It took Bush 2 hours

[Jorge Estrada]

It took the Bushies less than 2 hours to start attacking Edwards.

Oh yeah ... they aren't negative or anything.

[ATFFL]

Kerry took it seriously.  He definitely dropped a few hints to McCain.

[ATFFL]

Putting out those feelers to start the rumors has also created the image that Edwards is his second choice.  never a good thing to have to pick up sloppy seconds for the #2 man on the ticket.

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, Bush and Cheney had only possitive things to say, it was the campaigns that went after oen another, but we can't get petty little things like facts get into the way of our seething hatred for Bush.  Can we?

[Vincent]

It took the Bushies less than 2 hours to start attacking Edwards.

Oh yeah ... they aren't negative or anything.

I think political campaigns, expecially presidential ones are bound to get negative. Im sure Kerry/Edwards will be running plenty of attacks on Cheney. Also, how exactly have the republicans been attacking Edwards since he joined kerry on the ticket?

[Keystone Phil]

This is hysterical. Is a Democrat going to start about negative statements? Did you watch the Dem primary debates a couple months ago?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This is just more proof Dumbya can't keep his mouth shut.

[ATFFL]

This is just more proof Dumbya can't keep his mouth shut.

Yes, praising Edwards service and welcoming him to the campaign was a bad move.

The attacks came from some Republicans in congress, but why let reality get in the way of a good baseless attack?  Or a stupid baseless attack.

[Wakie]

Oh please guys ... quit being so naive.

1) It is Presidential politics.  It is going to be ugly and negative no matter what.

2) CONGRESSMEN do not release Presidential politics ads.  Those came directly from the Bush team.

3) McCain may (or may not) have been the first choice.  But the intent of these ads was clearly to take a swipe at Edwards, otherwise the content would have ONLY been McCain saying "Bush is great".  They also included the line about "I was the first choice."

[ATFFL]

Oh please guys ... quit being so naive.

1) It is Presidential politics.  It is going to be ugly and negative no matter what.

2) CONGRESSMEN do not release Presidential politics ads.  Those came directly from the Bush team.

3) McCain may (or may not) have been the first choice.  But the intent of these ads was clearly to take a swipe at Edwards, otherwise the content would have ONLY been McCain saying "Bush is great".  They also included the line about "I was the first choice."

I see the ad not as an attack ad, but a positive ad with a dark and understated edge.  It does not slam Edwards one bit, but does subtly say McCain was the first choice and he is endorsing Bush.

The Congressmen released a statement slamming Bush, not a commercial.  Keep your facts straight.

[Wakie]

Oh please guys ... quit being so naive.

1) It is Presidential politics.  It is going to be ugly and negative no matter what.

2) CONGRESSMEN do not release Presidential politics ads.  Those came directly from the Bush team.

3) McCain may (or may not) have been the first choice.  But the intent of these ads was clearly to take a swipe at Edwards, otherwise the content would have ONLY been McCain saying "Bush is great".  They also included the line about "I was the first choice."

I see the ad not as an attack ad, but a positive ad with a dark and understated edge.  It does not slam Edwards one bit, but does subtly say McCain was the first choice and he is endorsing Bush.

The Congressmen released a statement slamming Bush, not a commercial.  Keep your facts straight.

The McCain ad ... I called it a swipe, not a slam.  I distinguish between the 2.

The Congressmen thing ... I was under the impression you were claiming that McCain had created the ad, not the Bush team.

[ATFFL]

Oh please guys ... quit being so naive.

1) It is Presidential politics.  It is going to be ugly and negative no matter what.

2) CONGRESSMEN do not release Presidential politics ads.  Those came directly from the Bush team.

3) McCain may (or may not) have been the first choice.  But the intent of these ads was clearly to take a swipe at Edwards, otherwise the content would have ONLY been McCain saying "Bush is great".  They also included the line about "I was the first choice."

I see the ad not as an attack ad, but a positive ad with a dark and understated edge.  It does not slam Edwards one bit, but does subtly say McCain was the first choice and he is endorsing Bush.

The Congressmen released a statement slamming Bush, not a commercial.  Keep your facts straight.

The McCain ad ... I called it a swipe, not a slam.  I distinguish between the 2.

The Congressmen thing ... I was under the impression you were claiming that McCain had created the ad, not the Bush team.

Fair enough on both points.

[??????????]

How can Democrats talk about us negative campaigning? They slammed the president for 8 months leading up to the primaries!

