Imus pwns Kerry - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Imus pwns Kerry

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby AcidRock23 » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:35 am

Lofunzo wrote: FWIW.......I am glad that Kerry made the "joke" if for no other reason than it guaranteed that he wouldn't be running again.


although, until he formally withdraws his interest, he can serve as a lightning rod (he is tall, after all...) for criticism from the right-wing media and other critics which will take THEIR eye off the 'ball'...
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Coppermine » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:18 pm

AcidRock23 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote: FWIW.......I am glad that Kerry made the "joke" if for no other reason than it guaranteed that he wouldn't be running again.


although, until he formally withdraws his interest, he can serve as a lightning rod (he is tall, after all...) for criticism from the right-wing media and other critics which will take THEIR eye off the 'ball'...


He does have that long, skinny horse face too...
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby AcidRock23 » Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:13 pm

Coppermine wrote:
AcidRock23 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote: FWIW.......I am glad that Kerry made the "joke" if for no other reason than it guaranteed that he wouldn't be running again.


although, until he formally withdraws his interest, he can serve as a lightning rod (he is tall, after all...) for criticism from the right-wing media and other critics which will take THEIR eye off the 'ball'...


He does have that long, skinny horse face too...


I referred to him as "Lurch" in conversations w/ my buddies...
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:14 pm

I can't believe I have to say this, but I'm going to.

Before I begin a rant, though, let me say that I think the fact that anyone talked about Kerry's flubbed joke at all gives lie to the myth of the liberal media. Anyone who read Kerry's speech can very clearly tell that it was indeed a botched joke and to imply that it was a "botched" joke as someone claimed earlier in the thread is ridiculous.

To quote Andrew Sullivan:

Maybe this story isn't over. I've been thoroughly persuaded by John Derbyshire and Christopher Hitchens that John Kerry's words were indeed a botched joke. The clincher for me was the actual prepared text, which I confess I hadn't seen till I watched the Daily Show (where I tend to get the news these days) last night. The actual text was that if you didn't work hard, "you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

Now, I may be typical of many people's real-time response to this piece of "news." When I first heard the remarks, I cringed and was appalled. When I saw the context, I could see what Kerry might have meant, but also saw the need for him to apologize for the way his spoken remarks could have plausibly been misinterpreted. I stand by that. But now I also see the prepared remarks in black and white, I have a third wave of sentiment. I agree with Jay Nordlinger here:

When you see Kerry's prepared text — I guess you would have to accept it as authentic — you can see precisely what Kerry meant: Bush is stupid, he has always been a slacker, that left him unprepared to lead in Iraq, blah, blah, blah.

So the debate over what Kerry actually meant is now over.

Now what do I next remember? I remember that the president vehemently went after Kerry, as did McCain. Now, when a president decides to do such a thing, his staff have examined the upsides and downsides every which way. They are paid to know any possible backfire for the remarks. And Rove is very smart. So this much I now know: knowing full well that he was deeply distorting Kerry's meaning, the president used the quote full-bore to impugn Kerry's commitment to the troops - and to help turn the base against the Democrats.

I know it's politics. I'm not naive. But it's also revealing about someone's character that he could authorize and exploit such a thing. Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry. I'll bet I'm not the only one mulling that over this morning.


That says it better and more cordially than I could have.

But that's not actually why I started this post. I want to say one more time, for the record, that Kerry is not a flip-flopper. He is a very smart (and uncharasmatic) man who simply has a lot of nuance in his positions. Unfortunately, nuance does not play well in 5 second sound-bytes which is what most reporting has become. And nuance is easy to twist around as well to be used for political purposes.

I defy anyone to find a specific example of Kerry changing positions due to popular opinion. Don't give me a long list that the RNC made up, either, because - and I think everyone will agree with this - political parties have a tendency to twist facts to make the opponents look worse. Find a single example before you actually call Kerry a flip-flopper. Because it simply isn't true. That darn liberal media just repeated it enough so that it appears true.



