Tell ya what. When democrats forget about the "willie horton" ad used by Bush Sr., maybe we'll forget about the mushroom cloud ad. And if there was not a vacuum that preceded the mushroom cloud ad, there was a veritable sunami justifying the willie horton ad.
Blanket statements about libs or cons are my point. Who are these libs? 100% of libs say all this? Did not cons get caught in a few lies about everything from fund raising to the reasons for war? All cons are war mongers is just as ridiculous. When Bush started out his administration, my conservative friends were outraged when he started putting restictions of foreign steel after running on a platform of open global markets. Were all cons outraged? Probably not, depending on where they sit in their financial understanding of the global economy. We're still bringing in Hitler and commies to attack the other side? Why the need to say all libs or all cons are bad? Are we not a society of Americans first, race, creed, color, politcal affiliation second? c
I'm not necessarily a fan of Hillary's either, a bit too much baggage, but we'll have to see who else is running. As far as changing taxes, especially estate taxes, which amounts to simple double taxation in my mind, I'm willing to listen to any discussion on how to pay America's debts. These are our debts, after all. This is going to be a weird election if all we have running for office is what we've seen so far, IMO. c
"Nukes in vietnam?" I certainly don't recall that. We were barely in vietnam at that point, just a few advisors. What had just happened was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the liberal media pretended was a great success for JFK when it was really a disaster. Understandably, the public was nervous about the possibility of a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. LBJ's ad stoked the media's hints that Goldwater was crazy and reckless.
In May 1964 Senator Goldwater suggested in a speech that tactical nuclear weapons should be treated more like conventional weapons, and that they should be used in Vietnam. He argued that nuclear weapons should have been used at Dien Bien Phu to defoliate trees, and that in similar fashion "low-yield atomic weapons" should be used as defoliants along South Vietnam's borders. The Pentagon responded to this by describing technical characteristics of nuclear weapons, arguing that it was absurd to call them conventional weapons. Goldwater persisted that the army possessed very small nuclear weapons that could and should be used. In a speech in Detroit on Labor Day 1964 LBJ came out strongly against Goldwater's views. He described the catastrophe of nuclear war and said, "Make no mistake. There is no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon." All this took place prior to the election. Actually it was Goldwater's repeated assertions that we should use so-called "tactical nukes" in Vietnam that stoked the idea he was reckless. Johnson made use of that in his ad to reinforce and further the notion. Like I said earlier, his ad didn't take place in a vacuum. And it would have had no effect if Goldwater hadn't made repeated statements wanting to treat nukes as conventional weapons.
Of course not, not all100% of libs say this about McCarthy. The point is - NOTHING HAS CHANGED when the Dems/libs are under scrutiny. When Whittaker Chambers accused Alger Hiss of being a Sov spy. Dems did nothing. This was in 1938!! Hoover told FDR and Truman both, nothing was done. When HUAC finally finally put Hiss on trial, the Dem attack dogs went after Chambers without any concern about whether or not what they were saying is true - even going so far as to accuse the guy of having a homosexual relationship with his now deceased brother. Now think of how Dems have gone after their enemies in recent years - Ken Starr, Katherine Harris, Clarence Thomas, and the multitude of Clinton's accusers. What has changed? Nothing..... But to get back to my original statement - I truly believe that the whole commie thing was the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the animosity between the 2 factions. And truly, I think that Dems are the sore losers in the deal. They were embarassed by the FACT that they had Sov agents in their midst - agents that, according to Nikita Kruschev and many other Sovs, GAVE them technological secrets that pretty much made the cold war an inevitability. They should have been embarassed too, and this whole animosity/embarassment has continued to this day on their part. They can't admit they were 'wrong' and move on. Ok, now we can both admit that both sides have their dirt, regarding campaign funding and the like, but again, what is the difference? Reps boot their colleagues to the curb without remorse and the Dems 'circle the wagons'. Think of Trent Lott - he makes a comment about Thurmonds