Oops, Bush team caught photoshopping
- Thread starter jlabsher
- Start date
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
I can't believe that Bush would have to edit his ads to bolster a military presence at a campaign rally. Wow he must be really desperate for the military vote. Or he may have added extra military to his ad to make up for the lack of any deployable troops left in the United States to actually support him. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I thought there was something weird about the space that would have been left, had those bits not been inserted. Yep, I was right - they were edited IN after the podium was edited OUT.
A tempest in a teapot. This is the best you can do? They outright fabricate documents to damn the President for missing a physical over 30 years ago, and we're talking about a picture? Yeah, and Kerry don't do Botox.
Why do we care about this kind of crap anyway? Can Kerry do the job? Can Bush? Why does this matter to anyone but juveniles?
A tempest in a teapot. This is the best you can do? They outright fabricate documents to damn the President for missing a physical over 30 years ago, and we're talking about a picture? Yeah, and Kerry don't do Botox.
Why do we care about this kind of crap anyway? Can Kerry do the job? Can Bush? Why does this matter to anyone but juveniles?
ceo_pte
New Member
It's my understanding that Kerry tried very hard to avoid being deployed to Vietnam. I think he tried to get into school and then only when left with no other option he joined a Reserve Unit. Much to his disappointment he then got activated.
It wasn't like he up and joined the Military so that he could go serve his country.
It wasn't like he up and joined the Military so that he could go serve his country.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
ceo_pte said:
That much is true. He tried to get a deferment to study in Paris for a year. When that didn't happen, he signed up for the Navy Reserves. In his own book, he says he did that because he wanted to avoid combat. And out his entire enlistment, he saw only four months of combat. And I won't get into that except, he appears to have used that experience specifically to advance a political career, by bringing a camera crew and persisting in awarding medals to himself to be excused from the war.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
If he does then ok. If they want to fight an oil war and lose their lives over it, then that's fine. Kerry will bring them home a hell of a lot sooner then Bush plans too. Kerry will bring them home to their families and friends in one piece. Bush will occupy Iraq for as long as he can, and keep troops there under the back door draft policy that he loves and supports.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SamSpade said:
At least he enlisted and saw combat. At least he can relate with the troops in Iraq. At least he is a decorated veteran of foriegn war.... on the other hand Bush was busy helping someone else campaign. Bush doesn't even care about our troops, he doesn't know the kind of combat going on over there. He can't relate with the troops that he is ordering around. That's because at the end of the day he gets to see his wife and his children and he doens't know the true horror of an oil war.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
SmallTown said:
Conservative Republicans are so scared of the truth aren't they?
Yes, they edited the picture; the Bush camp said so. Honest and upfront about the edit.
When Kerry is challenged to sign his 180 so that the world can see his entire military record we get nothing. When he is confronted with his voting record we get "that was then this is now" crap.
I used to be a Democrat. Then the party was taken over by left wing jerks like you guys with all the red squares. Full of stupid, illogical, rhetoric and anger left over from the 1960s. The Democratic party left me.
Then I started studying the Constitution and the history behind it. I found out that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are true to the Constitution. I really don't like either of the major parties. They are both run by power hungry selfish people. I just find that the Democrats are far worse at the present time.
The Federal government does not live within the bounds of the Constitution. All federal law is supposed to derive from authority granted in the Constitution. It no longer does. When the government does not live within the bounds that constituted the government, then the government cannot expect the citizens to live within the laws that are created outside the rights authorized to the government. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are setting the country up for a big fall. Mark my words, unless things change, we are headed for chaos and anarchy.
When Kerry is challenged to sign his 180 so that the world can see his entire military record we get nothing. When he is confronted with his voting record we get "that was then this is now" crap.
I used to be a Democrat. Then the party was taken over by left wing jerks like you guys with all the red squares. Full of stupid, illogical, rhetoric and anger left over from the 1960s. The Democratic party left me.
