Kerry aide: Bush 'flat out lied' on Iraq

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

FOUL

Please show me where anything much less the First Amend. says anyone has the right to say anything they want at a private function, which the convention was

You're bringing up the First Amendment, not me. Go read the post again, Jason. I can't figure out why you've had such trouble understanding what I've been writing lately. I always thought I was pretty clear.

But if you want to see First Amendment violations, I'm sure it won't be long before the protesters in Boston file suit against the city and the party for abridging their right to freely assemble and to speak.

As for other types of violations, I believe the transportation authority lost a suit right off the bat about searching people without cause.

Moreover, show me any political convention by anyone at any time that has not urged each speaker to keep a civil tone, asked them to limit themselves to certain topics, etc. So, saying free speech, which you seemingly and erroneously ordain as an absolute in this situation, was egregiously harmed is a fallacy.

First off, you must not be familiar with the history of conventions if you think what you see today has always been in practice. This convention was merely a pageant. When conventions were really conventions, important issues were discussed, party platforms were built, and yes, people were free to speak their minds. Hell, presidential candidates were chosen at conventions. Don't believe me? Go read up on FDR.

Second, if you can point out where I suggested that free speech was an absolute that the Democrats violated, I will mail you a $100 check today.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

FOUL (somewhat) - he voted to allow W to have the power to go to war, which BTW W did not need to go to war. Then, he realized the path W took with that power was erroneous and voted not to fund it. That is a contrite act IMO. But, I know I know - you think W and Kerry are the same, which is just wrong and you know it, but unexplainedly continue to espouse it - so be it

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. Kerry voted for Bush's war, then he voted against funding the war.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Second, if you can point out where I suggested that free speech was an absolute that the Democrats violated, I will mail you a $100 check today.

My address is . . . .

I got that from your statement "[t]he Democratic convention was an affront to the idea of free speech." To me, that implies that the speakers had the rights of free speech set forth in the Const., which is what I think most people are referring to in a political debate when they assert the "idea of free speech." If that was not what you were referring to, then I stand corrected with my hat in hand saying

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

First off, you must not be familiar with the history of conventions if you think what you see today has always been in practice. This convention was merely a pageant. When conventions were really conventions, important issues were discussed, party platforms were built, and yes, people were free to speak their minds. Hell, presidential candidates were chosen at conventions. Don't believe me? Go read up on FDR.

Touche' - but I was referring to the age of television. I should have been clearer. I do, however, wish the conventions were looser. But, the age of television and the rabid media and public and the much venerated sound bite, usually out of context, has changed that, for the worse IMO. We agree an open debate would be nice, but I am afraid that era is over and instead everything is said for the five second soundbyte.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

My address is . . . .

I got that from your statement "[t]he Democratic convention was an affront to the idea of free speech." To me, that implies that the speakers had the rights of free speech set forth in the Const., which is what I think most people are referring to in a political debate when they assert the "idea of free speech." If that was not what you were referring to, then I stand corrected with my hat in hand saying

Jason, trust me, when I decide to make a First Amendment argument, I will make a First Amendment argument. When I refer to the "idea" or "concept of free speech," that should clue you on whether I am making such argument, which is to say I'm not.

I have once or twice encouraged Marty to support the idea of free speech on this site, but I am well aware I have no First Amendment ground to stand on.

Be that as it may, I might be inclined to make a First Amendment argument in regards to the convention. Hell, if I were one of the speakers who'd been muzzled, I might turn around and say, "Hey, these guys abridged my right to free speech, so I'm going to sue." Wouldn't you say that would be an interesting position for the party to find itself in?

Would you as a lawyer then advise the party to argue in court that it could do whatever it wanted because it was a "private" gathering? Oh man, I'd love to see that.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Touche' - but I was referring to the age of television. I should have been clearer. I do, however, wish the conventions were looser. But, the age of television and the rabid media and public and the much venerated sound bite, usually out of context, has changed that, for the worse IMO. We agree an open debate would be nice, but I am afraid that era is over and instead everything is said for the five second soundbyte.

Agreed. Why not just end conventions then? Or call it a rally?

[strandinthewind]

I think the case law supports the general idea that the Const. mandate for free speech does not apply at a private function even if that function is quasi public (the First Amendment only prohibits the state from supressing speech). A good example is the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC, that despite obtaining a city parade permit excludes the gay Irish from marching/speaking/expressing (I make no comment on this event and am using it solely as an example). So, I think the censures at the D convention would win the argument. Plus, what did they think Al S. was going to do. Surely they must have realized he was a loose cannon - Lord love him

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Agreed. Why not just end conventions then? Or call it a rally?

I have often thought of this as well. I think the polls suggest the majority of the people like the idea that it is a conventionl. Plus, I guess it is still possible for the event to be where the candidate is picked, although it has not been that way for awhile now.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Surely they must have realized he was a loose cannon - Lord love him

Exactly. I'm merely pointing out that you would be making a loser argument, even if legally correct, by insisting that the party was right to violate the concept of free speech at the convention.

