Support NeoGAF

[capslock]

 

[3phemeral]

So true so true... sad that it's reality, though. Damn spinners.

 

[Overseer]

Yes, true. Sadly though.

 

[BigGreenMat]

Well did you guys hear that Bush in his stump speeches is now lambasting Kerry for calling terrorism a nuissance? Seems some republican caught on to some of those joke posts here on GA and decided to spin them and hand them to Bush to repeat.Simply amazing.

 

[Overseer]

GAF........ I am here..........

 

[Outdoor Miner]

I really want to laugh, but it's too depressing.

This comic nailed it.

 

[Jim Bowie]

I laughed really hard when they added the little 'snarl' next to Cheney. And when Ann Coultier (sp?) said Taxachusettes. :lol

 

[Dan]

I hate the television news media.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Context? We don't need no stinking context!!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Well did you guys hear that Bush in his stump speeches is now lambasting Kerry for calling terrorism a nuissance? Seems some republican caught on to some of those joke posts here on GA and decided to spin them and hand them to Bush to repeat.Simply amazing.

The bashing started before the joke post in this instance.

 

[Xellos]

I really want to laugh, but it's too depressing.

This comic nailed it.

I feel the same way. It's too bad this kind of thing is (probably) going to win Bush another 4 years in the white house.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Haha, it's so true. Oh wait, no it's not.

 

[BILL CLINTON]

John Kerry was dumb to use nuissance, not because he said it WAS a nuissance, but because he said that we should get it back to the point where it WAS a nuissance.. when was that?

he didnt describe that time or situation at all... was terrorism a "nuissance" when I was in office? There were alot of terrorist attacks then, and if that was just a nuissance, that is offensive to alot of dead people.. maybe he meant a long long time ago? i dunno.

but thats what happens in a close election, context goes out the window for both candidates.. bush is smart to not say anything outside of 5 or 6 lines, "hard work" is hard to take out of context... there is none.

 

[xsarien]

Haha, it's so true. Oh wait, no it's not.

Yes it is, see also: The whole "sensitive" debacle.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Haha, it's so true. Oh wait, no it's not.

Well, you've certainly convinced me.

 

[Father_Brain]

Haha, it's so true. Oh wait, no it's not.

At least provide some form of evidence to back up that assertion.

 

[explodet]

It's spelled nuisance, damn it.

 

[Kobun Heat]

At least provide some form of evidence to back up that assertion.

No, actually the burden of proof is on those who agree to show some form of evidence that this kind of wild misquoting actually happens. Not examples where Kerry said something and people talked about it, I mean when something is taken that far out of context.

"Nuisance," which seemingly spawned this comic, certainly wasn't. "Sensitive"--you can certainly debate whether or not the war on terror should be more sensitively fought, but I looked at the context and it seems pretty black and white.

 

[KingGondo]

"Nuisance," which seemingly spawned this comic, certainly wasn't. "Sensitive"--you can certainly debate whether or not the war on terror should be more sensitively fought, but I looked at the context and it seems pretty black and white.

Bullshit. Kerry never said terrorism IS a nuisance: he said he wants to get to the point where it will BECOME a nuisance--not a national obsession like today.

This resulted in RNC claims that Kerry was equating prostitution and terrorism, and the quote couldn't be farther from the truth.

Also, remember that Bush also said we need to be "sensitive" in the war on terror, AFTER Kerry said it to the same body.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

No, actually the burden of proof is on those who agree to show some form of evidence that this kind of wild misquoting actually happens. Not examples where Kerry said something and people talked about it, I mean when something is taken that far out of context.

"Nuisance," which seemingly spawned this comic, certainly wasn't. "Sensitive"--you can certainly debate whether or not the war on terror should be more sensitively fought, but I looked at the context and it seems pretty black and white.

There is no burden of proof on anyone. You're kidding yourself if you think anyone here is going to go out of their way to provide you "proof" that this is the kind of thing that happens everyday. I can't speak for everyone, so maybe I should just say that I will not go to seek some proof.

