NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.therant.us/staff/hawkins/the_puppet_running_for_president.htm) is a good article by Dustin Hawkins, on TheRant.us. I know most of you Libs won't read it, and attack its author instead of debating the content, but I will still post it.

There's no single argument I can attack, since they are all based on out-of-context quotes, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies. I could do a point by point argument on it, but the fact that you trumpet this as a good article shows me that any attempts at logical debate would go unheard.

Now, before you dismiss me as a liberal hack I have to add that any articles I have encountered on this style, consisting in primarily juvenile attacks without any substantive support, that come from the leftward direction have been equally dismissed by me.

By the way, any site that lists Brit Hume in a poll as the nation's most trustworthy anchor by a supermajority over 5 other people has got more than a few screws loose. I voted for Rather just to cheese them off. Didn't you know a study found that viewers of FNC tend to be less correctly informed than those who do not watch FNC?

um, who exactly was that article claiming kerry is a puppet of?

This (http://www.therant.us/staff/hawkins/the_puppet_running_for_president.htm) is a good article by Dustin Hawkins, on TheRant.us. I know most of you Libs won't read it, and attack its author instead of debating the content, but I will still post it.
what content is there to debate?

the 20% thats not ludicrous ad hominem attacks or bush praise bordering on fellatio, has been long debunked already.

the only thing there is to do is sit around and question this man's intelligence which is probably sub par

Boy you called it there. Attack the messager not the message.

Decent article..

What a misleading title... here I was thinking I was going to see a clever thread about a marrionette (a la Thunderbirds inspired Team America) instead, there's this serious political stuff. How disappointing. I mean, John Kerry doesn't even have visible strings, and he doesn't look like he's made of wo.... okay, one out of two isn't too bad, I guess.

This (http://www.therant.us/staff/hawkins/the_puppet_running_for_president.htm) is a good article by Dustin Hawkins, on TheRant.us. I know most of you Libs won't read it, and attack its author instead of debating the content, but I will still post it.
How can anybody read past this first paragraph of this article?

With any luck, this will be the last article I have to write about John Kerry, ever. Hopefully, in two weeks he will be resuming his role as an unsuccessful do-nothing liberal Massachusetts Senator with a nutcase for a wife and a face that only a Botox-technician could love - and in Mass., your tenth injection is always free.

This obviously goes beyond politics when you personally attack a persons looks?

Why bother posting this kind of crap?

no, seriously. who or what did the author of that article think kerry was a puppet of?

Boy you called it there. Attack the messager not the message.

Decent article..

No, I attacked the message. I know fuck-all about the messenger, other than the fact that he isn't a very adroit writer.

It's a decent article to you simply because it supports your already existing views, not because of the power of the arguments or the skillfullness of the writing.

Lol. Its funny That one would claim that kerry is to be the greater puppet of the two.

No, I attacked the message. I know fuck-all about the messenger, other than the fact that he isn't a very adroit writer.

It's a decent article to you simply because it supports your already existing views, not because of the power of the arguments or the skillfullness of the writing.

I saw nowhere in your post where you disputed what the writer of the article was saying, other than saying it was lies. However I did see you attacking/insulting people. Try not to wear your political partisanship on your sleeve.

Have you even watched FoxNews? Sure they have their partisan hacks (Hannity, Combs and possibly Oriely(sp)). But Fox show both sides of the story and will air news that the other outlets will bypass.

I for one will be very glad when this election is over.

Jabbaness I think you need to be referred to that thread on voter misconceptions.

Fox does not show both sides of the story. They show both sides of the story as conservatives see it. Not as their actual opponents do.

This (http://www.therant.us/staff/hawkins/the_puppet_running_for_president.htm) is a good article by Dustin Hawkins, on TheRant.us. I know most of you Libs won't read it, and attack its author instead of debating the content, but I will still post it.

When I saw this thread I groaned and assumed that it was another dumb liberal thread attacking Bush for being a puppet of his cabinet. I admit that I was incredibly surprised to see that someone would be foolish enough to accuse [anyone running against Bush] as being [the bigger] "puppet".