George Orwell wrote:To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Madison » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:54 pm

PlayingWithFire wrote:Unlike Vietnam, Option B really isn't an option now. Not because of "face" but because we basically screwed up the bases of the society in Iraq. And we need to get Iraq past the stage of chaos before we can pull out. What I was talking about is that W could have go through the usually(and slow, I'll say that) Diplomatic steps instead of rushing to war.


The problem is that you're saying this after the fact. You yourself agree that we cannot pull out now, yet you accuse Bush of "sticking to a bad idea". Can't have it both ways. Either you understand we have no choice but to stick to it and finish the job, or we should pull out.

PlayingWithFire wrote:And how can you fault Bush for not killing/capturing Osama? He didn't screw up the Afghanistan job that bad and it's not him but the troops that need to capture Osama, and it's an extremely tough job.

And saying we should carpet bomb Afghanistan is HORRIBLE :-D But I think you were joking anyway. Unless you truly believe a live of an American is worth at least 10 Afghanis(or whatever they are called) and there is no such thing as humanity in war time(if you can even consider Afghanistan a serious war, compare to Korea and Vietnam)


Yes, I fully blame Bush for not getting Osama, and no, I'm not joking about turning Afghanistan into a parking lot.

How about you tell me how much an innocent American life is worth? Tell the families and friends of those who died in the World Trade Center that their loved one's lives are not worth killing a few people in Afghanistan over.

This is not a war. This is a policing action more than it's a war. War is win at all costs, do whatever needs to be done no matter what politics or public opinion is, and protect the country at all costs. This isn't a war at all. Not even close.


Acidrock, I'm not sure what you said has anything to do with what I said about Kerry. Sure, Bush went in to save face since he came off looking like a major pansy by dropping the ball with Osama, and weakened the country severely by not doing what he should have done. Sure he blew some smoke up the butts of those who were too weak stomached to see a military strike to remove an evil dictator, without crying out about how wrong they thought it was. He had to say something to appease those weak stomached people who yelled, screamed, and protested when he wanted to go after the man responsible for the attack on our own civilians on our own soil. These people couldn't even let him protect our country when we were under direct attack, so of course he blew some smoke when it came to the exact reasoning as to why we went into Iraq. I don't disagree with you at all on that. However, my point was that Kerry has done nothing but blow smoke each and every single time he's said something. Everything he says is dependent on what the polls say. The man does not have enough guts inside of himself to tell us exactly what his opinions are and where he stands on the issues. That kind of flip flopping would result in an extremely large problem, where the Girl Scouts and their Nerf guns take over the country.

Lofunzo wrote:I would also say that, because he served, he might be better able to see a bogus war when 1 exists. I am not even getting into whether I think that it is or isn't a "good war". I am just saying that someone that has served in the military is more qualified to make that determination.


A war would have to be going in order for him to be able to see a bogus one. ;-) This isn't war, it's a policing action.

However, I've never said a word about this being a good "war". I've always said Bush went in to remove an evil dictator who had evil plans, and the means, money, and ability to make those evil plans come true. Has Bush dropped the ball again? Sure. No disagreement here. What would Kerry have done? Who knows, the man doesn't have enough guts to tell us, without consulting the polls first of course. That's my point. ;-)

Absolutely Adequate wrote:Anyone who read Kerry's speech can very clearly tell that it was indeed a botched joke


Even if people were to agree that he simply messed up a joke, are people not allowed to laugh at him or think less of him? Why not? Either he didn't read the speech ahead of time and wasn't prepared, or he wasn't smart enough to know what he was saying it when he said it. Either way, it still doesn't make him look good at all. People want someone who doesn't know what he's saying when he says it to be the one in charge of security for the entire country? :-o Thanks, but I'll pass. :-o

By the way, has Kerry apologized yet? I would think he has, but I'm a little behind and the last thing I heard was a CNN report that it had been 24 hours since the mistake and Kerry still hadn't apologized yet.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:03 pm

Madison wrote: However, my point was that Kerry has done nothing but blow smoke each and every single time he's said something. Everything he says is dependent on what the polls say.

Do you have any specific examples?


Masidon wrote:People want someone who doesn't know what he's saying when he says it to be the one in charge of security for the entire country? :-o Thanks, but I'll pass. :-o.