[Alfie]

Acctually, Bush and Cheney had only possitive things to say, it was the campaigns that went after oen another, but we can't get petty little things like facts get into the way of our seething hatred for Bush.  Can we?

Sorry, Bush and Cheney cannot, unlike the Vietnam War, "dodge" this bullet:  this is THEIR campaign machine -- it's their people running the attack monster.  But, what can one say?  These two clams are about as low as one can go.

- Alfie

[Blue Rectangle]

Alfie, shame on you!  Didn't you get the memo? You guys aren't supposed to play the "chicken hawk" card now that Edwards got the nod.
Edwards didn't serve in Vietnam because he had a student deferment.  That's right, just like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay.  But that didn't stop him from being a supporter of Bush's war in Iraq.  Refresh my memory, Alfie, what do we call people who chose to avoid service in Vietnam and went on to be hawkish politicians?  You had some incredibly clever name for them, what was it again?

[Alfie]

Alfie, shame on you!  Didn't you get the memo? You guys aren't supposed to play the "chicken hawk" card now that Edwards got the nod.
Edwards didn't serve in Vietnam because he had a student deferment.  That's right, just like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay.  But that didn't stop him from being a supporter of Bush's war in Iraq.  Refresh my memory, Alfie, what do we call people who chose to avoid service in Vietnam and went on to be hawkish politicians?  You had some incredibly clever name for them, what was it again?

What Becomes a Chicken Hawk Most?      [/b][/red]

Criteria for Chicken Hawkdom  Sorry -- you lose again.  See criteria #3.


- Alfie

[Blue Rectangle]

Criteria for Chicken Hawkdom  Sorry -- you lose again.  See criteria #3.


- Alfie

What is criterion #3?  Let me guess, "The above criteria shall not be construed as to apply to any Democrat"?
Oh, here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if we limit this criterion to apply only to the Iraq war, and if we only consider statements Edwards has made in the last six months while campaigning for president, then maybe he does fail the test.

However, Edwards did not just vote for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, he cosponsored it.  In fact, Edwards pushed for war before Bush even went to Congress to get the resolution.
From an Edwards press release:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edwards was so pro-war that he tried to one-up Bush by declaring that he drove the country to a showdown with Saddam before Bush did!

Then there is the case of Edwards' record during the Clinton years.
From an Edwards press release dated 3 May 1999:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds to me like Edwards felt that war was the preferred solution here, too.  I don't recall him asking Clinton to find a diplomatic solution in the Balkans before the bombing started.
From the same release:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So is your defense of Edwards that he didn’t say the troops were doing a “glorious” job, just a “fine” one?

Face it, the average North Carolinian (or average American, for that matter) doesn’t share your views on war.  John Edwards pushed for war because he thought it would win him votes.  John Edwards glorified the Kosovo war, portraying it as a good vs. evil issue, to win votes.  Now Edwards has adopted a six month-old skepticism of war in hopes of winning votes.

Sorry, looks like your anti-Cheney venom has come back to haunt you.

[PrisonerOfHope]

Acctually, Bush and Cheney had only possitive things to say, it was the campaigns that went after oen another, but we can't get petty little things like facts get into the way of our seething hatred for Bush.  Can we?

Right, the facts.  Like if Cheney (yesterday), Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et. al say Saddam was involved in 9/11 and he doesn't  correct them, technically, it isn't him 'saying' it, just his administration, as if he isn't part of it (well, mentally yeah, but we're talking responsibility).

Bush doesn't agree with the slander?  Not OK by him?  Gee, you'd think a take charge macho 'war president' would do something about it, huh?

[ATFFL]

Acctually, Bush and Cheney had only possitive things to say, it was the campaigns that went after oen another, but we can't get petty little things like facts get into the way of our seething hatred for Bush.  Can we?

Right, the facts.  Like if Cheney (yesterday), Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et. al say Saddam was involved in 9/11 and he doesn't  correct them, technically, it isn't him 'saying' it, just his administration, as if he isn't part of it (well, mentally yeah, but we're talking responsibility).

Bush doesn't agree with the slander?  Not OK by him?  Gee, you'd think a take charge macho 'war president' would do something about it, huh?

None of them have ever said Saddam was involved with 9-11.  They do say he ahd contact with Al Queda.  Don't let facts get in your way though.

[Alfie]

Criteria for Chicken Hawkdom  Sorry -- you lose again.  See criteria #3.