You only need to have been following the news for this election, during the primaries of said election, back in the 2000 election, etc. The list just goes on and on. There are wayyy to many situations like that of this strip having occured.

If you don't know about any, well, no comment.

 

[Nerevar]

There is no burden of proof on anyone. You're kidding yourself if you think anyone here is going to go out of their way to provide you "proof" that this is the kind of thing that happens everyday. I can't speak for everyone, so maybe I should just say that I will not go to seek some proof.

You only need to have been following the news for this election, during the primaries of said election, back in the 2000 election, etc. The list just goes on and on. There are wayyy to many situations like that of this strip having occured.

If you don't know about any, well, no comment.

it's called willful ignorance Sal.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Bullshit. Kerry never said terrorism IS a nuisance: he said he wants to get to the point where it will BECOME a nuisance

No, actually what he said was: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Problem: we were NEVER at that place. Terrorism was not, is not, and will never be a nuisance. 9/11 was the result of sitting around believing that terrorists were merely a nuisance. They were and are serious threats.

 

[Socreges]

No, actually what he said was: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

Problem: we were NEVER at that place. Terrorism was not, is not, and will never be a nuisance. 9/11 was the result of sitting around believing that terrorists were merely a nuisance. They were and are serious threats.

I think people can criticize Kerry for expressing himself poorly in this instance. People can also criticize Kerry for underestimating the douchebag masses' capability to blindly spin what he's said.

Mr Kerry, it's not so much that people don't understand exactly what you're saying, but that Republicans will look for the worst in what you're saying and use it against you. Keep that in mind.

Yours in hope for a better tomorrow,
Socreges

 

[FoneBone]

No, actually the burden of proof is on those who agree to show some form of evidence that this kind of wild misquoting actually happens. Not examples where Kerry said something and people talked about it, I mean when something is taken that far out of context.

The saddest thing is that he's really not a joke character.
http://forums.gaming-age.com/showpost.php?p=191849

[Ann Coulter is] a fantastic researcher, which any non-crazy person who reads her books has to admit.

 

[Incognito]

here's a good illustration of the "sensitive" remark:

http://dailyhowler.com/dh081404.shtml

SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 2004

THEY’RE JUST TOO AFRAID TO ASK: No, it wasn’t hard to explain the clownistry of Cheney’s remarks. There was the VP, out on the trail, pretending that John Kerry had said he’d be “sensitive” to our terrorist enemies. Plainly, that wasn’t what Kerry had said; if you’re able to read, you can see that (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/13/04). But all around the national “press corps,” trembling reporters were too afraid to confront Cheney’s silly clowning. Can you say “enablers,” boys and girls? They simply refused to tell the public things that are as plain as day. Cheney was playing the voters for fools. And your “reporters” all knew not to notice.

How easy was it to lay out the truth? On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, Jim Axelrod almost dared do it. He played a few of Cheney’s comments, then flirted with telling the truth:

AXELROD (8/12/04): Cheney was referring to a comment Kerry made last week. Kerry said international coalitions were necessary to fight terror, and that he could build them.

KERRY (videotape) I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.

AXELROD: Not only did the vice president seize on the word “sensitive,” implying Kerry meant he’d be sensitive to terrorists—

CHENEY (videotape): A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.

AXELROD: So did his wife.

LYNNE CHENEY (videotape): I can't imagine that al-Qaida is going to be impressed by sensitivity.

Axelrod flirted with stating the obvious—both the Cheneys, Dick and Lynne, were baldly misstating what Kerry had said. But even The Ax was too afraid to pursue the real news in this stupid story. Continuing directly, he ended with the weak “rebuttals” that came from the Kerry campaign:

KERRY (videotape): Oh, it's sad that they can only be negative. They have nothing to say about the future vision of America.

