Bush-bashing vs Kerry-bashing

[carrrnuttt]

So, there has been claims of rampant Bush-bashing in here, especially by Yogs, and of course 'Naki claims that pro-Bush people can only smear, as they have nothing to support.

So with this thread, I have decided to examine both sides. It is no mystery in this forum, where my vote is going in November (just got my new voter registration card, with my new address, last week, woo-hoo), but I will try to be as impartial as I can be. If either side feels I am not, feel free to bash me (which will more than likely happen anyhow).

Anyhow, to even make it more fair, you guys will be helping this thread along. If you have something to add to both lists below, then quote my post between the lines ("~~~"), and add an APPROPRIATE subject to the listing. I am sure I will forget quite a few important ones. Remember, these are lists for which incumbent, and hopeful, are being bashed, and/or criticized for.

I will be posting footnotes to the Kerry-bashing topics, where I have found information contrary, or relating, to the criticism. Bush suporters, feel free to do the same for the incumbent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So let's examine this:

Bush bashed for:

• WMD's, and/or lack thereof
• the Iraqi war, and its handling
• his country-bumpkin image
• his poor speaking abilities
• stance against environmental protection
• poor-handling of our money (or liberal handling)
• negative image overseas, and in association, the USA's
• his handling of 9-11
• his Administration's apparent reticence in revealing what should be, public records - in many differing areas of government
• Patriot Act
• for bringing religion into his politics
• for his tax/financial policies, which has brought the USA into a very sizeable deficit, which is only growing
• his, and his family's oil ties, and by association, Arab ties
• his Vice President's oil, and Halliburton ties
• his friendliness to Enron's Kenneth Lay, and Mr. Lay's apparent ability to dodge justice under Bush's administration
• looking like a chimpanzee
• his association with the Vietnam-era, Air National Guard's "champagne squadron", and missing military records that detail what could be his desertion of his service for up to a year(1)
• getting pulled-over for driving drunk
• apparent frat-boy, and party'er personality in college
• Dick Cheney
• Donald Rumsfeld
• his "people's" liberal use of smear, especially against one of the Republican's own, Sen. John Mccain, during the 2000 nominations
• his support of NAFTA, and now, CAFTA
• his plans to establish a standing U.N. Army, and his financial support of it
• amnesty for illegal immigrants
• waffling on his campaign promises
• his former companies' inability to stay out of bankruptcy, and support from the Bin Laden family in one of these companies

Kerry bashed for:

• apparently waffling in his policy decisions
• his questionable medals, and service(2)
• his wife's apparent use of the Tides Foundation to use ketchup money to support fringe political groups(3)
• even his Swift-Boat crewmates won't support him(4)
• his apparent use of Botox
• his protest of the Vietnam War
• raised taxes, if he becomes POTUS
• being a "Liberal liar"
• looking like Gumby, and/or Frankenstein
• apparent lack of personality
• his support of NAFTA
• his affinity for marrying rich heiresses
• his support of stem-cell research
• Liberal voting record, especially when it comes to our money

(1) Note: the Vietnam-era ANG was HUGELY different from the present-day ANG. Note written, so as not to diminish from the current group of ANG personnel currently serving domestically, and abroad.

(2) http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

(3) http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp

(4) http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp; http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...rans_for_Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those that will be making revisions to the above, please try to keep the list and its footnotes as clean-looking as possible, and even though we are discussing the bashing in here, try to be as civil as possible.

So, which of the above is relevant, and/or important, when making a decision of who to allow to run the USA for the next four years? What percentage of the above do you guys think, per candidate, is just absolute political slander, as opposed to a true criticism?

Discuss.

[YogsVR4]

Lets first pick on the list you've made.

Twice you used the word 'apparent' when referring to Kerry. Nothing apparent about his waffling and lack of personality (in the same vane that Bush has the country-bumpkin image).

The point of Bush looking like a chimpanzee is a waste - anyone can be photoshopped to look that way. Might as well delete it or add it to Kerry. The same goes with the frat boy image (since both were members of the same fraternatity on the same campus).

Several of the thing you have listed under Bush I do not consider bashing. His handling of 9-11 was fantastic. Cheney and Rumsfield are pluses not minuses. His fiscal policies on tax cuts are good - spending is horrific.

Neither Bush or Kerry should be bashed for their support of NAFTA.

Both should be soundly bashed for supporting the UN in any shape or form.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[carrrnuttt]

Feel free to copy and edit, with your own footnotes (preferrably), both lists. Makes for an easier, and less emotional read.

Anyhow...

Here's my question to you, Yogs:
You frequently mention the "Bush-bashing" going on in here, yet, in the list I came up with, with or without the word "apparent", I come up with 4 attacks in here about Kerry that involves irrelevant things, namely:

• The fact that he might/might not be using chemical facial reconstruction
• His facial features
• His apparent lack of personality (I will say "apparent", as I have seen his speeches, and no personality is a grave misrepresentation)
• Whom he married, and/or is married to

Oh wait, I'll HAVE to add:

• What's in your sig

Yet, with Bush, we have:

• His public-speaking skills (no "apparent" here, and it also translates to the next item)
• His country-bumpkin image (which him, and his campaign are glad to propagate in some degree, as it makes him appear more personable). He was more than happy to emphasize his "Westward Ways", in his recent speech here, in Arizona.
• His college party-ing days (strengthened by his DUI)
• His facial features

So, with all of the above, feel-free to point-out to me where Bush is getting undeserved "bashing", as you call it. I can understand where some of the above is somewhat irrelevant to picking who'd be a better President but, the first two items on Bush's list is something thrown in front of us by either himself, or his campaign all the time, while a DUI (for which he was never charged, BTW) to strengthen his frat-boy image, irregardless of Kerry's affiliation with the same fraternity, well - says a lot about the man.