Wouldn't you agree?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Exactly. I'm merely pointing out that you would be making a loser argument, even if legally correct, by insisting that the party was right to violate the concept of free speech at the convention.

Wouldn't you agree?

I think the D or any other Party has every right to choose what is said and how it is said at their convention even if that supresses some peoples' opinions. Public perception is everything these days. Having said that, I agree it would be nice if everyone got to say what they wanted and they they wanted

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think the D or any other Party has every right to choose what is said and how it is said at their convention even if that supresses some peoples' opinions. Public perception is everything these days. Having said that, I agree it would be nice if everyone got to say what they wanted and they they wanted

Precisely because public perception is everything it's a loser argument. Imagine, if you will,

"The Democrats say they want to save our democracy, but they won't even believe in the First Amendment enough, one of the main tenets of our democracy, to let people say what they believe."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Fear, Johnny, is the last word you should use to characterize my position. If I were as fearful as you and the rest of the Democrats, then I surely would vote for Kerry. For, you see, I don't believe the nation is so fragile that it will crumble under four more years of Bush, as the Kerry people would have me believe.

I have a friend who'd sooner walk down the aisle to a song by Marilyn Manson, than have the wedding march played. When asked why, she offers no valid reason other than, "because everyone plays the wedding march."
She's what I call "self-consciously non-conformist." Her views aren't naturally non-conformist, but are rather born out of the fear that she'll LOOK like a conformist if she embraces anything that others do.

Rightly or wrongly, I see some of that in some of the things you've said regarding the Democrats. It seems that you're so hell-bent on NOT agreeing with anything the Democratic party does... or, worse, being seen as to agree with the Democratic party... that you'd rather vote for and support just about anyone else.

As I said before, the one and only thing you ever point to in regards to why you feel Kerry is "as bad as Bush," is that he voted for the War In Iraq.
Aren't there millions of other issues beyond that one tiny little thing? Why are those so easily ignored or glossed-over?

Don't get me wrong... I'm not telling you who to vote for. I'm just still baffled that you wholeheartedly believe that "Kerry is as bad as Bush," because of ONE sticking point.

And if fear isn't a problem for you... than why do you fear having a democrat in the White House? What's scarier about that for you, than having Bush in there.
Maybe you just have less to lose by having Bush in the White House for another four years, but I... and everyone like me... have a LOT to lose.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

It seems that you're so hell-bent on NOT agreeing with anything the Democratic party does... or, worse, being seen as to agree with the Democratic party... that you'd rather vote for and support just about anyone else.

If that were the case, then I'd support Bush. Right? Johnny, you're no longer making sense.

As I said before, the one and only thing you ever point to in regards to why you feel Kerry is "as bad as Bush," is that he voted for the War In Iraq.

John Kerry in 1971:

"[T]here is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart."

Kerry in 2004:

"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president."

In 1971, Kerry said he hoped that in 30 years Americans would look back and appreciate the courage of vets who opposed the war as a moment when "America finally turned" away from the lies and toward justice. So far in the past 18 months he has voted for another criminal war, then voted against funding it, distanced himself from the comments he made in opposition to Vietnam and draped himself with the cynical flag of patriotism by parading the memory of a war he opposed so adamantly

Aren't there millions of other issues beyond that one tiny little thing? Why are those so easily ignored or glossed-over?

I can turn that around on you. You said ultimately you'll vote for Kerry for the one issue of gay marriage. Your words. I could go dig them up. Aren't there millions of other issues besides that one tiny little thing?

And besides, the "tiny little thing" to which you refer has left thousands and thousands of people needlessly dead. That may be a "tiny little thing" to you, but it's a huge thing to the families of the American soldiers who were killed, those who've been maimed and the many thousands of Iraqis killed and injured.

And if fear isn't a problem for you... than why do you fear having a democrat in the White House? What's scarier about that for you, than having Bush in there.

Quote me back where I've ever said that we'll be better off if Bush is reelected. I challenge you.

All I am doing is using the same rationale Kerry used in 1971: "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in [Iraq] by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart."

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

If that were the case, then I'd support Bush. Right? Johnny, you're no longer making sense.

Well, I'm giving you more credit than that.
It's obvious that you most likely will not be voting Republican anytime soon, so I didn't bother to include that scenario in my comments.
So no, I'm not saying that you'd rather support Bush than Kerry, just to "go the opposite way"... but it does appear that you'd rather support someone from any other party (outside of the Republican party), than be seen as supporting the Democratic party.

From everything I've read in your posts, you're far more interested in taking the Democrats to task for the things they've done that you disagree with, than taking the Republicans to task for those things and more.

I asked in another thread, and I haven't had a chance to check it yet to see if you responded... but I'm curious as to why you view it as more important to teach the Democrats a lesson, when you've already seen what the current President has done and is doing.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I can turn that around on you. You said ultimately you'll vote for Kerry for the one issue of gay marriage. Your words. I could go dig them up. Aren't there millions of other issues besides that one tiny little thing?

