This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
Posted By: Can you come up with something that....sm on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: It would be nice - if
applies to the 21st century please?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Translation: I watch a lot of Fox News and stick strictly to party rhetoric.nm
z
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm
How many more lies before everyone wakes up?
Editorial Toledo Blade: Another lie on Iraq
WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.
They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.
No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.
The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.
Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.
And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.
Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.
Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.
So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric
Per Onelook:
▸ noun: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking) (hmmm...yep)
▸ noun: using language effectively to please or persuade (okay, I get it)
▸ noun: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
▸ noun: loud and confused and empty talk (that's the nuts and bolts of it)
As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered.
Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it. Get over it. If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.
Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric. Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done. And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do? Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes. ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?
I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain? Your statement makes no sense. The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east. Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on? Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US? Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there.
Why would I care about your opinion? I don't. There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board. Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what? Most of them disagree with me on most everything. LOL
I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.
Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
I am an independent....neither party is "my" party.
THis election cycle I believe the best man is a Republican. Do your research. John McCain warned about this in 2005, named Fannie and freddie by name, co-sponsored legislation to control them. Blocked by Democrats, led by Chris Dodd..same guy now trying to fix what he and the Dems broke. Chris Dodd, #1 on contributions list from fannie/freddie, followed closely by #2, your shining knight Mr. Obama. The chickens have come home to roost all right...or should I say the donkeys. :)
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.
Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.
Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric
Fox News Crosses the Line
Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters
For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.
For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."
If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.
Link below to sign petition.
No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
For this you have to wait at least 3 years and 8 months , maybe 7 years and 8 mohths...nm
nm
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm
Not quite- 2 years Catholic, 2 years Muslim. NM
X
Non-stop hate rhetoric for weeks and weeks on end
Red camp has been making character the issue by their own choice. They copped out on the national crisis and decided to go with the culture war. Well, now they have it and I am sure that GP is not the only one who is feeling a bit surly at this point. What is the O camp (and I am not assuming that GP is going that way since she has not said so) supposed to do? Did you think that they would simply quietly sit back and take lash after lash after lash and wait for the tribal warriors to suddenly develop a conscience and call a cease fire?
Uh oh. Looks like the party's over.
Sharpen up those cat claws.
What about the other party?
.
me and my party?
All I asked was if this was more divisive. I said nothing about any party or who I would prefer to see win. I said nothing hateful or vicious. Give it a rest, will ya?
Pub party?
Cool! Can I pick the pub, and will you bring 'nother fattie for the parking lot?
I am not of the pub party.
There are a lot of things to fault Obama for already. Just because you are too blind to see it just shows that you are so into democratic rhetoric that you can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie.
I truly feel sorry for people who are so caught up in the party lines (and this goes for both dems and pubs) that they refuse to see politicians for who they truly are.
Barrack Obama is a liar and he is so obvious about his lying it is amazing that you people can't even see it when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE!!!
new party
I am so disgusted with all these folks in office, I am ready to start my own party. I think I will call it the Repo Party with the main objective being to take our country back. And we will be voting on daylight savings time, just for starters.
party time..
You party for your reasons, I party for me..Fortunately, right now democrats and the like minded have many things to party for..YEEHHAAWW!! Bye bye Scooter, bye bye Rove, bye bye incompetent Bush, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Our party definitely needs to step up. sm
It's come to the point that I don't even know what our party values anymore. Just a bunch of different groups trying to elevate their cause with no clear focus. What is our agenda? I'm listening, but our elected officials are not talking.
Is Senator Kennedy the last Dem standing? At least he and Murtha speak their minds and challenge this administration. And I'm dog tired of hearing what the republicans got wrong. Though I think they have a nice stack of issues, I want to hear what our party is going to do to fix the Iraqi situation, what would they do in Louisiana and Missisippi differently if they had the ball in their court and what are they willing to fight for to effect change? What will they do to make America safer from domestic and foreign terrorists? Offer up some solutions. Maybe they have, but I haven't heard anything.
Hillary, though I'm still a fan of hers, seems to ride whichever wave she's on. Howard Dean is a live wire who says the first thing that floats to his brain, off the wall. He does not have the carisma to lead the party to victory IMHO.
