Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
alansmithee, with the "fire power" described above, I am curious as to what motivates you to post an anecdotal comment about Kerry supporters,"not even knowing what he stood for."
|
I posted that as a rebuttal to willravel's criticism of the term "flip-flopper". I used it to show how the term might be apt for a candidate who couldn't even make known what he stood for to what should be his core voters.
Quote:
What are the depth and the breadth of the
appendages that Rove must deploy, before you will withdraw your constant
and enthusiastic defense of the Bush admin. and the RNC, on this forum?
In the face of this gargatuan Rove spin machine, would anything that Kerry
said, did, or "stood for", have made a difference? Rove has won it all for you,
using a stooge as a frontman, yet you still exhibit a need that seems to belie your unabated insecurity, to challenge almost every critic. Will it take a Rove inspired dictatorship to calm you? You don't have Kerry to kick around anymore.
|
I would question your claim of my "constant and enthusiastic defense of the Bush admin". It seems that to many on this board, merely pointing out the inconsistancies in the opposing arguments constitutes fanatic support for the other side. This thread started to discuss the supposed right-wing overuse of slogans. I was merely showing that the other side also used the same tactics.
As for the supposed "gargantuan Rove spin machine", examining the facts would show that there has been no such thing. Taking a look back at the election, recently a report was released showing that Bush was three times as likely to recieve negative media coverage. Here's a link to a story about the report:
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7203069/
"The criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data. Looking across all media, campaign coverage that focused on Bush was three times as negative as coverage of Kerry," the report said. "It was also less likely to be positive. That also meant Bush coverage was less likely to be neutral."
According to the report, 36 percent of campaign-related stories about Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Kerry. Twenty percent of stories about Bush were positive, compared to 30 percent for Kerry. The remaining stories - 44 percent for Bush and 58 percent for Kerry - were neutral in tone.
|
On top of that, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Kerry got the best press ever during the campaign run
http://www.cmpa.com/ . And his efforts in trying to gain support for Bush's plan for social security reform? It has done nothing, according to ABC news:
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollV...=579917&page=1
In the midst of a 60-day drive by Bush to build public support for his Social Security initiative, this ABC News/Washington Post poll shows no movement in Bush's direction. Americans oppose his plans by 55 percent to 37 percent, and the intensity of sentiment is against him: Those who are "strongly" opposed outnumber strong supporters by a 2-to-1 margin.
|
I find your comment about my supposed insecurity to be nothing but flamebait, but it is attached to something that shows how many liberals think, and why I feel the need to show the inconsistancies in so much of their thought. You refer to Bush as "a stooge". Many liberals cannot get past their blind hatred of Bush, and are unaware to think about anything but that. I remember in 2000-01, it was supposedly Cheney pulling the mythical strings of the White House; now it's Rove. Many liberals often try to point out that many feel that there were WMD in Iraq, they don't point out that just as many think that Bush lost in 2000 and 2004. Where's the criticism of the "gargantuan Sauros spin machine"? Many liberals seem unable to disagree with people on issues, they must attempt to demonize that person and anything they stand for. They don't look at issues, they see who supports the issue. If they see Joe Senator (R), anything he says is instantly disregarded. That is how these "vast right-wing conspiracies" can be concieved of, despite any evidence-they live in a world where there is no rationality or logic, there is nothing but blinding hate. That is how anything but blind irrational hatred directed toward the GOP is seen as "a need that seems to belie your unabated insecurity, to challenge almost every critic".
Logic has been abandoned in the face of hatred and partisanship. These people live in a world of black helicopters with red white and blue elephants on them circling their blocks, while faceless old white men meet in secret underground covens to plot how to squeeze oil out of Iraqi babies. And if people like this become the core of the democrat support the democratic party will go the way of the Whigs, nothing but a footnote in history.