Then I started studying the Constitution and the history behind it. I found out that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are true to the Constitution. I really don't like either of the major parties. They are both run by power hungry selfish people. I just find that the Democrats are far worse at the present time.
The Federal government does not live within the bounds of the Constitution. All federal law is supposed to derive from authority granted in the Constitution. It no longer does. When the government does not live within the bounds that constituted the government, then the government cannot expect the citizens to live within the laws that are created outside the rights authorized to the government. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are setting the country up for a big fall. Mark my words, unless things change, we are headed for chaos and anarchy.
Aimhigh2000
New Member
Parties
It is all smoke and mirrors. A friend of mine is libreratarian (or however ya spell it). It is interesting. What I find amazing is there were three debates, and only two candidates. I see on the ballot there are what? About 6? Why didn't the rest get to voice in? I would have enjoyed that. I don't consider them true presidential debates if they don't include everyone.
It is all smoke and mirrors. A friend of mine is libreratarian (or however ya spell it). It is interesting. What I find amazing is there were three debates, and only two candidates. I see on the ballot there are what? About 6? Why didn't the rest get to voice in? I would have enjoyed that. I don't consider them true presidential debates if they don't include everyone.
UrbanPancake
Right=Wrong/Left=Right
The constitution was written over 200 years ago. Things have changed in the last century, and the constitution should reflect social change. In the next 200 years there will even more social change, and I'm sure the constitution wont look anything like it looks today. Times change, and technology changes....that said the country needs to change also, if we don't change then we will fall behind the rest of the world, and we will become the third world. They didn't have health insurance 200 years ago, now we do. The constitution should reflect the right to have affordable healthcare for everyone. Why don't you join the constitution party?
ylexot
Super Genius
2ndAmendment said:
2A for Prez!BTW - Here's my favorite Constitution resource...the Founders' Constitution. It's not just the Constitution, but also much of the background material to it including the letters between the founders regarding various parts of it.
ylexot
Super Genius
...but people don't. The founders used their knowledge of history to write the Constitution because they also knew the saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.UrbanPancake said:
I will agree that technological changes present good reasons to make modifications to the Constitution. For example, the Founders were opposed to having a standing army. However, the advancements in weapons, aircraft, ships, etc. make it necessary to have a standing army. But there are also controls and limitation imposed on the military designed to prevent us from becoming a military state (which is what the Founders feared).
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Aimhigh2000 said:
They have to have SOME threshold of popular support before they warrant equal air time.
The Commission on Presidential debates establishes three criterion for inclusion. They are:
"Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on September 24, 2003, those candidates qualify for debate participation who (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results."
People like Ralph Nader, Eugene Debs, John Anderson, Pat Paulsen or Harold Stassen need not apply. They're not there to win.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
ylexot said:
BTW - Here's my favorite Constitution resource...the Founders' Constitution. It's not just the Constitution, but also much of the background material to it including the letters between the founders regarding various parts of it.
Love it! Wish I could give you more karma! I was expecting just excerpts from the Federalist Papers. It has a lot more than that.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
ylexot said:
No kidding. They knew that history was rife with military coups - a standing army presented a possible threat to the Republic. On the other hand, the War of 1812 made it abundantly clear that relying on militia was never going to be effective at fighting wars.
I hate recognizing your post; most of what you say is just drivel. But...UrbanPancake said:
Here is what I suggest; if you want the Constitution changed, write to your representatives and ask them to propose an amendment to the Constitution. That is the way it is designed to be changed. Its meaning is not to be changed by changing times or differing definitions of the words, by popular belief, or by any judge from the bench. Its meaning is to be derived from the meaning of the vocabulary at the time of the writing of the Constitution and each of the amendments. The method for changing is amending and the founders, in their wisdom, provided the method in the Constitution. You can even write an amendment yourself and circulate it as a petition to each of the states for them to petition for an amendment. Have at it. If you don't want to invest the time and effort, quit complaining.