As far as the republicans, I'm tired of hearing about gay marriages and abortions. I do not think these are America's main issues, not even close. I want to hear something other than rhetoric about how good Iraqi is doing too.
And I was just having a conversation earlier this week with a friend of mine who agrees with me that we have seen MORE gays and lesbians emerge since Bush took office. And before you get it wrong conservatives, I'm not saying he is creating them. It may be that the gays are rebelling and being more blatant with it to spite the anti-gay politicians, and/or all of the attention brought to gay marriage and gay this and that have only lured more young people into this culture as a reverse effect. I think the latter is more likely because rewind back to 2000, it was less likely you would see woman/woman, man/man hand in hand in the supermarket. Now, it's just as normal as man/woman and I'm in the bible belt, Alabama.
I agree with the poster who asked the question *where was THIS Al Gore 8 years ago?* Maybe, they'll wise up and make him head of the DNC. Say, *Thanks Dr. Dean for your services but we won't be needing them anymore.*
Either way, this administration NEEDS more disenting voices with SOLUTIONS-this is key-not just rhetoric because on major issues they have been allowed to runamuck basically uncontested for the last five years.
If we keep it up at this rate though I agree it's bad news for America.
*We tend to believe our party*...sm
Re-reading my postI can see how I misspoke. What I was trying to get across, and my post was not directed at you BTW, was that psychologically people tend to put more trust in and defend the party they support by default. Whether you are a registered republican or not, you support the republican party, and I glean that from your statement *I have not seen a Democrat I could vote for in good conscious.* And whether you are aware of it or not, you defend that party tooth and nails on here, and there is nothing wrong with that if they follow your belief systems.
Good for you for criticizing Foley, and any other person who is inappropriate with the pages. I have said here before I do not know why Studds didn't stepdown and more importantly why he was reelected. I'm against his having a relationship with a page as much as I am Foley.
As to Juanita, I understand you are personally connected with her in some way, so you will obviously be more sensitive to her situation than I will. I am looking at the big picture. Since she did not come forward in 1978, the statue of limitations gone, all she can do is tell her story, and Clinton has a story. Like I said her story is believable. She has proven genuine and not making claims out of spite or for money. I think it was Brunson who posted ladies that Clinton was supposed to have either raped or sexually harrassed earlier this year. Out of them all, Juanita was the only one I believe has substance.
I disagree with you again; when it was brought up that conservative presidents were accused of rape below, it was rebutted with *that was only one time...but..but..but..* That's rationalizing and minimizing.
I know your mind is made up about Vincent Foster, but this is what's on snopes.com. What I find interesting is the *suicide note.*
White House deputy counsel Vince Foster committed suicide on the night of 20 July 1993 by shooting himself once in the head, a day after he contacted his doctor about his depression. A note in the form of a draft resignation letter was found in the bottom of his briefcase a week after his death. (Note that this letter was not, as is often claimed, a suicide note. It was Foster's outline for a letter of resignation.) Foster cited negative Wall Street Journal editorials about him. He was also upset about the much-criticized role of the counsel's office in the controversial firing of seven White House travel office workers.
On 10 October 1997, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr released his report on the investigation into Foster's death, the third such investigation (after ones conducted by the coroner and Starr's predecessor, Robert B. Fiske) of the matter. The 114-page summary of a three-year investigation concluded that Foster shot himself with the pistol discovered in his right hand. There was no sign of a struggle, nor any evidence he'd been drugged or intoxicated or that his body had been moved.
If Foster had been murdered or if unanswered questions about his death remained, Starr would have been the last person to want to conclude the investigation prematurely. Or are we to believe Starr is part of the cover up, too? And if we buy into the conspiracy theory, what are we expected to believe? That a group of professional killers capable of carrying out dozens of murders all over the world shot Vince Foster, then clumsily dumped him in a park (after he had bled out), planted a gun he didn't own in his hand (without bothering to press his fingerprints onto it), amateurishly forged a suicide note (in several different handwritings), and then seriously expected the nation would believe it was suicide? Claims too crazy to believe are never discounted when they're needed to help establish a conspiracy, of course.
