In an effort to be non-inflammatory, I was trying to stay away from pointing out some of this kind of stuff…but this one is just too outré to let go by without comment.

Is this taking "politicking" too far?
If not, why not?

Dividers NOT Uniters......... (One More Lie......)

Is this taking "politicking" too far?
If not, why not?

In my opinion this is criminal. What else would you expect from the Republican party? It is the party of deceit, manipulation, and flat out lies.

This is the very reason that I will never vote Republican again. I would never associate myself with such low life human beings.

You might see it differently.

Is this taking "politicking" too far?
If not, why not?

I'd say it takes politics a bit far. It seems that the letter is trying to paint Liberals as atheists that only believe in gay marriage. I think that overall it's just stupid, and that if people who read the letter actually believe in it, and do vote Bush with that being one of their main criterion then I'm moving to Canada or something.

Seriously, I don't know how someone could take that letter seriously. It boggles the mind really. But I suppose no one would've spent time and money in it if they didn't think it would get some votes. Things like this make me lose faith in America and Americans.

Is this taking "politicking" too far?

Let's see...

Does misleading voters into thinking Bush will re-institute the draft take "politicking" too far?

Does calling the President a liar in times of war take politicking too far?

Does saying the President "concocted a war in Texas for political gain" take politicking too far?

The answer is yes to all of these. Making accusations about a person or Party with the flimsiest of evidence is taking politicking too far.

Unfortunately, those are the political times in which we live.

Is this taking "politicking" too far? If not, why not?

Ack. All I can say is "ack". Do members of the Republican party really believe this? This campaign will backfire. What will happen next?

Democrats claim Republicans will ban the Constitution.
Republicans claim Democrats eat their young.
Democrats claim Republicans are pedophiles.

These aren't even politicians but members of the Republican politbureau doing this. Banning the Bible? Eh, maybe that would be a good thing....

Misleading? Talk to Bush's Department of Defense. Not Kerry's fault.





Must I repost the lies? If it smells like a pig and sounds like a pig, then you have to call it a pig.



The difference is the Truth my friend. You mentioned things that can be proven true. The current administration HAS hinted towards the draft. Things that Bush has said have been proven false, hence, he HAS lied. (Sorry, didn't know we had concocted a war in Texas. Who is winning that one?



Fortunately.....you see it differently.

I guess this is just a little medicine for misleading the public saying that if Bush is reelected that there will be a draft again

Edit to add: Government mule, would you like to see the Bill written by a democrat and co-sponsored entirely by democrats about reinstating the draft?

Is this taking politicking too far?

Well if one side can do it, so can the other.

libel: 2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel


It is criminal, and just another example of our wonderful leaders at their best.

Yes. However from what I read about the tactic, the image of the bible with the word 'banned' across it in the letter sent to REPUBLICANS was to rally the REPUBLICAN core into realizing that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the liberal track record have proven to be voting 'against' the bible.



I agree, this isn't the best tactic. If you notice it was sent to areas that are largly Catholic to help swing the vote and persuade the Catholic vote that Kerry and liberals are against the bible.



Yep, so how can it be that politics have gone to far?



This is rude. With 85% of Americans believing in the Bible, banning it would be like banning the yellow pages. The bible is the most read book in America. And then the question is which bible do you ban? NIV, NAB, RIV, KJ, NKJ, etc.? And banning the bible would not be a separation of church and state. And book banning is not very American. Writing a book to replace the other book is.

Um...Okay, if Republicans really do believe this, then as much as I agree with planks of the Republican platform, it can never include me in it. This is such a blatantly fallacious and inflammatory campaign issue, that it does nothing to further the cause of democracy (it hinders it).


Kerry and liberals against the Bible? What does this mean? Where have I been? Apparently, I missed this liberal plank. All the liberal Christians I know apparently are deluding themselves, eh?


Joke, levity... This is such a patently ridiculous campaign issue that I thought a little sarcasm was in order. Of course, banning the Bible is ridiculous. Anyone suggesting that it would be banned is <insert mild ad hominem attack> as well.

This is rude. With 85% of Americans believing in the Bible, banning it would be like banning the yellow pages. The bible is the most read book in America. And then the question is which bible do you ban? NIV, NAB, RIV, KJ, NKJ, etc.? And banning the bible would not be a separation of church and state. And book banning is not very American. Writing a book to replace the other book is.

I seriously doubt that it is the most read book. 85% of us may have one in the house, but that doesn't mean much. The Bible isn't called the "unread best seller" by accident. Most Christians are content to have select portions of it read TO them by their preachers. Everyone wants salvation handed to them, no work or effort required, and reading the Holy Book can be tedious in places.
On the other hand, you do know what happens to books that get banned? They get READ!!!!

When I hear about these kinds of "tactics" I have to wonder if the whole political world is being run by idiots. Or worse yet, people who take the rest of us for idiots.

