It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some people that I've discussed this with have accused me of picking on Senator Kerry because I'm not a fan of his. While it is true that I won't be voting for Kerry, I do believe that Kerry not wearing a motorcycle helmet, although fairly trivial, is indicative of his campaign for President as well as his overall behavior while a US Senator. Senator Kerry always wants things both ways. He's pro motorcycle safety yet he doesn't wear a helmet himself. When his hypocrital stance is pointed out, his campaign immediately starts parsing its words and coming up with a nuanced stance to make it seem like he's taking a principled stance. To normal people, it sounds like do as I say not as I do.
This type of behavior can be seen in Senator Kerry's choice to not accept matching funds. He says that Howard Dean "forced" him to abandon matching funds. In this case Kerry is playing the victim of Howard Dean. Why can't he just make up his own mind and take a stand? If young John Kerry said this to his parents, they might have replied, "if Dean jumped of f a bridge, would you?"
To those of us from Massachusetts, none of this is new. In Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign against then Governor Bill Weld, Kerry and Weld agreed to limit advertising spending to $5,000,000 apiece and to limit the use of personal funds to $500,000 apiece. This was a great photo-op for Kerry. He and Weld were hailed as campaign finance trailblazers. Of course, when things got tight, Kerry came up with a story that would, in his mind, let him out of the deal. Weld negotiated a discount on a media buy. Kerry cried foul and valued Weld's media buy at market rates. Under Kerry's view point, Governor Weld exceeded the $5 million limit by $400,000. This gave Kerry all the wiggle room he needed to ditch the original agreement, mortgage his (actually Teresa's) Louisburg Square house, and dump $1.7 million of his personal funds into the campaign.
On almost every issue, Senator Kerry tries to play both sides of the fence and when he's on an unpopular side, it's someone else's fault. This does not play well with voters. As Senator Kerry tries to figure out what's going wrong with his campaign, he needs to look no further than a mirror.
www.chibus.com...
Originally posted by cavscout
The problem with this topic is that while it is very easy to make the statements above, it is difficult to challenge them without getting off subject. In order for me to argue, I would have to discuss weather or not war leads to peace or to more war (the whole war is peace/Bush is big brother thing.) I would have to get very deep into environmentalism to explain why Clear Skies and Healthy Forests are not doublespeak but truth. Because of this inability to dispute the validity of the thread authors statements without getting away from the topic, I think this should be reserved for the mud pit, where it would be a great piece of conversation, as opposed to the propaganda it is here (as it was worded.)
Originally posted by scottsquared
I view this as a vital issue of ethical misconduct.
What say you?
Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Originally posted by scottsquared
I view this as a vital issue of ethical misconduct.
What say you?
I say this is nothing more than a Bush bashing post, there is no issue here, but that is just my opinion.
YOUR OPINION AND $2.95 WILL GET YOU A CUP OF COFFEE AT STARBUCKS.
Newspeak or whatever you deem to it call has been around at least since Al Gore said Government workers were not being fired, but "involuntarily terminated" and another politician who tried to legally define the meaning of the word "is”. It is no more one party's doublespeak, than it is any others.
NICE EXAMPLE, NOT.
If you want to argue about "Clear Skies" write a post about it!
I BELEIVE I HAVE, YOU JUST HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.
If you want to argue about "clear-cutting" write a post about it!
ibid.
If you want to argue about hunting, then by all means... write a post about it.
op. sit.
BUT, if you just want to bash Bush, take it to the "Political Debate Forum" and we would love to argue your points there.
Mindlessly challenging the topic by calling it propaganda, when the Republican newspeak itself is propaganda by definition, does nothing more than turn your transparent argument on its head. Since you don't even know the proper party rebuttal, let me explain it and debunk it in one fell swoop.
Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.
Originally posted by cavscout
Mindlessly challenging the topic by calling it propaganda, when the Republican newspeak itself is propaganda by definition, does nothing more than turn your transparent argument on its head. Since you don't even know the proper party rebuttal, let me explain it and debunk it in one fell swoop.
Wow, now that sure doesn’t sound like the sort of mud-slinging I was talking about. No, sir, not a bit.
And here I was trying to be nice to you by not getting off subject.
Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.
Look for a separate post on this real soon. I will not be party your mud-pit style "lets see how far we can get from the issue at hand and just vent." attitude. I do, however, accept your challenge. And I do think that you should refrain from calling people mindless. Once again, lets keep that in the pit, O.K?
[edit on 23-8-2004 by cavscout]
Originally posted by scottsquared
The Bush administration has been utilizing the Orwellian tactic of "Newspeak" to alter perceptions, confuse issues, and change the language to suit it's goals.
What say you?