Yet here you are, posting articles about Kerry's wife, posting quite refuted links about these "shipmates" of his talking against him, of which I, and many other veterans, are repulsed over, as far as their tactics, irregardless of whether or not we agree. Not to mention your signature.

Either way, it speaks volumes about the character of both campaigns - if not a reflection of the candidates behind them.

Maybe as they say, you should, "talk the talk, and walk the walk"...

As for Bush's "fantastic" handling of 9-11, if it was that "fantastic", then Michael Moore wouldn't have a hit movie on his hands (irregardless of whether you agree with him or not - I for one haven't seen the movie, nor care to)

[YogsVR4]

Nobody is bashing Kerry much at all because he doesn't have any supporters. None. Not a single one comes into this forum. Either someone is for Bush or they are against him.

I thought this thread had some potential, but on further evaluation, I see that I was wrong.

Good luck.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Nobody is bashing Kerry much at all because he doesn't have any supporters. None.

LOL

Isn't what you just said a contradiction in itself? "Nobody's bashing him, because he has no support."

Also, it's also hypocrisy on your part, considering your sig.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I thought this thread had some potential, but on further evaluation, I see that I was wrong.

Pray tell, will you share with us these evaluations, and what they entail? Under what criteria are you evaluating it under? The standard?

Maybe if you share, I might be able to build a thread that come near your exacting standards next time...

[lamehonda]

I agree that people will bash those who have support and will ignore those without. The media has proven to be very good at this.

[2Slow4U_Noob]

hey i'm for this thread. it would be nice to see both arguments on both sides clearly stacked up against each other instead of just another name calling thread. I think YogsVR4 has somewhat of a point. I don't think the general American public(except for the die hard Republicans and Democrats) really want either candidate. It seems to be a "choose the lesser of two evils" kinda deal. Ok well lets see some more bashing!!

[DGB454]

Is this a thread to gather support for a particular candidate thinly veiled as an "impartial" observation/list?

Good one.

No one will be able to see through you're ruse.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by DGB454

Is this a thread to gather support for a particular candidate thinly veiled as an "impartial" observation/list?

Good one.

No one will be able to see through you're ruse.

Wow. You're the smart cookie in your family, aren't you?

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

So with this thread, I have decided to examine both sides. It is no mystery in this forum, where my vote is going in November (just got my new voter registration card, with my new address, last week, woo-hoo), but I will try to be as impartial as I can be. If either side feels I am not, feel free to bash me (which will more than likely happen anyhow).

Anyhow, to even make it more fair, you guys will be helping this thread along. If you have something to add to both lists below, then quote my post between the lines ("~~~"), and add an APPROPRIATE subject to the listing. I am sure I will forget quite a few important ones. Remember, these are lists for which incumbent, and hopeful, are being bashed, and/or criticized for.

Now, rather than wasting your precious brain energy trying to find subtle ways of attacking me, why not try and see if you can impart your own observation to the subject being discussed? Nice try at a diversion though...

[driftu]

Originally Posted by 2Slow4U_Noob

hey i'm for this thread. it would be nice to see both arguments on both sides clearly stacked up against each other instead of just another name calling thread. I think YogsVR4 has somewhat of a point. I don't think the general American public(except for the die hard Republicans and Democrats) really want either candidate. It seems to be a "choose the lesser of two evils" kinda deal. Ok well lets see some more bashing!!

at the same time i am scared that we use the term "lesser of two evils" for the people running for control of the most powerful nation in the world.

[DGB454]

[quote=carrrnuttt]Wow. You're the smart cookie in your family, aren't you?
QUOTE]


Yep. You?

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I thought this thread had some potential, but on further evaluation, I see that I was wrong.

I never saw it.

[carrrnuttt]

All of you "smart people", that have nothing better to do than to pick on a thread that you feel is threatening your incumbent, why don't you quote my "list", and edit it to your purpose, as was intended in the first place? Instead of making inane quips and cracks that do nothing more than instigate another emotional debate?

Especially you, Yogs, I expected more out of you.

Of course I will see things from my point of view...duh.

The point was, you guys were supposed to quote the "list", and alter it to reflect your POV, but nah...you guys were too busy feeling threatened, and acting defensive, that you guys missed that.

The only potential "lost" in this thread, was you guys.

[DGB454]

I'm sure you aren't referring to me. Neither Bush nor Kerry are my incumbent. So I don't feel threatened in the least.

[driftu]

what about bushs failure to bring osama to justice for 9/11
and him seemingly being proud to be a wartime president.

then there is kerry and who really knows what he will do if he gets into the oval office.