AXELROD: While the candidate stayed on message today, staffers said Mr. Cheney distorted Kerry's words. Then they pointed to the president at the same conference, using the S-word.

BUSH (videotape): Now in terms of, you know, the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is a—we need to be very sensitive on that.

AXELROD: A few retired generals came out today for Senator Kerry, saying he volunteered for military service when the vice president was working hard to avoid it. Eighty-two days till the election, and the brass knuckles are out in a fight over sensitivity. Jim Axelrod, CBS News, Los Angeles.

Axelrod flirted with telling the truth. But why can’t newsmen—newsmen like Axelrod—follow stories where stories lead? In the wake of Cheney’s ludicrous spinning, why do they only ask Kerry to comment? Why aren’t they asking questions of Cheney? Why didn’t Axelrod end his report with a statement like this:

WHAT AXELROD SHOULD HAVE SAID: We asked both Cheneys if, after reading Kerry’s text, they thought the senator had really advised sensitivity toward terrorists. Neither camp supplied an answer. Jim Axelrod, CBS News, Los Angeles.

Why didn’t Axelrod ask those questions? The answer to that is very clear—asking such questions would be quite scary. Why weren’t questions directed at Cheney? You know why. The answer is fear.

GIVING BAD MESSAGE: Yes, it’s always tricky for a campaign to respond to bogus attacks of this type. But in part, Kerry gets ridiculous coverage because his campaign gives such empty rebuttals. In this instance, they said Cheney took Kerry’s remarks “out of context,” and they attacked the VP for being “negative.” But those remarks are exceptionally vague; specifically, what was wrong with what Cheney said? The Kerry campaign made no effort to say, leaving timid “reporters” to fend for themselves in framing a helpful response.

Last night, Chris Matthews actually seemed to care about Cheney’s clowning, unlike the Kerry campaign itself. Here was part of Matthews’ reaction on Hardball:

MATTHEWS (8/13/04): OK, let's get something straight. Dick Cheney is probably the man most responsible for the fact we've had troops in Saudi Arabia for ten years. That's what drove the terrorists to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They were angry that their own holy lands were besmirched—basically, dumped on by the United States for 10 years.

That “sensitivity” might have saved us a horror, knowing how angry those people would be about us putting our troops, 10,000 troops in the holy land near Mecca and Medina. Why is it stupid to be “sensitive” to those kinds of insults to a country?

No, that isn’t the response a campaign would make. (Beyond that, Matthews’ correspondent, David Schuster, didn’t seem to understand that Kerry had advocated “sensitivity” toward allies, not toward enemy terrorists.) But Matthews did something the Kerry camp never does—he acted as if he actually cares about the Bush/Cheney clowning. With that in mind, what would have been wrong with the campaign saying something like this:

POSSIBLE CAMPAIGN STATEMENT: There they go again! John Kerry believes we should be aggressive toward our enemies, and diplomatic toward our friends. John Kerry didn’t say we should be sensitive to terrorists, and Dick Cheney plainly know it. Why can’t we have a real discussion—not a discussion where the Vice President tries to mislead the American people? Why can’t we have a real discussion about these dangerous times?

Why can’t the Kerry campaign show that it cares? And by the way: If it doesn’t care about its own interests, why can’t it stand up, just one time, and pretend that it actually cares about the interests of American voters?

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN: Slowly, haltingly, even Dan Balz begins to suggest that Bush has been faking. In this morning’s Post, the slumbering “newsman” finally notes the obvious:

BALZ: At the beginning of the week, Kerry said that, even if he had known then what is known now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But he qualified that by criticizing Bush for going to war without more international support and for rushing to war without a plan to win the peace. “I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has,” he said. Bush chose to ignore that qualifier.

Duh! Days after this silly flap arose, Balz makes the most obvious statement on the face of the earth. It gets to Post readers four days late, in paragraph 9 of this story. But Balz can do nothing with the Kerry campaign’s weak rejoinder to Cheney’s comments. Here’s the best that Balz could do, given the vagueness of their “rebuttals:”

BALZ: Cheney seized on a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism. "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history," he said.

