Swiftboat veterans for truth

... if i choose to vote at all...

 

Strictly government-rationed political advertising is both a bad and impractical (unconstitutional) idea. It's simply not going to happen, nor should it. The best way to open up the system to smaller parties is through instant-runoff voting, in which voters rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. That way you could vote for someone like Nader without wasting your vote, because your second choice would be counted if Nader were eliminated from the running. If people weren't afraid to vote for minor candidates, they might actually win once in a while.

 

Yes, for the MILLIONTH TIME, I am aware that one of these two idiots will win. HOWEVER, that does not mean I have to force myself to vote for one or the other. If I had to choose between Kerry or Bush, I wouldn't vote at all. And I am still thinking of not voting.

If I do indeed decide to vote, it will be for one of the third-party candidates. Many people are choosing to vote third-party in this election as a way to protest against not having a choice with the two main parties, and show that there IS a choice. We've got to start somewhere so we can TRULY take our country back,

Of course Nader, Cobb, Badnarik or Peroutka will never win (at least not in this election). But at least when you do vote for a third-party candidate, you are at least helping to get that party recognized and letting America know that we DON'T just have two choices.

Years before Vietnam?

Bush and Kerry were both in Skull & Bones during the mid 60's, well after the war had started.

What happened in Vietnam isn't relevant in an election campaign. Unlike Skull & Bones, the Vietnam War doesn't pose any issues over leadership. The Skull & Bones issue is important because you have a bunch of rich, powerful men - tied to both the incumbent and Kerry - who are the same people that have helped these two men over the years get to where they are now. It's a fact! Bush even admitted this himself in his autobiography.

Don't you understand how both parties are rooted deeply in corporate America? These parties pander to the elite. It's all one big sham!

I'd rather be off the bus. The ones off the bus are the only ones seeing things clearly at the moment.

 

Yeah but that doesn't mean we should just stop questioning about depper secrets in our government. Just because Kerry or Bush will be our president, it doesn't mean we should stop asking about Skull and Bones, and their involvement, and why Both canidates were in the Skull and Bones.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Exactly my point.

Right now whoever has the most money gets the loudest voice. Bush has the support of a few billionaires so he gets to yell the loudest. That is not representative government.

How would you make it fare? Because it isn’t.

We know from history that whoever has the most money usually wins.

I also think that there should be a fact checker that these ads go through before they can be aired. Most of the Bush ads that I’ve seen are very misleading. For example: I’ve heard Bush and all of his pendants state that Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class. NOT TRUE. It’s an outright lie.

I’ve heard them say that Kerry tried to get a 50cent gas tax. NOT TRUE. It’s something he mentioned over 20 years ago but dropped the idea.

They’re trying to paint Kerry as being week on defense. John McCain said that’s not true.

There’s a lot more but I don’t have time right now.

 

You've argued that independent advocacy ads should be banned. That would give political parties/candidates a stranglehold on political advertising.

There are plenty of billionaires supporting the pro-Kerry moveon.org. Most of Bush's "hard" money has come in the form of ~$1000 contributions, hardly limited to billionaires.

How is it unfair? I think the current limits on the size of campaign contributions is pretty reasonable. The funding disclosure requirements for independent advocacy groups also work pretty well. Everyone knows who's funding the swift boat veterans group, and people are free to draw their own conclusions about their credibility.

Again, if the size of individual contributions is limited, then candidates must raise support from large numbers of people. They can't rely on a handful of wealthy donors.

It's called "spin," and it's in no way limited to Bush and/or Republicans. (There's no legal definition for terms like "middle class" or "wealthy." People have to be capable of sifting through loaded terminology, and they definitely shouldn't base their voting decisions on advertisements!)

Are you seriously contending that Kerry is above using such half truths and distortions? Ron Reagan's cynical ploy at the Democratic Convention was nauseatingly deceptive.

That's certainly a matter of opinion. I don't have a lot of confidence in his heavy reliance on Clinton-era "law enforcement" methods of fighting terrorism. Al-Quaeda needs to be eradicated, not supoenaed.

 

name just one?

 

I did: Ron Reagan's shamelessly misleading propaganda at the DNC.

 

But I couldn't resist...


...and now, back to The Huck N Mush Show

 

You're still upset about the stem cell thing, huh?