Unfortunately for the incumbent after four years he has very little positives in which he can base his campaign. It’s ok to attack Kerry’s record and his lack of direction, but this is so far below the belt that I cringed, lost my breath and wondered if I would ever be able to father children after reading.


Here’s the difference: most of your points are debatable. The trash sent out by the GOP is simply disgusting and we can’t even have a debate over what they’re claiming.

Very true. However we must first understand the reasons for believing this. It comes from a movement within the Religious Right, that only a person who believes in God can have the responisiablity to live in a free society. Yes I disagree with this principle as well, but it is what it is.

This means that a person who wants to ban the Bible (or the ideals of the Bible) wants to ban god, which bans responability which bans freedom.



Against, and agin you have to believe the interepation of the bible by some, are against capitol punishment and for choice to abort, gay marriages, ect. These ideals are against some interpreations of the bible.

What is forgotten is that liberals are for helping the poor, raising childern, education, and other such 'social' programs that are ideals held in the bible.



Having the book read to you is the same as reading the book. Or would say that blind people who listen to books on tape have never 'read' a book?

And I agree that everyone looks for the easy way out.

If this was a global war on terror and nations like Iraq must be attacked like Bush clings too then a draft would simply be common sense. The fact that Bush hasnt instituted a draft shows exactly how bad of a misleader he is because the war he claims we are involved in needs exactly that in order to succeed..... a draft.

If Bush was any sort of a leader at all he would buck the public opinions and get the necessary man power to wage this global war he says we are waging. Afghanistan is fragmented and the Taliban is in some protions coming back and Iraq according to expert analysis could be heading towards a civil war. Iran is doing whatever it wants with its nuclear program. We are streteched to capacity and he does nothing. I would say any true believer in Bush should be crying for a draft saying its in the best interest for the survival of the US. I guess using scare tactics without taking real world actions to alleviate those fears is a more desirable reality?

I see liitle wrong with accusing Bush of insituting a draft and I see little wrong with him instituting it if we are really fighting a global war on terror and The lefts claim has validity I know from personal reality.

I am in the reserves I do not have a combat MOS and I am scheduled to go to Iraq late in 2005. My job is not needed I have friends from training in Iraq who have my MOS and they are not doing their job they are patrolling, kicking down doors and getting killed. Why am I being called up? A numbers game and because it is politically detrimental to institute a draft and Bush will do anything to get reelected.

When the left claims that Bush will institute a draft they are using common sense they are assuming real world necessities that Bush's words are leading them to believe. Banning bibles has no validity it isnt the expected conclusion of anything the left is saying. It is completely conjured.

I don't recall the topic being about these questions.

And this has what exactly to do with the question?

Inferring that "liberals" will "ban" the Bible is an untruth. I thought that everyone could agree on that point - but I guess not. Liberals are the last group on earth who would ban a book - ANY book (that includes the Bible, just to clarify). The other side, on the other hand... Some of the responses have been sarcastically referring to other, unrelated items - of which their veracity has, in several cases, proven true.

There is a story about Lyndon Johnson telling his campaign staff to accuse his opponent of having sex with a farm animal. When the staffer was aghast and said that it wasn't true, Johnson replied that of course it wasn't, but get it out there and make his opponent deny it. Maybe this is more of the same. Make the opposition get up there and prove they aren't banning the Bible, absurd as that notion is. It's like the old saw about how often do you beat your wife.

As for backfiring, I doubt that it will. It will strike a chord among evangelicals who think everyone the teeniest bit left of center is an atheistic, rabid sex maniac. I think it will be very effective, especially in the states in which it was used. Invoke religion and evangelicals are very easily led.

Edited to add:

Arkansas and West Virginia are largely Catholic?! Wow, that's a new one on me.

Could I, by some twisted logic, debate whether or not Liberals want to ban the Bible?

I think I could link court cases about public prayer, the banning of "hate speech" in public, gay marriage and the Bible and come to some twisted conclusion that the Bible is hate speech and needs to be banned.

Would it be simply rhetoric? Or "politicking" gone too far? Yes.

No defense has been made (in the public arena) for Ted Kennedy's comments, or the underhanded draft references, nor any attempt to clarify the difference between a lie (a willing untruth) and a mistake (a truthful statement about bogus facts).

The President has been attacked by some truly underhanded tactics, but one similar tactic towards the Democrats gets people up in arms.

Thats beautiful really. What is ugly and disgusting is that people are willing to buy it. What a stupid nation we live in!

Im a liberal, and I think we should ban the bible... for a plethora of reasons. That debate wouldn't be appropriate for AD though.

Is this taking politicking too far?