Damn near everyone, liberal AND conservative can see and admit that Bush is a puppet. What they don't agree on is whether he is a good puppet or not.

Every politician is a puppet. They all have little boxes of names of groups that want their support, and pull a new name out every day. Can we just get over it, please?

:headbang:

um, who exactly was that article claiming kerry is a puppet of?


Black muslim jewish atheist communist abortion doctors from massachusetts, depending on who you're talking to.

Must be nice. :(

I tried to get my own puppet into the White House, but nobody took Smedley Sockbreath seriously. *sigh*

Jabbaness I think you need to be referred to that thread on voter misconceptions.

Fox does not show both sides of the story. They show both sides of the story as conservatives see it. Not as their actual opponents do.

Jesus, can't you guys just watch CNN like everyone else? When scientific studies show that people know more from watching "The Daily Show" than from watching Fox News, you know you need to start searching for better channels.

With any luck, this will be the last article I have to write about John Kerry, ever. Hopefully, in two weeks he will be resuming his role as an unsuccessful do-nothing liberal Massachusetts Senator with a nutcase for a wife and a face that only a Botox-technician could love - and in Mass., your tenth injection is always free.
I heard he was heading North of the border in two weeks. Something about a moose or was it elk hunting trip.

Black muslim jewish atheist communist abortion doctors from massachusetts, depending on who you're talking to.

Oh, you mean like advocating tolerance of minorities?

Well gee, we all knew that Kerry was the brighter of the two on social and domestic issues. But I've been assuming that those who are voting for Bush are voting based on issues of foreign affairs (with the excpetion of nazis and phony christians).

Every politician is a puppet. They all have little boxes of names of groups that want their support, and pull a new name out every day. Can we just get over it, please?

:headbang:

Politicans are puppets of public opinion. But Bush is actually a puppet of his advisors. Like back in the fuedal days. Anyone remember Aladdin? Cheney is totally like Jaffar.

I saw nowhere in your post where you disputed what the writer of the article was saying, other than saying it was lies. However I did see you attacking/insulting people. Try not to wear your political partisanship on your sleeve.

Have you even watched FoxNews? Sure they have their partisan hacks (Hannity, Combs and possibly Oriely(sp)). But Fox show both sides of the story and will air news that the other outlets will bypass.

I for one will be very glad when this election is over.
I wasn't going to say anything, but the thread discussing the study that shows FOX viewers are uninformed is currently on the first page. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367234) I mean, c'mon....

And as far as the only actual information that isn't just character attacks in that aptly named rant, nope, (http://factcheck.org/article286.html) nope (http://factcheck.org/article224.html), and all out mischaracterization of something discussed here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363622)

So-yeah, not even slightly compelling. Sometimes, when you're in the choir, you are not in the best position to judge the preacher. I'm just sayin'.

Oh, you mean like advocating tolerance of minorities?

Well gee, we all knew that Kerry was the brighter of the two on social and domestic issues. But I've been assuming that those who are voting for Bush are voting based on issues of foreign affairs (with the excpetion of nazis and phony christians).



There is a reason the picture on the cover of "unfit for command" makes kerry "look jewish."

The republican base consists of those who:
Hate poor people
Hate jews
Hate muslims
Hate women
Hate blacks
Hate intellectuals


There really isnt a single bush posture that doesnt pander to one of those groups, either overtly or with a 'clever' wink.

So...what was the puppet thing about?

All it said was that Kerry is liberal. Duh.

Every politician is a puppet. They all have little boxes of names of groups that want their support, and pull a new name out every day. Can we just get over it, please?

:headbang:

if the article had made an argument like that, it would be one thing. but it didn't. it didn't make one at all. and certainly not about puppets.

So...what was the puppet thing about?

All it said was that Kerry is liberal. Duh.

exactly

if the article had made an argument like that, it would be one thing. but it didn't. it didn't make one at all. and certainly not about puppets.

I was just clarifying that for everyone who keeps saying they're puppets... Yes, they are. Get over it. And the article sucks because there are no real puppets in it. If there were, they could be sacrificed to heal mypsyche.