Oh, and did you check out the Bush body count??
Individuals, maybe. As for the party,
nm
Well, at least there are members in that party...
who will buck the party and put the people first. The Dems don't, won't, and that pretty much solidifies why I would not vote for a Dem...EVER again.
We can all see how much your party cares
nm
The peace party......
and what ultimately might get us into a nuclear confrontation.
I went to a party last week
to watch the acceptance speech by Obama. There was one individual at the party who kept talking endlessly and kept trying to re-take the floor after someone spoke about their interests. it was incredibly annoying. Ever had that happen in your life? conversation hog?
Despicable party. The WTC would probably still
Obama party
I actually posted back a couple of pages about this - this board has been busy since last night! =) I was actually kind of disappointed with the party. First off, the lady from the Democratic Headquarters didn't really give any information about any of the issues - she just brought print-outs from his website, which I had already read through before going to the party. Also, my friend that hosted the party is a HUGE Hillary she got some of the other guests going on about Hillary rather than talking about Obama. I asked a couple of questions, but no one there really seemed very informed and the response I got was to give them my email address and they would get back to me. The one nice thing was that there was no Bush-bashing and really no mention of McCain at all, but information on Obama was no more than I could get off the internet. It was good to see my friend again (this summer had been kind of crazy) and nice to meet some new people, but politically, it was really a waste of time. Everyone was really nice, even after they found out I had never listened to NPR =) I do, however, encourage people to attend a political "party" - either Republican or Democrat - perhaps the person who does your presentation will be better informed. Thanks to everyone that gave me web info earlier this week! =)
Obama can't fix what with his party either...
hard to do when you personify it.
It is JM's/SP's party's turn to be on the
the media dished out on their behalf throughout the entire primary season. Repeat. Show me one time JM has attempted to rein in his supporters when their tactics got out of control. Never mind what the media would or would not have done. I am looking for an example of JM expressing his awareness or concern that the tactics being used were inappropriate. O has done this on occasions, which makes the inquiry legitimate. The reason there is no answer is because there is no example. The hypocrisy of the remainder of this post speaks for itself and requires no rebuttal.
How can a party brainwash
nm
Once again, anyone not voting for your party
I haven't seen you say one thing yet that wasn't something I already heard stated on the news. If listening to the media and buying into their opinions is reasoning, then I don't wanna be a "reasoning" voter. I'm not for Barack or McCain, but I don't see the purpose of insulting someone because they DO like one or the other. Something tells me you don't need a purpose or reason to insult, though, it just makes you feel better about you.
your party and your president
Dubya are making us socialist -- this is what you have harped on for years. We even get to take over the debts of foreign banks thanks to Phil Gram, John McClain's right hand man.
What party is he, and why was he not nominated?
vote third party
Remember how we just "don't understand" how the bailout is good for us? Every politician and every single new media outlet said that we did not understand. They are protecting us from ourselves? we have to get together on this and get them out!
THis is not about the Republican party....
it is about socialism. I am a registered Independent, not a Republican. I just don't want a socialist America. What part of that do you not understand?
There is nothing positive about socialism that I can see.
Fear mongering...good grief. I am not fearful, I am angry. That man wants to highjack my country and a good many of my countrymen/women seem all to eager to help him do so. That doesn't make me afraid...it makes me angry.
However, there is nothing I can do about that, except vote for what I want, just like you are apparently going to.
If you get your way, and by the end of his term we are up to our eyeballs in socialism....one thing you can be sure of...I had nothing to do with it.
Well said. I don't belong to either party.
I just hope that the country can survive the 4 years. If Obama doesn't tax and spend us into a real depression or turn us into Venezuela north, perhaps it will.
But at least I will have the small comfort in knowing I had nothing to do with putting him in the White House.
You would probably know more about the Nazi party
xx
INDEPENDENT PARTY
 The independent party has voted that they will back McCain. They have NO votes to back Obama whatsoever!!!!
which independent party?
Which one? There are a couple, at least:
The American Independent Party
The Independent American Party
Independence Party of America
I thought being an "independent" meant you didn't belong to any party...
|