- Alfie

What is criterion #3?  Let me guess, "The above criteria shall not be construed as to apply to any Democrat"?
Oh, here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if we limit this criterion to apply only to the Iraq war, and if we only consider statements Edwards has made in the last six months while campaigning for president, then maybe he does fail the test.

However, Edwards did not just vote for the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, he cosponsored it.  In fact, Edwards pushed for war before Bush even went to Congress to get the resolution.
From an Edwards press release:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edwards was so pro-war that he tried to one-up Bush by declaring that he drove the country to a showdown with Saddam before Bush did!

Then there is the case of Edwards' record during the Clinton years.
From an Edwards press release dated 3 May 1999:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds to me like Edwards felt that war was the preferred solution here, too.  I don't recall him asking Clinton to find a diplomatic solution in the Balkans before the bombing started.
From the same release:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So is your defense of Edwards that he didn’t say the troops were doing a “glorious” job, just a “fine” one?

Face it, the average North Carolinian (or average American, for that matter) doesn’t share your views on war.  John Edwards pushed for war because he thought it would win him votes.  John Edwards glorified the Kosovo war, portraying it as a good vs. evil issue, to win votes.  Now Edwards has adopted a six month-old skepticism of war in hopes of winning votes.

Sorry, looks like your anti-Cheney venom has come back to haunt you.

Surely it looks as if you cut and paste.  Cites, please?  I'll take it from there.


- Alfie

[King]

Kerry/McCain couldn't win.

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's this little mincing -- that little icky smarmy "Well, Mother Superior, actually what God meant was..." that really, really burns my brow.  Do you realize how childish it makes your boy look, and you look, as well?  

Come on!  Do you think EVERYONE is as gullible as the reich wing robots prowling your party of pugs, perverts, and pissants?  Do you have any idea how smug and juvenile this "yes, but..." school of non-accountability come across?  GROW UP!  It's not as if people are "buying" this crap anymore -- it's as if you people need to believe this agit-prop.

- Alfie
feeling better for having said it

[??????????]

The DU is the next door to the left! This is the Atlas Civil Forum. Please keep it that way or find the door Alfie.

[Alfie]

The DU is the next door to the left! This is the Atlas Civil Forum. Please keep it that way or find the door Alfie.

Mary, please, I know EXACTLY where I am, and the enemy I am among -- but thanks for sharing!


"Civil", Senator, is a relative term.  Civil you are to your lemming cohorts; dissent?  "Oh, No!  Not Dissent!  You mean we -- we--- we-- might have to DEFEND OURSELVES?  And with logic?  MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

I'm counting on you to reform this sloppy group of pugs -- shape them up or ship them out.


"..............................................Listen up you pugs.................................THIS IS GENERAL ALFIE: COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP, PUGS!  ..................................................WHEEEEZ GOTS YOU SURROUNDED..... WHEEEEZ DON'T WANTS TO HURT NOBUDDYS SO COME OUT NOW, YOU DIRTY PUGS!  .......................YOU WILL BE TREATED WELL IN GITMO, YOU HAVE MY WORD, OR I'M NOT GEORGE "WTC" BUSH............................. REPEAT: THIS IS GENERAL ALFIE: COME OUT, YOU PUGS, OR I'M COMING IN...

................................................."THIS IS GENERAL ALFIE: COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP, PUGS!  .............................................WHEEEEZ GOTS YOU SURROUNDED..... WHEEEEZ DON'T WANTS TO HURT NOBUDDYS SO COME OUT NOW, YOU DIRTY PUGS!  YOU WILL BE TREATED WELL IN GITMO, YOU HAVE MY WORD, OR I'M NOT GEORGE "WTC" BUSH............................. REPEAT: THIS IS GENERAL ALFIE: COME OUT, YOU PUGS, OR I'M COMING IN..."

- Alfie
'sup Brother?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alfie, shame on you!  Didn't you get the memo? You guys aren't supposed to play the "chicken hawk" card now that Edwards got the nod.
Edwards didn't serve in Vietnam because he had a student deferment.  That's right, just like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay.  But that didn't stop him from being a supporter of Bush's war in Iraq.  Refresh my memory, Alfie, what do we call people who chose to avoid service in Vietnam and went on to be hawkish politicians?  You had some incredibly clever name for them, what was it again?

Edwards didn't get drafted because he didn't turn 18 until 1971.