* re jone not commenting on having met dick - heres what cheney said in one answer (some bits have been snipped)
"CHENEY: The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.
And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.
You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.
Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.
Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.
The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.
IFILL: Senator Edwards, it's your turn to use 30 seconds for a *complicated* response..." (thats gwen, your performance was awful)
to be fair to jone - theres a fair bit of rubbish there to debunk. and jone did it well.
"EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.
The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's."
- perhaps the logic was to trip jone into saying 'we've met - dont you remember?'? - so cheney could sneer his disdain... (jone also didnt touch the ridiculous saddam/israel point either...) - but the mandela/mlk/mealsonwheels thing was pretty devastating.
- its amazing how much of an advantage u get when u simply decide flat-out that truth doesnt matter. u can say anything u like. its amazing how liberating it can be to ditch the truth. in fact, its not simply ignoring the truth that is their m.o. - they actively hunt for elements of trust in the population that they can actively exploit. for example, if people generally believe that their veep will generally tell them the truth, then they get cheney to tell lies. if they think that people will trust something called factcheck - then they'll use those words - even tho factcheck didnt agree with the point cheney was making. they prolly never even went to the site - they simply appropriated the meaning in the words. if annenberg had chosen a more benign name, and factcheck.org (lets assume that cheney got the name rite) was actually a sports stat site, it probably wouldnt have mattered - cheney would have (almost) sent u there anywhere. and we see HAVA and ClearSkies and NoChildLeftBehind and PATRIOT and IraqiFreedom. and u get jonk being attacked for being a hero. and activist judges. and partialbirthabortions and connorpeterson. and bush siblings without the texan accent. and photos of bush with halos. theres simply nothing sacred - in fact, sacred-ness is almost the trigger to appropriate the thing. its a surprise that sport hasnt been particularly whored. people love sport. why hasnt karl found a way to destroy peoples faith in sport? yet.
* the '90% of the coalition casualties' is a classic example. i mean, what do u say to someone who uses that logic? and who then denigrates you says 'And for you to demean their sacrifices...' - i mean - whaddya say? do u try to make a rational argument?
* in fact - i wonder if anyone got to check that math - the idea that america has taken 50% of 'those' losses means that iraq has 'only' 'lost' 1200 or so people 'defending' iraq.
* theres an extraordinary pr campaign going on the tv about the no-draft. its being called an 'internet rumour' which is 'unsigned' - despite the fact that jonjons both mentioned it! they are gettin nervous. the dems should do an ad with a 43 2000 campaign statements that turned out to be true, followed by the reality - the foreign entanglement thing, and then pix of the war, the ssmarriage thing, and then the constitutional amendment, the uniter not a divider thing, and then shots of say the peace marches. and then him saying 'there wont be a draft' and then cut to a question mark - or a map of canada or something. the funny thing with the pr campaign of 'there wont be a draft' is that its mixed with the 'is the draft a good thing?' stories. - and watch out for the national service euphemism.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:28:53 -0400
To:
Subject: RE: MD's, and hodge podge
> lol on the W-MD one. Once again, why didn't anyone think of that sooner?
> (Is the idea of Bush as a doctor was just too far a stretch of anyone's
> imagination?)
>
> Too bad Edwards didn't remember meeting Cheney *during* the debate. That
> was ripe for a good zinger...It just isn't the same when you zing him after
> the fact.
>
> Also kudos to Cheney for adding in the Iraqis as the new response to
> "America has taken 90% of the coalition casualties"...but wait, what about
> all those Iraqi soldiers we got killed too! Got to count them! (Can you be
> a part of the coalition if it's your own country you're defending?)
>
> -G
>
> P.S. Factcheck.org is actually pretty damn good... A fair and balanced look
> at the facts (just like Faux!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: luke@lukeryland.com [mailto:luke@lukeryland.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: i have a bad dream
>
>
> * brooks on newshour about kerry flipflopping about the war 'its easy to be
> on the right side now'!
>
> * speaking of brooks, in light of the current cadmin draft denials, and in
> light of his recent article/setups, remember all those articles he wrote
> where the answer to woteva '2 types of people' issue, was always 'the
> draft'.
>
> * "From a podium at the Great Hall in Parliament House, Latham delivered
> what's become a traditional election-eve address to the National Press Club.
> The Labor leader's prepared speech ran to 29 pages and lasted 29 minutes.
> And how many times was Iraq mentioned? Not once. Zero. Zilch.... Latham
> avoided the war during his speech, and when, in the second of 19 questions,
> he was invited to speak on the subject, the Labor leader restricted his
> answer -- an affirmation of troops home by Christmas -- to four seconds....
> Just as odd is the Government's parallel silence." i dont know what it
> means. odd tho.
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10993781%255E1
> 2854,00.html
>
> * "Republicans say film-maker Michael Moore should be prosecuted for
> offering underwear, potato chips and ramen noodles to college students in
> exchange for their promise to vote." apparently the repugs dont like
> bribery.
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10995585%255E2
> 703,00.html
>
> * "Australian National University social policy analyst Andrew Leigh's
> report on the 2002 federal election concluded that Centrebet odds were more
> reliable than opinion polls at predicting election outcomes." fancy that.
> money talks.
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10993888%255E6
> 43,00.html
>
> * "When the federal government issues a terrorist warning, presidential
> approval ratings jump, a Cornell University sociologist finds.
> Interestingly, terrorist warnings also boost support for the president on
> issues that are largely irrelevant to terrorism, such as his handling of the
> economy." one might imagine that terrorist attacks, rather than warnings,
> would magnify the impact...
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Oct04/terrorist.Bush.ssl.html
>
> * if 43 was a doctor, would we call him W-MD?
>
> * i think i just heard 43 saying 'if the Coalition doesnt meet the 'global
> test' then nothing will'
>
> * the thing about the cheney 'first meeting' comment
>
> * re 'this is the 1st time ive met u', yesterday i said ' they prepared the
> line. they must have known it was wrong.' - but they are even smarter than
> using it just to deliver a triffic line - they are getting full media
> coverage on it today - gotcha! 'see everyone, cheney is a liar - he *has*
> met edwards' blah blah. and that 'mistake' gets more time than all the other
> lies - like when cheney said 'im a human'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> Your More Fears. Your More Fears.
> wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Your More Fears. Your More Fears.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment