NationStates Jolt Archive

I just took a look at the site ole Dickie Boy mentioned in the debate, http://factcheck.org/ . I know he used .com rather than .org but either way he loses.

If people go to .com they'll find a shill for job training links.

If they figure out it's .org look at what he directed them to;

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan
10.04.2004
Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.
Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate
10.01.2004

Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
09.30.2004
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

The "Willie Horton" Ad Of 2004?
09.28.2004
Republican group's ad shows Osama, Kerry. It appeals to fear, and twists Kerry's record on defense, intelligence, Iraq.

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
09.27.2004
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

GOP Website Uses Misleading Kerry Quote On Abortion
09.24.2004

If you see more red than blue on this page then you owe Winky Dick a thank you for pointing out the Bush campaigns lies.

Feel free to thank him here vice.president@whitehouse.gov

I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned it... :D

I believe he mentioned factcheck in reference to Edwards assertion of the $200 billion price tag. Even after bringing that up, Edward still insisted in "distorting" the truth.
Like I said before, Edwards is a trial lawyer. Truth doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is what he can make the jury (audience) believe is the truth.

Yes, Edwards distorted the truth...but not nearly as much as Cheney did...and there's taped evidence to prove it!

I believe he mentioned factcheck in reference to Edwards assertion of the $200 billion price tag. Even after bringing that up, Edward still insisted in "distorting" the truth.
Like I said before, Edwards is a trial lawyer. Truth doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is what he can make the jury (audience) believe is the truth.

Out of complete ignorance, what is a "trial lawyer", and how do they differ from regular lawyers?

Out of complete ignorance, what is a "trial lawyer", and how do they differ from regular lawyers?
Trial lawyers specialize in jury trials.
Civil rights lawyers specialize in civil rights cases.
Contract Lawyers specialize in negotiating and writing contracts.
Divorce lawyers specialize in handling divorce settlements.

Not all lawyers go to trial.

Trial lawyers specialize in jury trials.
Civil rights lawyers specialize in civil rights cases.
Contract Lawyers specialize in negotiating and writing contracts.
Divorce lawyers specialize in handling divorce settlements.

Not all lawyers go to trial.

So, lawsuits?

Trial lawyers specialize in jury trials.
Civil rights lawyers specialize in civil rights cases.
Contract Lawyers specialize in negotiating and writing contracts.
Divorce lawyers specialize in handling divorce settlements.

Not all lawyers go to trial.

That's interesting. Brown v. Board of Education was headed by Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights lawyer. As I recall, McCullough v. Maryland was headed by the embryonic form of a contract lawyer. Divorces routinely go to Divorce Court, which anyone who has been divorced would call a trial, especially when child custody is at issue.

Trial lawyer in this instance is what I'm simply assuming is an ad hominem attack/stereotype. Are some "trial lawyers" sleazy? Of course. Does that mean John Edwards is automatically sleazy because, for instance, he once forced a massive verdict in favor of a family whose little daughter had most of her intestinal tract ripped out of her anus when she got sucked into the swimming pool pump? I'm inclined to say no.

Lawsuits - yes - but primarily lawsuits that will end up in a trial by jury as the final decision-making body (as opposed to a judge or a regulatory body). Hence the term 'trial' attorney. It doesn't really matter what the issue is (criminal or civil), the key is how good you are with a jury.

That's interesting. Brown v. Board of Education was headed by Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights lawyer. As I recall, McCullough v. Maryland was headed by the embryonic form of a contract lawyer. Divorces routinely go to Divorce Court, which anyone who has been divorced would call a trial, especially when child custody is at issue.

Trial lawyer in this instance is what I'm simply assuming is an ad hominem attack/stereotype. Are some "trial lawyers" sleazy? Of course. Does that mean John Edwards is automatically sleazy because, for instance, he once forced a massive verdict in favor of a family whose little daughter had most of her intestinal tract ripped out of her anus when she got sucked into the swimming pool pump? I'm inclined to say no.
I said specialize, not exclusively.
And yes, Im saying that John Edwards has been sleazy in the court room.