Puppets scarred me as a child. Politics scarred me as an adult. I see no difference...

There is a reason the picture on the cover of "unfit for command" makes kerry "look jewish."

The republican base consists of those who:
Hate poor people
Hate jews
Hate muslims
Hate women
Hate blacks
Hate intellectuals


There really isnt a single bush posture that doesnt pander to one of those groups, either overtly or with a 'clever' wink.

Then there are some Republicans who are just too stupid to see that the "moderate / conservative party" has been hijacked by the "nationalist party"

Ok I read it and it was rather poorly written. Don't expect his first book will do well if he writes this way.

15 insults and 5 talking points.
Claims without arguments.
Facts without resources.
Never explained the puppet claim.
Declared Kerry was a liberal :eek:

The guy sounds like he wishes he could be Ann Coulter or Matt Drudge.

Can I get my time back for reading that article? ;)

I was just clarifying that for everyone who keeps saying they're puppets... Yes, they are. Get over it.

oh, no doubt. as the slogan goes - no matter who you vote for, the orders still come from wall street.

Brent Scowcroft who worked for Bushs father said that Dumbya was wrapped about Ariel Sharons pinky finger while we're on the subject of puppets

Who had to have his pal Cheney at his side before he would testify to the 9/11 commission?

Who has had fewer live news conferences than any other president, because he has to be fed his lines ahead of time in prearranged sessions?

Who is the first president to have his Veep choose the cabinet for him?

Bush is the puppet.

You want the content debated? Fine. I didn't even look at the author. I'll assume that the person is competent and experienced; fully able to rationally debate the merits of policy in the political world.

"October 22, 2004 - With any luck, this will be the last article I have to write about John Kerry, ever. Hopefully, in two weeks he will be resuming his role as an unsuccessful do-nothing liberal Massachusetts Senator with a nutcase for a wife and a face that only a Botox-technician could love - and in Mass., your tenth injection is always free. While a Kerry Presidency could have its potential editorial-writing upside ("I signed the bill before I vetoed it, no wait"), it surely isn't something to otherwise look forward to. Personally, I'll take the guy who will keep the terrorists dead, keep my taxes low, and who actually comes from planet Earth."

So currently Kerry is a a sandal-wearing alien, who raises terrorists from the dead using american taxpayer money...He needs to do this in order to get money so he can fill his botox punchcard for his Saucy, but nutty wife.

"As a result of fully lacking both personality and emotion but having the majestic ability to bore the world to death with statistics, Kerry unanimously won the title of becoming the most "presidential" presidential candidate ever. By these standards, my 9th grade Algebra teacher is the second most presidential person in the world. It does not mean she is ready to fight terrorism."

Now, he's boring. This is quite an achivement given the facts above, but having seen Kerry once or twice, I can assure you that while his necromancy comes as something of a surprise, the fact that Mr. Rogers had a better drama coach is old news.

What IS interesting to note is the author's impression that George Bush is seemingly ready to strip down and mud wrestle each and every last terrorist into submission personally. I'm curious to find out why the author thinks this is important, since a boring man can launch a missile just as well as a active one.

"But, alas, John Kerry is ready to fight terrorism, he tells us almost daily. Despite constantly telling Bush he was wrong for going after and killing terrorists without approval from the Eiffel Tower elites, Kerry insists he will "hunt down and kill the terrorists wherever they are." Of course, he also admits that is foreign policy revolves around threatening force, and even voting for it, but never using it. Don't do it Mr. Terrorist, I will come and get you. Ok buddy, that's bomb number two you are making me angry. You see this army I'm going to call them. Mr. Terrorist, I'm serious this time, I'm going to send in the Marines. Stop it, why are you laughing at me? "

Now we have some French jokes, poorly constructed ones at that, and a surprising lack of good German jokes. This is a pity because so many good German jokes are available to us. Following this is a lovely fictional conversation between a future President Kerry and a one "Mr. Terrorist", who conveniently enough, is a terrorist! In this coversation nothing happens, and we are lead to believe that is the point.

