! . . .now there is a negative campagn!

Super on Mul -- All negative, all the time. . ..but with compassion and sensitivity. (my favorite part) :D

Come on Supe- even Mul can change his spots.

LOL!

that's right, except for the compassionate part. I left that in the locker room this time. As always, I'll re-evaluate with each new bit of information. But as of right now, Mul is all the way at one end of the scale and his supporters are inching closer. As I posted above, the hallmarks of a respectful, intellectually honest and curious discourse are unmistakable. In this thread, Lynn and Len seem to be onto something. they seem to be finding some "truth" that lies at the hot center of our disagreement. That's how really mature, respectful discussions of important and momentous issues evolve. It's actually exciting. And it's fundamentally different from most of the other exchanges here. Two guys go after each other. Even then, sometimes some truth comes out but usually just a widening gap. If Mul ever has a productive or respectful exchange here, I'll eat Slacker's pudding.

I'll put it this way. If you guys had a really sharp conservative who was as well-read and direct as Techweenie, and who provides facts in support of assertions, and cites sources like Tech, then I'd hang on every word. I'd make SURE I read them and visited the sources. It would be very helpful. But apparently Mul is your best. I truly wish you could see how pathetic this looks. My fear is that Tech is going to feel like his time is wasted here. Pearls to swine. (I'm not calling you guys pigs. This is an expression. It means wasting something that could be better used on another audience.) I'd very much prefer that someone rise to the challenge presented to you by Tech. Pick up the gauntlet he continues to throw down.

There are a few folks here who are (or at least consider themselves to be) centrists. Not right or left. My very strong suspicion is that, in spite of the imbalance here (more right-wing blowhards than liberal thinkers (kidding, guys)), their impression is that the hawks have yet to meet Techweenie's challenge. That's a guess. I should start a poll.

That is screwed up man...You are misquoting me...I mean that really bunches up my panties, dude...That is so mean and right-wing fascist...I can't believe it...I am telling Z-man and I will have him give you a warning, because you are out of control (sorta like the warning I got from Z-man)...Well, I never! [/whining petty liberal]

lendaddy: "The negative ads were not ineffective."

Actually, Kerry's numbers were up after $85 million in Bush negative ads, so I guess you're saying Kerry would have been up even more without the ads?

The polls are looking like Joe Sixpack is tired of Bush Lies(TM) and is contemplating a change.

But you guys just go ahead and discredit and ignore the polls... 'kay?

Mul: "Name me one time Bush said something negative about the golddigger...I will, in turn, locate multiple slaps at Bush Kerry has made."

Are you now claiming Bush has no knowlege of his own ads? You can't do that anymore, because they now contain the message "...I approved this ad" So what are you saying? That Bush didn't understand his ads? I'm sure he had somebody read them to him.

For instance?...I know a reporter personally intimidated by George Steponallofus...I understand Kathleen Wiley (democrat) was intimidated and threatened by the Clinton White House...Not to mention the 900+ FBI files the Clinton's illegally obtained and the use of the IRS to attack political opponents.

Nixon was like a BoyScout next to Clintoon.

Once again, how is Rove the "dirtiest, most dishonest and unfair POS ever to blah blah blah"?

(for Z-man -- I did intentionally take artistic license with quoting speeder, so please, no further warnings of "misrepresentations as bad as flaming" necessary)

The Democratic campaign condemned Bush's "attack ad" and negative politics just a day after Kerry called Republican critics "the most crooked ... lying group I've ever seen." That comment, captured without Kerry's knowledge by a live microphone, prompted Bush adviser Marc Racicot to call on Kerry to apologize "for this negative attack."

Hypocrites.

During the Democratic primary, Kerry ran at least a dozen ads criticizing Bush or his policies.

Then Kerry calls his $900 billion dollar health care fiasco "completely made up," and then prepared a response ad titled, "Misleading America."

Kerry's plan to reduce health care costs would cost nearly $900 billion over 10 years, according to a study by Emory University economic professor Kenneth Thorpe, who has been cited by Kerry's campaign and other Democrats as an authoritative source.

So does Bush understand his negative ads or does he not?

Mul: Are you seriously comparing $85 million in Bush ads against an overheard aside?

Wow Kerry is much more scary to you guys than I thought.

Ok, now I am confused! Who are the liberals, and who are the conservatives?

Are you conflating revealing who Kerry is with the implied untruth of "negative adds"?...If Bush has gone negative (implying lying, sorta like Kerry does consistently), enlighten me with examples, please.

I will repeat, you are warped Lynn...You are hysterical man...You were getting really really tired with your out of place cartoons, flooding the threads...I was playing with you and you can't handle it...This does not suggest my "dishonesty", it suggests your lack of sense of humor...BECAUSE YOUR PARTY IS OVER IN 2004.

"Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

Being as objective as is possible, I would say Kerry has definitely been more personal in his attacks. Bush's ads site his voting record and say things like "Wrong for America". I do agree that this is a negative ad, but it's not vicious and it is based in fact. I have personally heard Kerry say that Bush may or may not have fullfilled his duty in the guard. This is also negative, but also vicious, and not based in fact. Even if true, it is unproven and Kerry posesses no intel to support his assertion. This would be akin to Bush sayin Kerry faked injuries to get outta Nam, again negative, again vicious. The difference? Kerry actually said it, Bush didn't. There is negative, and then there is negative.

lendaddy: "I have personally heard Kerry say that Bush may or may not have fullfilled his duty in the guard. This is also negative, but also vicious, and not based in fact."

It is based in fact. And what's vicious about it?

Republican spokesholes have slandered Kerry endlessly, focusing on questions surrounding one of his Purple Hearts and making believe he didn't win the Silver Star and Bronze Star.

Meantime, the only recognition GWB got was being disqualified from flying.

I wouldn't call facts vicious, although they are certainly embarrassing for a man of little or no achievement, like GWB.

Hmmm, you have no info he was anywhere else, you simply have what you consider not enough evidence that he was there. This is far from factual proof. What did I miss? Bottom line is it's not just Kerry's people saying it, it's Kerry! Oh well.