I believe he mentioned factcheck in reference to Edwards assertion of the $200 billion price tag. Even after bringing that up, Edward still insisted in "distorting" the truth.
Like I said before, Edwards is a trial lawyer. Truth doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is what he can make the jury (audience) believe is the truth.
Do you have any specific claims of dishonesty against Edwards' actions as a lawyer or are you just spouting Republican spin points in general? And are you also vilifying Mel Martinez, the Republican Senatorial candidate from Florida, who is also a trial lawyer (with a decidedly more shady past than Edwards has, I might add)?

I said specialize, not exclusively.
And yes, Im saying that John Edwards has been sleazy in the court room.

Read a great quote from one of Edward's former opponents in the courtroom regarding his trial tactics. When asked by a reporter if Edwards was a backstabber, he replied, "The only time John Edwards ever put a knife in my back was when he put the knife so deep through my chest it came out the other side."

Here's a question...that E-mail you provided in the post, is that really the Vice PResident's E-mail address? becuase I just E-mailed it.

*Waits patiently for a Reply and the FBi* Hey, that rhymed.

Do you have any specific claims of dishonesty against Edwards' actions as a lawyer or are you just spouting Republican spin points in general? And are you also vilifying Mel Martinez, the Republican Senatorial candidate from Florida, who is also a trial lawyer (with a decidedly more shady past than Edwards has, I might add)?
I haven't researched Mel Martinez as it doesn't have anywhere near the affect on my and my future as Edwards does.

How is his assertion of the $200 billion, 2 times, even after being corrected a republican spin point? Can you answer that? Or are you in a spin yourself?

I just took a look at the site ole Dickie Boy mentioned in the debate, http://factcheck.org/ . I know he used .com rather than .org but either way he loses.

If people go to .com they'll find a shill for job training links.

If they figure out it's .org look at what he directed them to;

Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan
10.04.2004
Bush claims Kerry's plan puts "bureaucrats in control" of medical decisons, "not you, not your doctor." But experts don't agree with that.
Distortions and Misstatements At First Presidential Debate
10.01.2004

Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
09.30.2004
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

The "Willie Horton" Ad Of 2004?
09.28.2004
Republican group's ad shows Osama, Kerry. It appeals to fear, and twists Kerry's record on defense, intelligence, Iraq.

Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
09.27.2004
Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

GOP Website Uses Misleading Kerry Quote On Abortion
09.24.2004

If you see more red than blue on this page then you owe Winky Dick a thank you for pointing out the Bush campaigns lies.

Feel free to thank him here vice.president@whitehouse.gov

Those are just the latest additions to factcheck.org ...if you scroll through all of the clarifications posted on the site you'll notice that it is fairly even. Not all of your red-highlighted facts deal with the Bush campaign statements anyway. Kerrywrongforcatholics.com may be funded by the GOP, but there is no evidence that the Bush campaign is, in any way, responsible for it.

I haven't researched Mel Martinez as it doesn't have anywhere near the affect on my and my future as Edwards does.

How is his assertion of the $200 billion, 2 times, even after being corrected a republican spin point? Can you answer that? Or are you in a spin yourself?
Hey--the $200 million number is wrong--for now. We'll be beyond that number by the time the next budget comes out, but you're right--it's an incorrect figure at the moment. But you accused Edwards of being sleazy in the courtroom. You got anything for that?

I think we owe Chaney a kick in the balls.

I believe he mentioned factcheck in reference to Edwards assertion of the $200 billion price tag. Even after bringing that up, Edward still insisted in "distorting" the truth.
Like I said before, Edwards is a trial lawyer. Truth doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is what he can make the jury (audience) believe is the truth.
As opposed to Cheney's ridiculous assertions, misstatements and outright falsehoods?

Here's a question...that E-mail you provided in the post, is that really the Vice PResident's E-mail address? becuase I just E-mailed it.

*Waits patiently for a Reply and the FBi* Hey, that rhymed.
Yes that is the email address for the VP. I am serious. It will have to piss off someone in his office!

Those are just the latest additions to factcheck.org ...if you scroll through all of the clarifications posted on the site you'll notice that it is fairly even. Not all of your red-highlighted facts deal with the Bush campaign statements anyway. Kerrywrongforcatholics.com may be funded by the GOP, but there is no evidence that the Bush campaign is, in any way, responsible for it.
LOL! I stand corrected on a fine split red hair of a semantical point. Just like the Karl Rovesque Fast Boat ads. Uh-huh.

LOL! I stand corrected on a fine split red hair of a semantical point.