"As for domestic policy, Kerry's foresight is very limited. When asked a question about the future of Social Security and the inevitable collapse of the system as it is currently being run, Kerry said that "if later on after a period of time we find that Social Security is in trouble, we'll pull together the top experts of the country." Find out later on? Currently, estimates expect that the yearly Social Security outputs will be more than the Social Security inputs by 2018. At this point, the Treasury will have to begin repaying the money it borrowed from Social Security, leaving shortfalls elsewhere, and which will be exhausted a few decades later as well. Luckily for Kerry, he would no longer be president when he finds that "Social Security is in trouble."

Now we are told the future is now, and that problems in the future must be attended by creating problems in the system now. With a gigantic debt sitting on the government's back, one wonders how much one CAN do for social security until the deficits and debts are succesfully restructured. Never mind that no acceptable alternative to fixing the problem from the ground up is given, this is an attack editorial.

"Also according to John Kerry in the debates, he never votes to raises taxes. When Bush brought up Kerry's votes in the Senate that either raised taxes or denied tax cuts, he responded by saying that "anybody can play with these votes. Everybody knows that." And in this next sentence, I will prove it, "I have voted or supported tax cuts over 600 times." The only time Kerry will support tax hikes is when it is for the "wealthiest of Americans" who deserve no economic equality under the law, because no matter how much they pay they mysteriously never pay their "fair share." "

Now, we play an old standby. One of my perosonal favorites. Wealthy people suffer greatly when not being shoveled piles of tax-free cash. This curious affliction affects us all, but the rich seem particularly susceptible to the complaint.

"So the top 1% pays on average (after all the loopholes) an average tax rate of 27.5%, the top 5% pays 23.7%, the bottom 50% pays under 5%, and Teresa Heinz-Ketchup-Kerry pays a tax rate of 12.8%. But lets not get into details. Only through the powers of liberalism can a person with a tax bill in excess of $1 million a year not be paying a "fair share" and a person who pays nothing have "too much of a burden."

Now through the powers of this author, we go into details while saying we won't, and we bitch about the basic foundations of society. All of which is fine but since GW has not questioned these basic tenants of taxation policy, I wonder why our author would question Kerry about it.

"In a question about abortion, he said he religiously opposes but politically supports fetus slaughtering based on the premise that politicians should not transfer their "faith in any official way to other people." As he explained it a few sentences later, it is his strong Catholic faith that makes him fight against poverty, to clean up the environment, and to protect this earth. Mysteriously, in order to do any of these things he has to raise taxes, pass laws, and institute other forms of coercive action that would undoubtedly be considered official. Don't look at me, God made me raise your taxes."

Now we are informed, albeit in a round-about way, that abortion is not just pro-choice, or anti-life, but in fact rampant and indiscriminant fetus slaughtering. While I'm not stranger to melodrama, or flights of exaggeration, this seems like a colossal misrepresentation only bested by the one that follows it: "Kerry believes god wants him to raise taxes." The fact that it is implied that Kerry will, "institue other forms of coercive action" in order to achive his unholy dream of a clean earth and comforted, safe populace.

"John Kerry lacks all the tools needed to lead a free country (a gulag on the other hand). He exists only for himself and his political power and gain. His positions are based not on conviction, but political convenience. He's willing to throw a few people under the bus so long as the people riding on the bus will vote for him (probably a bus in Florida, heading to the polls, with the slogan: "Vote Early, Vote Often, Free Cigarettes"). He is wrong on foreign policy, wrong on domestic policy, and wrong on taxes. But then, at least he looks presidential."

Its seems that the author is an expert in how best to manage gulags in America, the author knows what qualities to look for and seemingly, necromancy and flip-floppery are high on the list. Again, we find Kerry killing people by throwing them under a bus, then bringing them back to life for the sole purpose of voting for him.

Kerry, that bastard. How dare he look presidential...but at the same time like a "Out of this World Botox Necromancer" How dare he be both at the same time the most liberal senator (from Massachusetts) ever and flip flop constantly. How does he find the gall to "do-nothing" and yet consitently vote to raise taxes, slaughter children, and throw innocents under buses.

