Can Dem's explain this?

It appears that McG's interpretation of "preemptive strike" is that it means "TO LIE". In light of "preemptive strike" means lying, it would be helpful McG if you could explain the following statement.

If no signs of an attempt by Saddam to use terrorism have yet emerged, launch a preemptive strike.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It appears that McG's interpretation of "preemptive strike" is that it means "TO LIE". In light of "preemptive strike" means lying, it would be helpful McG if you could explain the following statement.

If no signs of an attempt by Saddam to use terrorism have yet emerged, launch a preemptive strike.

You're changing the subject. Is that because you know the dems are wrong?

0 Replies

McG,

Launching a pre-emptive strike to notify voters and the media about the possibility of Republican antics isn't lying. Launching a pre-emptive strike into Iraq while claiming that Saddam has WMD...that...that might be lying...

Is this where your confusion is coming from?

If you look at the document you posted it clearly shows a big 2. and is then followed by bulleted points. In standard english communications those bullets are the details about the umbrella statement contained in the line with the big number 2 in it.

Find something else to whinge about McG...this one isn't selling.

McGentrix wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
Being proactive and lying are two seperate issues. This document is telling dem's to lie. Period. No matter what does or does not happen, dems should lie and proclaim republican bullying.

Seriously, McG, where does it tell anyone to lie? It says report what's happened before, it doesn't say anything about making anything up, that was the figneuton of imagination of the Rocky Mt. News and you are buying it. How come?

Which part of "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a pre-emptive strike." strikes you as not being a lie?

Let me tell you what that says to me, then you can translate it into liberalese or whatever it is that you guys understand.

"If the voters are having no problems due to republican interference, lie about it by saying there have been. Especially in places where we have accused them of it in the past."

0 Replies

[offtopic]Judging from the Democratic play book, pre-emptive strikes based on past experience seems to be not only legal, but both ethical and moral.

I guess that means all the dems will be voting for Bush.[/offtopic]

________________________________________

Jer, how do you notify anyone about something that hasn't been done? Maybe we should notify everyone about how Kerry will allow the wholesale slaughter of babies and let the UN make every major decision for him.

He hasn't done those things, but we should pre-emptivly accuse him of it...

0 Replies

McG's problems with the English Language
McG

Quote:

Jer, how do you notify anyone about something that hasn't been done? Maybe we should notify everyone about how Kerry will allow the wholesale slaughter of babies and let the UN make every major decision for him.

QUOTE FROM ARTICLE
Reviewing Republican tactics used in the past.

McG..
HOw can something DONE IN THE PAST not be done? You continue to LIE about what the piece you posted said. No where does it say to notify anyone about something that has NOT been done. THE PAST happened already.

You can LIE and WHINE all you want. Reality is reality. The PAST is the PAST. The statement to point out PAST tactics is NOT pointing out something that hasn't happened yet.

0 Replies

McG wrote:

Jer, how do you notify anyone about something that hasn't been done? Maybe we should notify everyone about how Kerry will allow the wholesale slaughter of babies and let the UN make every major decision for him.

He hasn't done those things, but we should pre-emptivly accuse him of it...

The Bush campaign in a nutshell...

0 Replies

I didn't realize that democratic lies and ethics would get you so hot under the collar parados. You obviously didn't read it, yet here you are trying to argue the points raised.

0 Replies

McG

I didn't read it? Hell, I posted POINT BY POINT and asked you to respond to which one was illegal. You never did. Perhaps the problem is that YOU did not read it. Go back and look at my first post here and then respond to which bullet point you think is illegal or immoral or whatever your argument is going to be.

Arguing that the past is now the future only shows you have little reading comprehension.

0 Replies

McG - I do have an opinion, but unfortunatly I am not educated enough in the political dept for my opinion to carry any weight.
I personally feel VERY 2 sided about it.
1) I agree with it. Simply because EVERYONE during important times like an election HAS to be on thier toes ready to counter ANY slander, postings and other damaging advetisements to thier campaign. That goes for Republicans as well. That is how you survive such a game as politics
2) I think it is jumping the gun and irresponsible for that statement to be allowed to ' leak to the public'. We ALL know , things like that are NEVER revealed by accident... never. ;-)
But.. as I said before.. that is just my simple opinion. It wont change my voting status. What changes my voting status is what happens DURING the election terms. The slander and junk that hits the fans 2months before election day.. well.. me personally, I just ignore it.

0 Replies

Never, ever, discount your own opinion on these matters shewolfnm.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
It appears that McG's interpretation of "preemptive strike" is that it means "TO LIE". In light of "preemptive strike" means lying, it would be helpful McG if you could explain the following statement.

If no signs of an attempt by Saddam to use terrorism have yet emerged, launch a preemptive strike.

You're changing the subject. Is that because you know the dems are wrong?

McG...you really ought to get off thinking that this election is about Democrats versus Republicans...and focus on the fact that it is more accurately about an incompetent moron running against a guy with a brain.

Really!

0 Replies

The election PROCESS is though Frank.

0 Replies

Today's endorsement of John Kerry by the New York Times is a gem.

Hope you can get through using this link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?th

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Today's endorsement of John Kerry by the New York Times is a gem.

Hope you can get through using this link...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?th

I can't

0 Replies

link

0 Replies

McG,
Posting crap doesn't change the fact that is crap nor does it change its stink. Perhaps you should read things before you post them in threads where you have already pretty clearly shown what you are now posting is a flat out lie.

Lets examine what you posted earlier in light of this last post.
From the NYPost Editorial

Quote:

The manual, by the way, also suggests that Democrats should "warn newspapers not to accept advertising" that doesn't meet with the Kerry campaign's approval.

With suggestions like that, you've got to wonder just who exactly is preparing to engage in intimidation.

Republicans?

Or Democrats?

(Hint: Threatening newspapers usually counts as intimidation.)

Now lets look at the scanned original document posted by McG

Quote:

Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contain false warnings about voting requirements and/or what will happen at the polls

Now a quick link to the US Code on elections
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php
Start by doing a search for USCode Title 2 Section 441d

After comparing these items an amazing thing becomes clear; The "Kerry campaign approval" seems to be just as it is codifed in Federal law.

Do the Republicans not want the law followed? Is it intimidation to remind people about the law? Maybe you could finally respond to one of my posts with some answers McG. Or are you the mindless cut and paster you really appear to be?

0 Replies

Hold on parados, let me get my mask to cover the stink of the post you have just made, as you say, crap is crap...

If you honestly believe the Dem's are right in this outrage, nothing I say will make one bit of difference to you, so I'll not waste either of our time by trying.

0 Replies

McG.....I think you're gonna need a Hazmat suit to be safe LOL.

0 Replies

McG,
I noticed you didn't respond to the ISSUES I raised. The fact is that a disclaimer is required under US Code Title 2, Section 441d. This is NOT a product of the Kerry campaign, it is Federal LAW. Please discuss the ISSUE of why you think that should only be considered a "Kerry campaign issue".
This is now the 3rd time I have asked you to address this issue and you still have not responded. I have gotten more detailed in my discussion you have gotten less in yours.

0 Replies

Parados, they chose their words carefully. The post says "warn local newspaper..." as though they are children to be warned against the dangers of fire. No newspaper needs to be "warned" of anything, they know how to do their job. What that means is, like the article said, to intimidate the newspaper with threats of legal action and to not post any anti-kerry news/editorial articles.

If a Republican flyer was found that said to warn newspapers how would you characterize that?

0 Replies

Can Dem's explain this?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know