And besides, the "tiny little thing" to which you refer has left thousands and thousands of people needlessly dead. That may be a "tiny little thing" to you, but it's a huge thing to the families of the American soldiers who were killed, those who've been maimed and the many thousands of Iraqis killed and injured.

I knew I shouldn't have said "one tiny little thing"... I should know better by now than to give you even the tiniest opportunity to turn something around.

No, the War In Iraq isn't a tiny issue... not by a long shot. But you continue to maintain that Kerry would be as bad as Bush, and I don't see it.
Yes, ok, you win, I admit that it was "wrong" of him to vote for the war (though, again, I maintain that his opinion was based on what HE... and the rest of us... was mistakenly lead to believe), but that's the one and only example you continually point to in regards to him being "as bad as Bush."

One example. An important issue, yes. But ONE situation.

In regards to voting for Kerry because of gay rights, I don't recall saying that was the one and only reason, I'd vote for him... simply that it's the BIGGEST, most important reason I'll be voting for him.
The gay rights issue is but one of many examples of why I feel Bush's run in the White House must be ended (if you've paid attention, you'll see that I've also cited his poor success-rate in regards to the environment, the economy, the educational system, health-care, etc.) , but it is the biggest. For me.
Because it shows the kind of person he is... willing to take away a human being's rights.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Quote me back where I've ever said that we'll be better off if Bush is reelected. I challenge you.

You have not said we'd be better off if Bush is re-elected. I know that and you know that, and I didn't even imply that you've said that... so it's a weak challenge.

But, you have said that electing Kerry would be just the same as re-electing Bush, and I just don't see your rationale.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I asked in another thread, and I haven't had a chance to check it yet to see if you responded... but I'm curious as to why you view it as more important to teach the Democrats a lesson, when you've already seen what the current President has done and is doing.

You should check the response then.

Do you think I am alone in thinking that four more years of Bush may be what's necessary to wake up the American people? Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees Union, confided to the Washington Post's David Broder that another four years of Bush might be less damaging than the stifling of needed reform within the party and the labor movement that would occur if Kerry becomes president. He later recanted, presumably after "a couple hours of being forced to stand on a milk crate with a copy of the party platform over his head and electrodes attached to his penis Stern ... said he was 'a hundred per cent' for Kerry," as left-wing columnist Alexander Cockburn puts it.

No, the War In Iraq isn't a tiny issue... not by a long shot. But you continue to maintain that Kerry would be as bad as Bush, and I don't see it.

You should know better.

And really, Johnny, we've been over this. But to help you out, besides the war thing, here's a couple more issues:

Kerry told James Hoffa of the Teamsters this spring that he wouldn't touch the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but would "drill everywhere else like never before".

In an interview with BusinessWeek (August 2nd) Kerry revealed, "I am going to bring Corporate America to the table to say: How do we make you more competitive? How do we get out of your way? Research-and-development tax credits? I'd make them permanent and larger. Manufacturing tax credits? That's a smart way to help I am 100% in favor of companies going abroad to do business."

And in May, he said this:

"I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before," Kerry told the Associated Press. "But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court, I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge [Antonin] Scalia."

Just how he reconciles someone who won't overturn Roe v. Wade with someone who holds a different view, presumably an anti-choice view, is beyond me.

And those points also address this:

But you continue to maintain that Kerry would be as bad as Bush, and I don't see it. Yes, ok, you win, I admit that it was "wrong" of him to vote for the war (though, again, I maintain that his opinion was based on what HE... and the rest of us... was mistakenly lead to believe), but that's the one and only example you continually point to in regards to him being "as bad as Bush."

But, you have said that electing Kerry would be just the same as re-electing Bush, and I just don't see your rationale.

Well, I've just given you some more examples.

Look, Johnny, you have a bad candidate. Simple as that. The Democrats are incapable of providing a real alternative. The Democratic Party is run by rubber-spined wimps who think the only votes to "get" are those undecided between voting Republican or Democrat. These chimps should be going after the young vote, the Latino vote, etc., in which case they wouldn't have to try to outdo the Republicans by draping themselvs cynically with the flag.

Do you think the Democrats are that different from the Republicans? Consider this:

Peace activists among the delegates at the DNC were not allowed to bring literature or clothing that expressed an anti-war stance. Medea Benjamin, who advocates voting for Kerry in swing states, was thrown out of the convention hall after unfurling a banner calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. Other activists were barred from entering with headscarves that read "Delegates for Peace" and one California delegate with a flyer entitled "No War on Iraq" was prevented from bringing it onto the floor of the convention hall.

Isn't this the kind of thing that you and other supposed liberals on this site have decried when the Republicans have perpetrated it?

It's not about being a non-conformist, Brian, it's about being true to what you believe in.