Yes, indeed. This is a well written article. The author is to be commended for insight, integrity, and **snicker** fact-based presentation of good honest evidence.

" The puppet running for president "

Wait, wait, wait on a moment ...

There is only one now ? :p

Most excellent rebuttal Niccolo Medici!! :cool:

Most excellent rebuttal Niccolo Medici!! :cool:

Think Yew. I was worried about going over the top...a little. Good to know it worked.

I almost hope Kerry doesn't get elected so we can put an end to these attacks on people from Massachusetts based solely on John Kerry. I'm getting awfully fucking sick of being maligned just because Kerry is from the same state as I am.

Now we have some French jokes, poorly constructed ones at that, and a surprising lack of good German jokes.

Niclely done. And as for the French and German jokes here's one (that has nothing to do with debate at hand) Why do the French plant so many trees?

So the germans can march in the shade.

I almost hope Kerry doesn't get elected so we can put an end to these attacks on people from Massachusetts based solely on John Kerry. I'm getting awfully fucking sick of being maligned just because Kerry is from the same state as I am.
Well you could always move and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? :D

Well you could always move and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore? :D

Or all the assholes who think John Kerry = Massachusetts could just crawl out of their little boxes and look at the real world.

Or all the assholes who think John Kerry = Massachusetts could just crawl out of their little boxes and look at the real world.

Yeah, like THAT'S ever going to happen...you forget-between dogma, an abusive culture, and having been force fed lies until they believe it, they've got one hell of a big box.

OK, I gritted my teeth and read it. Seems like the usual Kerry bash you'd expect from the site, but I was left wondering about the 'puppet' headline. No real explanation or justification for that label, it seemed like he was just looking for a new insult to throw out that would make a catchy headline. Seems funny really when you consider Dubya couldn't testify in front of the 911 commision without Cheney there to pull his strings and feed him his lines.

Hey, where did this topic go? I can't see it on the list anymore.

As much as I hate to agree with libs, this article lacked substance.

Now we are told the future is now, and that problems in the future must be attended by creating problems in the system now. With a gigantic debt sitting on the government's back, one wonders how much one CAN do for social security until the deficits and debts are succesfully restructured. Never mind that no acceptable alternative to fixing the problem from the ground up is given, this is an attack editorial.


Social Security is not funded by income tax, nor is it a part of the general ledger. It currently is running in a surplus, which is invested in treasury notes. The surplus will disappear in the not so distant future, then the interest will be drawn, followed by the principal. Between 20-40 years from now - depending who you are talking to - the reserve will run out.

So far the best solution has been to cease collecting a surplus and allow only that amount to be invested by the payor (you). Even the most conservative private account would grow faster than the social security benefit. The remaining funds would then be used to pay a lower benefit - which would be offset by the personal account.

In theory this is a good idea, though I have seen first-hand what poor investors most people are. I could only support this idea if the private accounts were handled in a way similar to 529's or, better yet, variable annuities with living benefits. That would protect people from irrational investment decisions and/or gurantee a future income benefit.

The only other option would be to raise social security taxes or a flat benefit cut. Raising the taxes is not realistic because the raise needed would be of gigantic proportion beyond any tax increase ever seen before. Cutting benefits would defeat the purpose of SS.

No president (and especially a candidate for president) wants to take on the problem of social security because all of the fixes require an uncomfortable and unpopular change. To even mention a solution takes incredible political courage for a candidate. This article notes well Kerry's lack of fortitude in this area - but who can blame him?

There HAVE been changes to the systen already, which most people here are affected by but completely clueless about. Though your Grandparents received SS benefits at age 62 and full benefits at age 65, most all of you are not eligible for full benefits until age 70. That's right, SEVENTY. So if you aren't already, fund that 401k or IRA. You'll need it - especially if politicians today are unwilling to face the pain of fixing social security now - because it won't be there for you.

Who let his VP choose his cabinet for him?

Who has had the fewest live unrehearsed unscripted news conferences of any President since the radio was invented?

Who would not talk to the 9/11 comission without Cheney there to tell him what to say?

Bush is a god-damned puppet, and he's going to hell.