The RNC is going to have a democrat speaking at their convention. I forget which person it is.

 

Regardless of where you stand on the ethics of killing human embryos for their stem cells, the grandstanding of Kerry, Reagan, et al is undeniably deceptive:

http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200407280818.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/496nwmnv.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/081704F.html

 

Still a far cry from the slander Kerry has to put up with.

 

Huck, you realise i trust that the Discovery Institute (from whence the writer of your first piece of hyperbole hails) is a neo-con think tank which is less about real science than partisan apologetic and spin.

The article itself is fraudulent from the outset by equating the use of unfertilised eggs with "embryos". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I suggest you scrutinise the political leanings of your sources before posting them as definitive examples of objective scientific fact.

Reference to The Discovery Institute by a former member

As for the Weekly Standard article, again, a platform for spin and entirely partisan polemic owned by Rupert Murdoch (along with Fox News). Hardly a credible and objective source for a scientific issue of such potential benefit to mankind as Stem Cell research.

And your last link once again contains very little about the objective aspects of the debate on Stem Cell research and more a partisan rant by National Review (another bastion of Neo-con muckraking) writer Ramesh Ponnuru.

 

Lick,


In typical fashion, you completely failed to deal substantively with the content of any of the references I cited. Ad hominem attacks on the sources are meaningless. Incidentally, Wesley Smith is no right-wing hack. He's a personal friend and colleague of Ralph Nader, with whom he co-authored an excellent book on corporate law, titled No Contest.

As for science, unfertilized eggs don't produce embryonic stem cells. They must first be transformed into human embryos either through fertilization or cloning. That's how we get the term "embryonic stem cells."

 

My reference to the partisanship of these writers (and in the case of Smith the organisation from whence he hails which IS known to be a right wing think tank) is not ad hominem, it goes directly to the expected bias each one duly displays. This bias manifests itself in the content of their articles which are more opinion than scientific review.

All you've offered is a collection of opinons that align with your own, not any definitive evidence of why stem cell research should not be funded.

Let us remember that not even Kerry is saying to terminate pregnancies SO THAT stem cell research can be conducted, but in the context of a free country where people, for their own reasons, ARE terminating fetuses anyways, why should we not use the remains if it will save the lives of many?

Ultimately the whole issue is a red herring since embryonic stem cell research is but one facet of the overall science. Unfertilised eggs are equally viable given the manner in which the growth process is initiated.

 

Nancy and Ron have changed a lot of people's minds about stem cell research. Their views changed once Ronald was diagnosed with Alzheimers.

The research will continue outside the U.S. no matter what particular groups in the U.S. try to do to stop it. It will also continue in U.S. more freely as other administrations come into office.

 

Dismissing the content as "biased" proves nothing. Try actually engaging it.

I wasn't trying to rekindle a debate on the merits of funding embryonic stem cell research. I'm merely pointing out the deceptive language used by its proponents. Your comment here is a perfect example. I don't oppose funding of "stem cell research" per se. Many types of non-embryonic stem cell research currently receive federal funding, and they've yielded very tangible medical benefits.

If you'd bothered to read any of the commentaries I cited, you'd realize that this statement is completely false. Kerry supports so-called "therapeutic cloning," or the mass production and destruction of cloned human embryos by research labs.

If it ever truly becomes possible to induce unfertilized ova to produce stem cells without cloning, then this whole controversy would indeed be moot. However, the proponents of research cloning (including Kerry) show no sign of backing off their dubious agenda.

 

Another example of dishonesty and manipulation. Researchers in the field have quietly conceded that embryonic stem cell research is unlikely to ever help people who suffer from Alzheimers.

Private companies are already free to pursue embryonic stem cell research. They've chosen not to because it shows so little promise compared to other more successful forms of stem cell research.

 

What does stem cell research have to do with the topic of "swiftboat veterans for truth"?

 

Duh! That point has been well stated. What about the MILLIONS who have ALS, MS, Lupus, some types of cancer and any more diseases.

George Bush doesn't believe in real science he's living in the 16th century.

He actually believes that Planet Earth and the entire Universe was created in 6 calendar days.

----------------------------------------
Bottom line: the swift boat ads are full of lies!