That's some pretty interesting sentence construction there. But if I understand what you're saying correctly (and I may not), you are saying that you wouldn't want a president who flubs jokes to run the country?

Fool Me Once, Shame On.. Fool Me.. Twice We...Won't Be Fooled Again ...
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby Madison » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:18 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:That's some pretty interesting sentence construction there. But if I understand what you're saying correctly (and I may not), you are saying that you wouldn't want a president who flubs jokes to run the country?

Fool Me Once, Shame On.. Fool Me.. Twice We...Won't Be Fooled Again ...


Didn't take long for this, but thanks for not letting me down. ;-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby AcidRock23 » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:42 pm

Madison wrote: Acidrock, I'm not sure what you said has anything to do with what I said about Kerry. Sure, Bush went in to save face since he came off looking like a major pansy by dropping the ball with Osama, and weakened the country severely by not doing what he should have done. Sure he blew some smoke up the butts of those who were too weak stomached to see a military strike to remove an evil dictator, without crying out about how wrong they thought it was. He had to say something to appease those weak stomached people who yelled, screamed, and protested when he wanted to go after the man responsible for the attack on our own civilians on our own soil. These people couldn't even let him protect our country when we were under direct attack, so of course he blew some smoke when it came to the exact reasoning as to why we went into Iraq. I don't disagree with you at all on that. However, my point was that Kerry has done nothing but blow smoke each and every single time he's said something. Everything he says is dependent on what the polls say. The man does not have enough guts inside of himself to tell us exactly what his opinions are and where he stands on the issues. That kind of flip flopping would result in an extremely large problem, where the Girl Scouts and their Nerf guns take over the country.


What I am trying to say is that the characterization of Kerry as a 'flip-flopper' is patently absurd.

On that particular issue ('US vs. Iraq' although I have argued elsewhere that this is a mischaracterization of the conflict in that 'Iraq' has little meaning to its residents, unless they are playing soccer or something important like that, which they can't do any more b/c of the violent religious douchebags running amok there...), Kerry made 2 decisions

1) to vote 'for' invading Iraq, based on our 'intelligence' (as presented by the executive branch...) that Saddam had WMD, was a credible threat to the US, I recall there were rumors of an Iraqi agent having hooked up w/ an Al-Qaeda dude in Prague which were later discredited as well and that by invading, we would be able to 'bring democracy to Iraq' and thus have an ally besides the Israelis in the Middle East.

2) Kerry's second decision was to question whether or not we should be in Iraq since the reason we went there was shown to be bunk and since we are making very little progress towards having democracy there, as perhaps evinced this weekend by the expectations of post-Saddam verdict violence. In March of this year, one poll showed only 28% of those of us in the US currently 'support the war', even though more of 'us' may have believed the 'case' (*cough cough*) as 'made' for the war by the government in order to push for an invasion.

This Enron-ed case was made while the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the executive branch AND the Supreme Court!! In fantasy baseball terms, they had a one man mock draft like Brandon Funston AND were still obligated to make up stories to sell their picks to each other.

I would much rather support a politician who takes new evidence (e.g. no WMD, democracy may not actually be the best choice for Iraq, Nigerian yellowcake, etc.) and reevaluates our course of action than a 'leader' who has to resort to hamfisted name calling b/c his evidence turns out to be fake!!
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Madison » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:05 pm

AcidRock23 wrote:What I am trying to say is that the characterization of Kerry as a 'flip-flopper' is patently absurd.

On that particular issue ('US vs. Iraq' although I have argued elsewhere that this is a mischaracterization of the conflict in that 'Iraq' has little meaning to its residents, unless they are playing soccer or something important like that, which they can't do any more b/c of the violent religious douchebags running amok there...), Kerry made 2 decisions

1) to vote 'for' invading Iraq, based on our 'intelligence' (as presented by the executive branch...) that Saddam had WMD, was a credible threat to the US, I recall there were rumors of an Iraqi agent having hooked up w/ an Al-Qaeda dude in Prague which were later discredited as well and that by invading, we would be able to 'bring democracy to Iraq' and thus have an ally besides the Israelis in the Middle East.