Cheney fired back that sensitivity never won a war. "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," he said. "A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more."

Kerry allies accuse the vice president of taking the comment out of context. Bush allies say it is Kerry who has sown confusion with his own words.

At least Balz quotes Kerry’s original comments—something he should have done when this flap arose. But note: Balz quotes the Kerry camp’s rejoinder—but the rejoinder is hopelessly vague. How much better would it have been if Balz could have written this:

ALTERNATE BALZ PASSAGE: Kerry allies accuse the vice president of taking the comment out of context. “John Kerry didn’t say we should be sensitive to terrorists,” an aide said, “and Dick Cheney plainly knows it.”

That’s what might have appeared in the Post if the Kerry campaign would stand up and fight. But the candidate left his fight back in Nam, and his advisers—hapless, inept—never seem to give a goldarn when their foes make a joke of our discourse.

Can we make a suggestion to the campaign? Plainly, you don’t give a flying fig when Kerry gets lied about by rivals. Given that odd indifference to Kerry’s interests, is there any way you could pretend to care about the interests of voters? Could you stand up, just one time, and fight for the interests of those misused Americans? Fight to keep them well-informed?

Cheney was lying to voters this week. But you—the Kerry camp—didn’t care.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

"Sensitive"--you can certainly debate whether or not the war on terror should be more sensitively fought, but I looked at the context and it seems pretty black and white.

The plan has three basic parts. The first part focuses on security.

I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States.

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists, wherever they may be, before they get us.

He's using sensitivity to say we shouldn't piss of those who aren't our enemies. Same as Cheney.

HUGH HEWITT (8/12/04): Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?

CHENEY: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity.

Cheney, however, liked to pretend John Kerry was talking about being sensitive to the enemy.

CHENEY (8/14/04): President Abraham Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive wars. President Roosevelt and Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur did not wage a sensitive war. A “sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans on the morning of 9/11, and who now seek chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity. (Applause.)

As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and the murderers we face, but it is somehow our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of right and justice in this battle. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)

EDIT: Ahahaha. Looks like I wasn't the only one who jumped to The Daily Howler for quotes.

 

[Socreges]

See, when Cheney and co. twist Kerry's words to make him look bad, they know that it can make a difference with voters who are undecided and easily swayed, despite the fact that many will listen to him and roll their eyes. In reality, the Bush camp knows exactly what Kerry meant and they don't care. There is an advantage to be had, so they leap on it.

Now, when Kobun, Makura, efralope, Tritroid, etc are spewing the same bullshit, I can't help but think of them in the worst light. Who the fuck are you guys trying to fool? Yourselves?

 

[Kobun Heat]

You might look at that quote and read a different interpretation into "more sensitive", but that doesn't make mine "out of context." As a matter of fact, there's very little context for the remark to be taken out of. He didn't bother to describe what he means by "more sensitive."

Did he mean "try not to tick off our allies" or did he mean "try to appease terrorists into not terrorizing?" Given the senator's record, assuming he means the latter isn't much of a stretch.

EDIT: Ann Coulter is hot.

 

[Chrono]

EDIT: Ann Coulter is hot.

.....

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

He was using adjectives to describe how he would reach out to other nations. That's the context, plain as day. Only someone looking for spin would see it any other way or say "Oh that Kerry, you know what he's like, he might have meant something else..."

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Did he mean "try not to tick off our allies" or did he mean "try to appease terrorists into not terrorizing?"

We could just look at the other words used in the same minute. "get the terrorists, wherever they may be, before they get us" seems pretty clear.

 

[firex]

What, you expect people who are going to vote for what has been bar-none one of the worst administrations in the past 30 or so years to actually think critically and reasonably?

(now I am going to get painted as a liberal even though I voted for bush and registered republican)