I think it's a big issue. People try to attribute the Swift-vet ads to the Bush-Cheney campaign...others try to link the Dan Rather fiasco to the Kerry campaign...

We have to be careful who we blame for what.

I think it's a big issue. People try to attribute the Swift-vet ads to the Bush-Cheney campaign...others try to link the Dan Rather fiasco to the Kerry campaign...

We have to be careful who we blame for what.
Ahem! You aren't serious are you?

Ahem! You aren't serious are you?

This particular instance isn't that big of a deal...but I think that the false attribution of quotations to the presidential candidates in general is a big deal...It's easy to fall on that slippery slope.

I believe he mentioned factcheck in reference to Edwards assertion of the $200 billion price tag. Even after bringing that up, Edward still insisted in "distorting" the truth.
Like I said before, Edwards is a trial lawyer. Truth doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is what he can make the jury (audience) believe is the truth.

Well before you scoff off on the trail lawyer crap, you might want to check how many of them are in congress.

The 200 Billion price tag? Sure it's only 120 billion now. He included the current planned expenses for next year. Still it is also money for Afghanistan so there is a fib there as well.

Is it really a bold faced lie? Ehhhhhhhhayyaahmmmmm not really well yes and no.

We are no leaving anytime soon so that money is pretty well spent.

But that is really not the important fact that was pointed out.

Gulf war 1 costed us 5 billion dollars. This war is $120 billion and counting!

Finally, truth and politics?

Can you really say a politician is more truthful then a lawyer?

I think it's a big issue. People try to attribute the Swift-vet ads to the Bush-Cheney campaign...others try to link the Dan Rather fiasco to the Kerry campaign...

We have to be careful who we blame for what.

Well it's not damning evidence but it still should raise an eyebrow.

A large amount of their donations comes from the man money man for the shrub.

Having seen anything interesting to suggest Rather is linked to Kerry.

This particular instance isn't that big of a deal...but I think that the false attribution of quotations to the presidential candidates in general is a big deal...It's easy to fall on that slippery slope.
You should take a fresh look at the history of American politics and campaigns in particular. Dirty tricks and arms length disinformation are part of the process. It is a very, very rare instance that operatives who run these ads, rumors, innuendos, attacks, heavy mud slinging, etc. are not in some way connected to the candidate. The figure of speech employed in this is called metonymy. That is where one noun is substituted for all that it represents. Bush for the Bush Administration's staff and lackeys or campaign staff and lackeys.

As for the Rather thing. I suspect it came from the same source as the WMD evidence Bush used to justify attacking Iraq immediately rather than building up the pressure on him. But you don't believe Karl Rove is capable of such things, right?

You should take a fresh look at the history of American politics and campaigns in particular. Dirty tricks and arms length disinformation are part of the process. It is a very, very rare instance that operatives who run these ads, rumors, innuendos, attacks, heavy mud slinging, etc. are not in some way connected to the candidate. The figure of speech employed in this is called metonymy. That is where one noun is substituted for all that it represents. Bush for the Bush Administration's staff and lackeys or campaign staff and lackeys.

As for the Rather thing. I suspect it came from the same source as the WMD evidence Bush used to justify attacking Iraq immediately rather than building up the pressure on him. But you don't believe Karl Rove is capable of such things, right?

Slap is right on this one. For all the claims of dirty politicing, this election is rather tame compared to past antics. I think Grover Cleveland was accused of fathering an illigitmate black child. :eek: Which was false.....

Wasn't Rove indicating WMD stunt?

I think we owe Chaney a kick in the balls.
Maybe we could settle for him going and f*cking himself, as he fancies the idea for others .... or,
he could be leased out as a $1 whore and just let his Halliburton comerades penetrate him about 194 million times. Lube optional, but maybe not since that's not far from their job priority - anyway they'd probably write the whole thing off under one of the ubiquitous tax cut specials this accursed administration's so fond of.

Well, if the Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/) had his way, the discourse level would have really gotten bad. I'm not going to quote it here--even the new relaxed rules on f-bombs have their limits I imagine. :D

But by all means, click on the link.

Well, if the Rude Pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/) had his way, the discourse level would have really gotten bad. I'm not going to quote it here--even the new relaxed rules on f-bombs have their limits I imagine. :D

But by all means, click on the link.
LMFAO! Thanks for the article.

Oh man that was funny.

I have to save that link now! thanks!