2) Kerry's second decision was to question whether or not we should be in Iraq since the reason we went there was shown to be bunk and since we are making very little progress towards having democracy there, as perhaps evinced this weekend by the expectations of post-Saddam verdict violence. In March of this year, one poll showed only 28% of those of us in the US currently 'support the war', even though more of 'us' may have believed the 'case' (*cough cough*) as 'made' for the war by the government in order to push for an invasion.

This Enron-ed case was made while the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the executive branch AND the Supreme Court!! In fantasy baseball terms, they had a one man mock draft like Brandon Funston AND were still obligated to make up stories to sell their picks to each other.

I would much rather support a politician who takes new evidence (e.g. no WMD, democracy may not actually be the best choice for Iraq, Nigerian yellowcake, etc.) and reevaluates our course of action than a 'leader' who has to resort to hamfisted name calling b/c his evidence turns out to be fake!!


All anyone had to do was watch the last election to know Kerry is (better term might be "was", I don't know) a flip flopper, so it's not absurd at all. We had a Politics forum back then (big mistake we won't repeat :-o ) and it was shown time and time again how Kerry changed his mind on where to stand on topics. Me saying Kerry is a flip flopper has very little to do with Iraq. It has to do with all the "changes of stance" he had on many topics during the last election. I know I'm not the only one who watched and saw what he was trying to do. ;-) Now if he's changed since the last election, and he will now actually say what he feels and thinks, and then stick to it, props to him. ;-D

Don't tell me you bought the WMD story Bush gave as the reasoning for going into Iraq.......I thought it was pretty well known that the story was simply a cover up since Bush needed to restore faith in our military and safety to those of us who were screaming for Bush's head when he played a political game instead of doing what needed to be done to get Bin Laden. Granted, Bush dropped the ball with that too, and I agree he dropped the ball, but weapons of mass destruction was simply an excuse to go in. Did we need to? Depends on how you look at it. No, Saddam wasn't a huge threat to us, however, after pulling our skirts over our heads like 2 year old little girls with the Osama situation, Bush needed to do something to restore the faith of U.S. citizens. Saddam gave him the opportunity to do that, and Bush took it. He dropped the ball, but he did try, and the real reasoning behind it does make sense.

I also happen to agree that our president should look at new evidence and make changes if needed. In this case though, I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Yes, our troops would be home, and that's a huge, huge plus. Is it worth throwing away 5 years of work, and thousands of lives lost to get Iraq to the point it is now? Is that worth endangering the lives of every single American citizen by showing the entire world yet again that we don't have the moxy to do what needs to be done? I'm from a military family, and have relatives under fire over in Iraq right now, but I don't believe our best move is to just pull up stakes and bring everyone home. Maybe I'm wrong though. Who knows? None of us can see the future, or know exactly what would happen in either situation, so the "pull out" or "stay in" opinions are exactly that. Opinions.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby AcidRock23 » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:22 pm

Again, if the WMD and other 'stories' were 'needed' to get people on board the invasion, that is still not really the sort of leadership we should expect in a president. There were plenty of people in Iraq who detested Saddam and would have meen more than happy to whack him, had we given them the chance. The problem is that many of THOSE people aren't the sort of folks who we like and our insistence on finding the 'right sort' of Iraqis seems likely to me to leave us in a very similar situation to where we found ourselves in Iran, after propping up the Pahlavis and their SAVAK thugs for decades.

We can continue to maintain any fortified position in Iraq against anyone in the world but we can't ram our kind of democracy down their throats. It is unfortunate that any Americans had to die there and getting rid of our old buddy Saddam was a good reason to have been there but the manner in which the Republican 'leadership' (sic) sold us the bill of goods that a majority of US Citizens seem to have bought ought to be questioned. WHY wouldn't they just give us the real reason? I still will argue that unloading the place on the 'locals' (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, maybe Syria too?) would be a much more logical solution which, if nothing else, would give the Iranians something to do besides play with enriched uranium.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Aug. 28
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Chi Cubs at Cincinnati
(12:35 pm)
NY Yankees at Detroit
(1:08 pm)
Colorado at San Francisco
(3:45 pm)
Tampa Bay at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Atlanta at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cleveland at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Texas at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Oakland at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact