Author Topic: Seems Kerry is taking the Lyndon Johnson route (Read 265 times)

Ripsnort · « **on:** September 27, 2004, 08:55:35 AM »

....fear. (Edit, the title is supposed to say "Kennedy", Freudian slip since they're both liberals)

Kennedy says Bush makes U.S. more vulnerable to nuclear attack
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, 9/26/2004 22:46

WASHINGTON (AP) The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Sunday.

Flash back to 1964:

The television screen fills with the image of a little girl picking off and counting the petals of a daisy. In the background another voice counts down . "Ten. . . nine . . . eight. . ." As the camera moves in closer and closer on the girl’s face, an atomic bomb explodes and we see a reflection of a mushroom cloud in the child’s eyes. We hear Lyndon Johnson’s somber voice declaring, “These are the stakes. To have a world in which all of God’s children can live or go into the darkness. We must either love each other or die. Vote for Lyndon Johnson. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2004, 08:57:21 AM »

Both sides are using fear in their campaign, Captain Obvious saves the day again!
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:00:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Both sides are using fear in their campaign, Captain Obvious saves the day again!
-SW

Nuclear fear?

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #3 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:03:41 AM »

You said fear.

If you want to be precise about the type of fear, state it. Don't use a broad term then narrow it down when it's pointed out that both sides are doing it.

One side uses fear of a nuclear device by terrorists, the other simply says terrorist attacks will happen more often if the opposition is elected.

The former is precise, the latter could range from human meat bombs to nuclear car bombs.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:06:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You said fear.

If you want to be precise about the type of fear, state it. Don't use a broad term then narrow it down when it's pointed out that both sides are doing it.

One side uses fear of a nuclear device by terrorists, the other simply says terrorist attacks will happen more often if the opposition is elected.

The former is precise, the latter could range from human meat bombs to nuclear car bombs.
-SW

Sorry, you'll never be a Captain Obvious!

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #5 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:11:26 AM »

You added in the following after I responded:

"(Edit, the title is supposed to say "Kennedy", Freudian slip since they're both liberals) "

"Flash back to 1964:

The television screen fills with the image of a little girl picking off and counting the petals of a daisy. In the background another voice counts down . "Ten. . . nine . . . eight. . ." As the camera moves in closer and closer on the girl’s face, an atomic bomb explodes and we see a reflection of a mushroom cloud in the child’s eyes. We hear Lyndon Johnson’s somber voice declaring, “These are the stakes. To have a world in which all of God’s children can live or go into the darkness. We must either love each other or die. Vote for Lyndon Johnson. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.”"

Fear was all you said, the part that's obvious is that both campaigns are using fear. You then back pedal and try to make it look like you meant just nuclear threats.

That last post, wow, you just hurt me on that.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #6 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:16:59 AM »

I added the Lyndon text for those not familiar with the ad, and for those who didn't have a clue of which type of fear I was referring to...

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #7 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:20:35 AM »

Yeah, because I mentioned anything about paranoia. (I see you edited out the black helicopters reference..)

Maybe next time when you mean something specific, you will come right out and state it rather than using a word that has a broad meaning. Then when your point fails to materialise as you wish, because you were never precise in the first place, you won't have to back pedal and state, "No, this is what I really meant but you obviously didn't get it because I was no precise in what I stated."
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #8 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:24:05 AM »

Maybe next time when you think specific, rather than thinking in broad terms. (but I doubt it)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #9 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:32:02 AM »

You weren't being specific, maybe next time you will be.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:46:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You weren't being specific, maybe next time you will be.
-SW

Always the last word...I'm assuming your single...

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2004, 09:49:23 AM »

That's fantastic, you acuse me of going for the last word while you do it yourself.

Man, you just do not fail to prove what a joke you are.
-SW

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2004, 10:26:53 AM »

I could put whatever I want to in those previous quotes, they are as reliable as using news links from drudgereport to strengthen your position.

Not to mention they are all broken right now.
-SW