bid for President 54 yrs earlier, and at a birthday party, (they were both former Dems by the way) Reps kicked him to the curb. Now remember Thurmond was a Dem at the time, running on a Dixiecrat platform of.... segregation. Bad enuf, right? But Lott said nothing in that about race discrimination - the Dems lyingly filled in the blanks for him and claimed that was what he was referring to race. But when Chris Dodd says - on the Senate floor mind you, in front of the C-SPAN cameras - that Robert Byrd - a former KKK recruiter - would have been right during the Civil War, a clear reference to racism....... what did the Dems do? Nothing. And then Tom Daschle repeats the same thing and..... nothing. So what about the lying liberal press in all this? The NYT ran 99 articles on Lott, 18 of them on the front page. And Dodd? 1 story, page B-6...... Do you get it yet? ANd what about Clinton selling a pardon to Marc Rich, or the Puerto Ricans to get Hillary elected, etc? Nothing is done, no statements are made to the shitty actions by Bill. But by God, to cover their asses, when the Clintons move out of the White House and they discover that they've made off with some furniture... liberals are outraged !!! WTF? Liberals attack, attack, attack, and conservatives shrug their shoulders and get on with their business....... And please, Bush lied about the the reasons? WMD's were 3rd on the list. All the other reasons were absolutely true. And do you seriously believe Wilson's claim NOW that Saddam wasn't trying to buy yellowcake from Nigeria? It's an undisputed fact that Iraq was trying to start trade with Niger for ..... something. Do you have any doubts what that could be? Finally, I bring up Sov agents not because I think there still are, but rather the Dems/libs responses to credible claims of shitty behavior. They never change their tactics - when you're caught, lie and try to destroy your enemies with personal attacks. The liberal press willl back them up, as they have for 60 yrs. They never change. They are brain dead, and someday it will come back to haunt them......
H: >Ok, now we can both admit that both sides have their >dirt, regarding campaign funding and the like, but again, >what is the difference? Reps boot their colleagues to the >curb without remorse and the Dems 'circle the wagons'. OMG. I can't get up off the floor I'm laughing so hard. There are a great many subjects on this board that you apply a great deal of reason to and I respect that, but on this one you are so far off in right field that it is hilarious. As an independent I just do my best to stand back from the stench of BOTH major parties when it comes to "circling the wagons". JB
Glad I could make your day an enjoyable one. But it's true. Here's another liberal lie that has the conservatives cowing to - Bush is dumb..... They want you to seriously believe that an ex fighter pilot is stupid. It has been repeated so many times that people believe it. Do you have any idea what kind of mental clarity it takes to fly a fighter jet? Particularly an early version? The jet that Bush flew had the nasty habit of going into an engine stall on takeoff and flipping over onto its' back. Add to that managing weapons sytems, navigation, radar systems, and maintaining an eye on the air space around you, and it becomes pretty clear that the guy isn't stupid. What he is, for sure, is inarticulate. But even conservatives will "throw him under the bus" to silence liberal crying. Did they EVER admit that Clinton had his faults? Hell no. But really, this has less to do with Rep vs Dem than it does con vs lib. It was just an example of equal events that came to mind. I should have made that clearer before...... Think about what I'm saying here again - the liberal establishment , primarily the universities, news outlets, etc, lie continuously for the Dems, - I've given examples of what they've done for over 60 yrs to back what I'm saying - which hold them in their camp. There is never any quarter given. Never. No admitting wrong doing. Never. But most importantly, to me, is that media outlets shape the way we think. Bush's detractors point continuously about the 'brainwashing' done by Rush, FOX, etc. But of course it doesn't apply to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, PBS, ...... Here again - no amount of lying and distortion to make the liberal side of the argument look like the more logical one is thought of as going too far. It has no end. Things don't change.........
H: >But it's true. It's as far from the truth as Rat's position that WTC was brought down by conspiracy. To the independent thinker, there is a "lib" example for every one of your "con" examples. JB
how much does it pay now a 150k earner? did he pay 60 per cent during clinton? and pabst, can you do us a favor and gimme a link detailing all bush's tax cuts? grazie