Well, I think 'politicking' has been this bad the whole time. Remember the McCarthy Era? It gets better and worse, and I doubt that accusing ALL LIBERALS of wanting to ban the bible is pretty low, considering how stupid and superstitious the bible belt is. Candidates from either side of our silly two pointed spectrum have made many a jab at their opponent. However I've noticed that among the ones that I hear most of the time Dem insults are 'usually' based on a fact or figure or statement. Republicans, as far as the insults and politicking that I run into most often from them are just flat out lies, as above. LIARS!!! Franken would be ashamed.

Oh, and this whole "Democrats are scaring people about bush with the draft stuff," is certainly true. There was a bill floating around which I didn't read, which stank of selective service. We debated about it a lot on here... Even if the bill was misconstrued to add scariness, it was real. Comparing that REAL fear tactic with the ones used by the right, i.e. "Liberals want to ban the bible" you can see who really has ground to stand on. Please, defending republicans, PLEASE consider your comparisons before typing them thank you have a nice day...

Um, I'm not a moderator, but what in the wide wide world of sports does the draft have to do with:

Should I have clarified "this" as the subject in the quoted article?

- the writers would be 'implying' that Liberals want to ban the Bible. Only the reader could 'infer' that Liberals want to ban the Bible. Semantics.

- It's true that most 'book banning' comes from conservatives and concerned parents, objecting to kids reading about sex, the occult and stuff. However, there are a significant number of recorded objections to books from groups most of us would call 'liberal' - the Politically Correct police. Key reasons - offending some ethnic group or 'promoting religion.' Huckleberry Finn comes to mind, as it has been often challenged due to use of the "n word."

- As for comparisons, I certainly don't want to list any here, as this is already pretty heated. Most would agree that both sides dial up the rhetoric to an extreme 50 days out from an election, whether suggesting that Bush caused the hurricanes in Florida to affect the election, or that "liberals want to ban the bible" - both are equally silly. I guess that this is the price of free speech - you have the liberty to make an idiot of yourself, and others will rightly call you on it. Works for me.

So, it's okay because the other side has done it? For example, according to Cheney, electing Kerry would increase terrorism. This is also blatantly inflammatory. I would be in favor of spanking or caning. Of course, I'm at a loss as to how someone could so self-identify with a given political party that they choose to defend such clearly ad hominem attacks by their chosen party. There is no excuse from either party or from any camp. It makes me ashamed to be American if this is what we present to each other and the rest of the world.

As Daffy stated, the democrats aren't the Banning party. Insert MIRROR here.



See Dan Rather post for complete contradiction of above statement.



The President has been attacked on his documented record. Where in Kerry's record does it mention banning the Bible.

Hey don't get me wrong. I would rather have the Bible Banned then shoved down peoples' throats. It is a great story about a great man, but some people take it too literally. Of course....you might see it differently.

Of course DaffyGrl, these were not the questions asked, but why answer the questions when you can divert the issue by bringing up something the Democrats have said or done? Why, next they'll probably trot out that quintessential Devil, Bill Clinton, and say he's behind all this. Banning the Bible might get him off the hook on the Monica thing, no self-respecting Republican ever wants to give up a book that morally damns something Clinton did.

Creating smoke screens is far easier than attempting to justify Bush's dismal record on both foreign and domestic affairs.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics...gn/24bible.html

It seems strange to me that justification for this mailing, which does go too far, cites the state of Massachusetts and events that happened there Wow, what a coincidence! Kerry is from Massachusetts. Bingo! Guilt by association.

I'm also puzzled about Ms. Iverson's words about removing "under God" from the "Pledge of Allegiance." Those words were not in the original pledge, but added during the Eisenhower years. The Pledge is, by-and-large, a school thing. I would prefer that we teach students to think, rather than indoctrinate them with repeated rote recitation of the pledge. I would prefer that the "under God" phrase be removed, but right now there are more important issues to deal with.

I have a statement on this. I am a liberal. I'm not particularly religious. I am a non-attending member of the Unitarian Church, one of the oldest and probably the most liberal, in the country. I believe in the 1st Amendment. No Democrat would advocate banning the Bible (unless used blatantly in a public assembly) anymore than they would have people crush Dixie Chick CDs with a street paving machine or ban them from C&W radio stations. I believe that the religion clauses in the 1st Amendment afford an individual, like me, freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. The two concepts are kind of tied together. I don't care what the church down the street believes or practices, just so they don't come banging on my door with their ideas of how a shot of jesus Jesus solves a myriad of personal and/or social problems any more than a hypodermic needle full of antibiotics will solve all medical problems. In other words, you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

While I don't agree with Christian fundamentalist, I doubt the overwhelming majority of them are gullable enough to actually believe this.

Bush should step up to the plate, as they say, and denounce this. Don't hold your breath. If he doesn't, I hope it backfires on him.

Edited for clarity and to add a little derision for Ms. Iverson.

[quote=yehoshua,Sep 24 2004, 07:23 PM]