
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (314)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the flip flop canidate
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC