I am trying decide what are the the lesser of two evils, like I had to do in the Gore vs Bush campaign. 
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > A Collection On Kerry |
| Posted by: shamalama 08-Mar-2004, 01:27 PM |
| - Sen. John F. Kerry opposed -- famously -- the Vietnam War - Kerry opposed aid to El Salvador when that country was being attacked by Marxist guerrillas - Kerry opposed and aid to the Contras, who -- with U.S. help -- ultimately freed Nicaragua from a communist dictatorship - Kerry denounced the liberation of Grenada after a bloody Marxist coup - Kerry voted against the liberation of Kuwait after Saddam Hussein invaded that country in 1990 - Kerry voted against lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia when that country was being attacked by Serbs allied with Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic - Though Kerry voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the United States to go to war with Iraq, he now says Operation Iraqi Freedom was a mistake Could there ever be a circumstance where a President Kerry would use American military power? Yep. In a meeting with the New York Daily News on Feb. 28, Kerry said he would have sent troops to Haiti even without international support to quell a popular uprising against (now deposed) President Jean Bertrand Aristide. "I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international force, I'd do it unilaterally," Kerry said. Kerry would use American military force - even without UN support - to help a renegade Catholic priest turned Marxist in a tyrant's hold on power. Aristide was elected president in 1990 in the closest thing Haiti has ever had to a fair election, but deposed a year later in a coup led by his security chief. President Clinton sent 20,000 U.S. troops to Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power. But Aristide proved to be typical of the "one man, one vote, one time" syndrome that has plagued the region. Re-elected in 2000 in elections considered fraudulent by the United Nations and the Organization of American States, Aristide put his thugs in charge of the police and used them to intimidate political opponents. Much of the aid provided by the United States and international organizations found its way into his pockets, and those of his cronies. Once bound by a vow of poverty, Aristide became Haiti's richest man (and I thought Democrats didn't like rich people). |
| Posted by: shamalama 08-Mar-2004, 01:36 PM |
| Setting Straight Kerry?s War Record By Thomas Lipscomb The New York Sun | March 1, 2004 Senator Kerry recently wrote a letter to President Bush complaining, "You and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war," and warning, "I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged." In the absence of any evidence from Mr. Kerry of an attack from the Bush campaign, Mr. Kerry seems to have originated his own doctrine of "pre-emption." How valid are his concerns? No one denies Mr. Kerry?s four bemedaled months in 'Swiftboats' or his seven-months? service as an electrical officer on board the USS Gridley, during its cruises back and forth to California, or even his months as an admiral?s aide in Brooklyn, before he was able get out of the Navy six months early to run for office. Taking a look at Mr. Kerry?s much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry?s recollection of their discussions: "[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me ? 30 years ago when he was still CNO ?that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. 'We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,' the admiral said. 'Bud' Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions ? but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage." And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry. Mr. Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on December 1, 1968. Within 24 hours, he had his first Purple Heart. Mr. Kerry accumulated three Purple Hearts in four months with not even a day of duty lost from wounds, according to his training officer. It?s a pity one cannot read his Purple Heart medical treatment reports which have been withheld from the public. The only person preventing their release is Mr. Kerry. By his own admission during those four months, Mr. Kerry continually kept ramming his Swiftboat onto an enemy-held shore on assorted occasions alone and with a few men, killing civilians and even a wounded enemy soldier. One can begin to appreciate Zumwalt?s problem with Mr. Kerry as commander of an unarmored craft dependent upon speed of maneuver to keep it and its crew from being shot to pieces. Mr. Kerry now refers to those civilian deaths as "accidents of war." And within four days of his third Purple Heart, Mr. Kerry applied to take advantage of a technicality which allowed him to request immediate transfer to a stateside post. |
| Posted by: shamalama 09-Mar-2004, 09:05 AM |
| Should the US, after a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations, but without the support of France, Russia, and China, both threaten and use force against Saddam for his breach of the 1991 UN agreement, which was to allow inspections and dismantle his weapons and allow the US to know that he has dismantled his weapons? According to Kerry today (with a Republican in the White House), the answer is NO. According to Kerry in 1997 (with a Democrat in the White House), the answer is YES. Read the transcript of CNN CROSSFIRE, Wednesday, November 12, 1997; 7:30 pm Eastern Time. |
| Posted by: shamalama 09-Mar-2004, 09:28 AM |
| Do you trust Kerry with the security of the US? http://www.pabaah.com/Kerry.swf |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 09-Mar-2004, 09:52 AM | ||
Not really--unfortunately, our freedom is at risk if we keep Bush. Forced to make a choice, I agree with Ben Franklin's statement to the effect that those who give up freedom for security deserve neither. |
| Posted by: shamalama 09-Mar-2004, 10:16 AM |
| Franklin's statement is so very wise, and I completely agree. I really don't like Bush, but in today's political climate of "which candidate is the less bad" I have to side with Bush. Kerry is a clone of McGovern and Ted Kennedy and would do much more overall harm. And I keep hearing all this fuss about loss of freedoms under Bush, but I have yet to see any. I work for a US airline and I've seen the "security" measures started after 9/11 and know that these actions are simply to annoy and give a false hope to civilians - there is no more real security than before 9/11, and there never will be as long as we're 'politically correct'. If I want to "do something bad" then I can do it just as easy as before to any aircraft flying through Atlanta. Those planes are maybe 10% more secure, but nothing more. The ports and trains are just as insecure. The city streets are just as insecure. I, personally, have lost no freedoms and have received no more security. I simply believe that when those nutcases in the Middle East decide to do something bad to the US, Bush will retaliate while Kerry would just talk. Bush wants to return some of my taxes while Kerry wants to take more. Those are #1 and #2 on my list. Those are the things that affect me, and those are the things I would do if I were President. |
| Posted by: tsargent62 09-Mar-2004, 11:07 AM |
| This is all very enlightening. I really didn't know anything about Kerry and really didn't care. I always vote a straight Repulican ticket anyway. It is interesting that he so opposes our current actions in Iraq but was willing to brandish swords in the past. I wonder if he would have had the back bone to follow through with it. I hate hypocracy. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 09-Mar-2004, 06:44 PM |
| Thank you Shamalama for starting this topic! In fact, I was going to start one on what do you all think if Kerry and you beat me to it? I am trying decide what are the the lesser of two evils, like I had to do in the Gore vs Bush campaign. |
| Posted by: tsargent62 10-Mar-2004, 07:41 AM |
| Think what you will about GWB and how he's handling Iraq, but remember how we all felt that early morning on 11 Sep 01? He gave us the leadership we so badly needed on that most horrific of days. He gave us a strong leader who inspired us to rise above the attack, to refuse to bow down to a group of cowards who thought that their attack would bring a great nation to its knees. I think George Bush is bringing this nation back to a position of strength. |
| Posted by: shamalama 10-Mar-2004, 12:25 PM |
 Oh Gimme That Wallet, Boy According to the Washington Post, claims by the likely Democratic presidential nominee that he can pay for new spending and reduce the deficit don't currently add up. In 2005 to 2008, Kerry's proposed spending exceeds the revenue his tax plan would generate by at least $165 billion. In the Democratic primary debate Sunday, Kerry called the Post's story "inaccurate," saying that "a stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years" and that "stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit." He also claimed that the Post did not include cost savings from his proposed changes to the recently-passed Medicare bill, adding, "Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over." As the Post reported, however, a Kerry staffer admitted later that "most" of the savings from the Medicare bill "would come after the candidate's first four years in office." The staffer "did not dispute" the $165 billion discrepancy. In addition, as Will Saletan of Slate.com pointed out, Kerry's language implies that his unspecified "stimulus" would actually pay for itself and reduce the deficit beyond that - an economically implausible assumption. Finally, there is no such place as "outside of the budget." Additional spending increases the deficit regardless of how it is tabulated. |
| Posted by: shamalama 10-Mar-2004, 12:35 PM |
| I never lie, and I have three Purple Hearts to prove it. Have two leading Republicans questioned John Kerry's patriotism in recent weeks? The Kerry campaign would like you to think so, but the facts say otherwise. In a Feb. 5 e-mail to supporters, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill falsely stated that Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie had "made another desperate attack on the patriotism of John Kerry" in a Jan. 29 speech to the RNC's winter meeting. Kerry is now trying the same tactic again. After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) criticized his record on national defense in a conference call with reporters on Saturday, Kerry wrote a letter to President Bush in which he stated, "I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged." However, while Gillespie and Chambliss have offered tough criticism of Kerry's voting record on defense issues, they have not suggested he is unpatriotic. For instance, Gillespie stated during his speech that "John Kerry's record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security." And in his conference call, Chambliss said: "When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems, folks in Georgia are going to look beyond what he says and look at his voting record." Both men cited a number of specific votes by Kerry with which they disagreed. Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot responded to Kerry's charges last Sunday with the accurate retort that "our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on issues now facing our country." Sadly, Kerry spokesman David Wade continued the campaign's pattern of deception: "The Republicans need to answer to the American people for their craven tactics that degrade our democracy and question the patriotism of those who stand up and ask questions about the direction of our country." |
| Posted by: shamalama 10-Mar-2004, 12:41 PM |
| Unfair characterization of 'outsourcing' quote Add Gregory Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, to the list of political figures whose comments have been distorted for political gain. The controversy was sparked by Mankiw's Feb. 9 comments calling outsourcing "just a new way of doing international trade" and stating: "More things are tradeable than were tradeable in the past, and that's a good thing. That doesn't mean there's not dislocations; trade always means there's dislocations. And we need to help workers find jobs and make sure to create jobs here." A number of Democratic critics have used these remarks, particularly Mankiw's phrase good thing, to suggest that the Bush administration actively supports job losses in the United States. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, "They've delivered a double blow to America's workers, three million jobs destroyed on their watch, and now they want to export more of our jobs overseas." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.), added: "I don't think losing American jobs is a good thing. The folks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue apparently do." And Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.), joined in, saying: "This is actually now the position of the White House that they support outsourcing of jobs, jobs going abroad, saying that that's good for our country." These claims, however, ignore the context of Mankiw's remarks, which praised the overall economic benefits of free trade while expressing concern for American "dislocations." In addition, most economists believe trade - including outsourcing - does not cause a net change in employment levels. As University of California at Berkeley economist and former Clinton Treasury official J. Bradford DeLong wrote on his Web site: "People in import-competing industries lose jobs, while people in export industries... gain jobs." Democrats may disagree with the President's policies, but they do the public a disservice by so blatantly misrepresenting what Mankiw said. |
| Posted by: shamalama 11-Mar-2004, 09:44 AM |
| But what about the JOBS? The unemployment rate has fallen by half a percentage point over the past six months. If it merely continues to drop at the same pace, unemployment will be 5.1 percent in another six months (August) and below 5 percent before the election. Unemployment would then be the lowest ever for any president seeking reelection -- lower than it was for Nixon in November 1972 (5.3 percent) or for Clinton in November 1996 (5.4 percent). If Sen. Kerry had hoped to make a big political issue out of an unemployment rate that is likely to be below 5 percent by election time, he had better start trying to change the subject as soon as possible. And his wisecracks about Herbert Hoover could to backfire, too, because Hoover enacted the same policies key Democrats now recommend -- namely, higher tax rates and tariffs. |
| Posted by: Macfive 12-Mar-2004, 05:06 AM |
| I'm really not keen on either candidate. Tell me this, why is every Presidential candidate a multi-millionaire. Maybe I don't want a millionaire being president. Can't we have just someone that will do the job with out special interests involved. I say Peckery for President! |
| Posted by: maisky 12-Mar-2004, 11:52 AM | ||
Sorry I haven't been around to fight, errr play. I have been very busy. My current customer has me working long hours. Having served (or serving) in the military has NOTHING to do with being against the war in Iraq. I was 79th Airbourne, 1st Rangers. I think the "criminal invasion" of Iraq is pure stupidity, paid for by both the troops and the US taxpayers. More evidence surfaced recently in the form of a pentagon insider who gave a nice long interview about how the intelligence data was cooked. The recent testimony by the head of the CIA about how he TOLD the administration, repeatedly, that they were misrepresenting the intelligence reports underscores the simple fact: Bush and Cheney LIED. Three purple hearts could just mean you are careless or unlucky, not that you tell the truth. I have a friend who got a purple heart for getting drunk while playing ping pong and falling off a balcony in Saigon. |
| Posted by: shamalama 13-Mar-2004, 06:18 PM |
| Macfive, I REALLY wish your vision were a reality. In order to compete you have to have "sponsors". Later these sponsors are going to want favors as a repayment of the bucks. The candidate, now an elected official, is a "bought" man/woman. Is some ways this sounds like the Mafia. The President should be a real Winner, and all we're getting is Losers. I really do mean that in so many elections we're simply electing the lesser of two evils.  |
| Posted by: CelticRose 13-Mar-2004, 07:03 PM | ||
I really feel that way too, Shamalama! It is so hard to vote anymore! |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Mar-2004, 06:44 AM |
I, at least will have no problem voting, or contributing, or campaigning! Down with the King!!  |
| Posted by: High Plains Drifter 16-Mar-2004, 04:43 PM |
| Shamalama, you really have me puzzled, you say your a Libertarian but you seem to be supporting the man who appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. How can this be, as Ashcroft by his words and actions would like to deprive many of us of our personal liberties. You state that you haven't seen any loss of rights and freedom under the Bush administration, have you read the text of the Patriot Act. As a Libertarian you should find that frightening. I also found your comments on Kerry's service in Viet Nam rather interesting. What you call getting a transfer on a technicality after three Purple Hearts, is really interesting, the only way that Kerry could have gotten three of them on one tour was for him to have volunteered to stay after the second. I speak as a veteran who spent more than 2 1/2 years "in country" during that war. Four months on a swiftboat in the Delta is an experience that I hope you will never see the likes of. It sure was a lot tougher than a phantom year in the "Bama" ANG. |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Mar-2004, 05:24 PM |
| Good point, my fellow "wetlander". |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 16-Mar-2004, 06:25 PM | ||
Drifter nailed this one. I was on the ground or in the air in the SEA war zone for most of Feb 65 to Jan 70, except for a few months in 66, and have to admit that just the thought of spending a few months on a swiftboat in the Delta sends chills down my spine. Whatever his faults as a politician, and I think thre are many, he deserves respect for his military experience. His family had enough influence that he didn't have to go, but he did his duty anyway. Bush's lies and appointments of folks like Ashcroft are enough that I may vote for a liberal for the first time ever. As for Kerry's well-publicized occasional fits of anger, I say so much the better. It shows a human side that Bush has hidden extremely well. |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Mar-2004, 06:28 PM |
| I was only there in '69 and '70, but I heartily agree. Bush should hide his head in shame. |
| Posted by: shamalama 18-Mar-2004, 11:31 AM |
| The flip-flop Frenchman is at it again. John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect: "What will you do about Cuba?" As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes. "I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world," Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning (Sun, Mar. 14, 2004). Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: "And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him." It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton. There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it. |
| Posted by: shamalama 18-Mar-2004, 11:36 AM |
| Then there's this one is about that continuing brouhaha over Kerry's statement that he met with foreign leaders who told him that they wanted him to beat Bush. Kerry's statement was recorded --- yes, recorded --- by a Boston Globe reporter handling pool coverage. Well ... this is turning into a problem for Kerry for two reasons. First, nobody seems to remember when he has met with any foreign leaders. Second, he refuses to share with us the names of these foreign leaders he's been talking too. Now it seems that Kerry wants to change his story. At a recent meeting with campaign donors Kerry was challenged about his statement that he had met with these mysterious foreign leaders. Kerry's respose? "I never said that. What I said was that I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States." Seems like Mr. Kerry has a problem. Here's this tape recording where Kerry clearly says "met," and there's Kerry saying "I never said that!"  |
| Posted by: shamalama 18-Mar-2004, 03:42 PM |
| Kerry - Strong on Defense In 1991 Kerry voted to cut defense spending by 2 percent. Only 21 other senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. In 1991, Kerry voted to cut over $3 billion from defense and shift the funds to social programs. Only 27 senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut. In 1992, Kerry voted to cut $6 billion from defense. Republicans and Democrats alike successfully blocked this attempt to cut defense spending. In 1993, Kerry voted against increased defense spending for a military pay raise. In 1993, Kerry introduced a plan to cut the number Of Navy submarines and their crews; reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force; terminate the Navy?s coastal mine-hunting ship program; force the retirement of 60,000 members of the armed forces in one year; and reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one. The plan was DOA. In 1995, Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from defense. Only 27 other senators voted with Kerry. In 1996, Kerry introduced a bill to cut Defense Department funding by $6.5 billion. Kerry?s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. In 1996, Kerry voted yes on a fiscal 1996 budget resolution ? a defense freeze that would have frozen defense spending for the next seven years and transferred the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training. The resolution was rejected 28-71. |
| Posted by: High Plains Drifter 18-Mar-2004, 09:39 PM |
| I find it interesting that the conservatives continually accuse Kerry of flip flopping on issues and then come up with lists that show that he has been consistent in his voting record since he entered the Senate. I do not say that Kery is the ideal candidate, but Bush has to be put out of the Whitehouse, he is the most incompetent person to hold the office since Warren Harding. Please stop getting your facts from doper Rush and his ilk, they are still pissed that the Senate found the Clinton impeachment to be so much trash and therefore, they ignore the fact that their guy hasn't done a thing to stop terrorism. Al-Qaida still strikes when and where it wants, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is as bad or worse than it was before we invaded Iraq, Bush's roadmap can't work unless we take a hardline against both sides and the current administration won't take any action against Israel. If we want to defeat Al-Qaida, we need to do whatever it takes to settle the Palestinian problem. If that means economic sanctions and political pressure applied toward both sides then so be it. If the Democrats were running a one eyed three legged yellow dog against George W. Bush, I'd vote for the dog, it would have to be an improvement. |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 19-Mar-2004, 05:41 AM |
| i tend to agree with High Plains Drifter, although I'm still undecided on whether Bush is truly incompetent or is using the appearance of incompetence to disguise a ruthless fascism that may be well the greatest threat to our liberty since we overthrew King George's rule. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-Mar-2004, 08:43 AM | ||
I stand in admiration of your elequence Sir!!! I shall actively support that 3 legged dog!! Bush sets new standards for incompetence! Down with King George II!!!! |
| Posted by: shamalama 19-Mar-2004, 09:15 AM |
| Oh heavens, don't get me started on that windbag: "Sir Excellence In Broadcasting". That nutcase has done more to make me a liberal than the Democratic party will ever do. His 15 minutes are long over. Not that I want him taken off the air, or not that I want him censured. But I find him neither factual nor entertaining, and borderline repulsive. I do think that Bush has made an attempt to stop terrorism. Not nearly enough, in my opinion, but certainly more than I would have envisioned Gore would have done. There needs to be a hard border defined between Israel and Palestine, and both sides are going to have to give a little. But I still fear that there are Arabs that won't rest until all Jews in the Middle East are dead. And Kerry, the most liberal Senator in the US, the guy that's already said that he's coming after my wallet if elected? The US didn't want McGovern, didn't want Dukakis, and won't want Kerry. I've heard very few people actually want Kerry - it's just that they don't want Bush, and you're right - a one eyed three legged yellow dog would get a bunch of votes. Just not mine. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 20-Mar-2004, 07:24 PM |
| Okay, this is what I got in an email today on Kerry. Not sure how factual this is, but thought I would share and get your feedback. Read this before November Ann Coulter on John Kerry. If Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes? In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him. When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife. Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration. At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads. Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year. (The math doesn't work. His catsup heiress wife will have to loan him money to pay off his campaign debt. Remember she is worth $700 million dollars.) The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans, since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money. Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years? |
| Posted by: shamalama 22-Mar-2004, 08:52 AM |
| #1, you have to consider that Ann Coulter is a conservative commentator, and with that comes a certain bias. With that said, you then have to figure out whether what she states is, in fact, the truth or fantasy. Never believe anything you read without checking out the facts yourself, even from me  .a) 1970 Kerry + family of Julia Thorne = fact b ) She got depressed, he left her, seen with Hollywood starlets mostly while still married = fact c) Apparently, JFK really was his mentor = unknown, although the remark was a little catty d) sought to have marriage annulled = fact, he's a good Catholic and cannot divorce, although annulled after 3 kids and several years? e) Heinz made Kerry sign a prenup = there is in fact a prenup, although who made who sign what is unknown, but the statement would sound logical f) careless he is = just being catty again g) Kerry $6 million mortgage, bought by Heinz = fact h) tax returns information = fact i) last two paragraphs = opinion Now make YOUR opinion |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 22-Mar-2004, 09:05 AM |
| Opinion: Kerry's loose morals are preferable to Bush's imperialism. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 22-Mar-2004, 02:48 PM |
Thanks Shamalama!  |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Mar-2004, 05:58 PM |
| The person who wrote this article is doing their best to cover up the Bush lies and stupidity. It is a sad attempt. Kerry has done NOTHING that resulted in the deaths on thousands of people and crippling the US economy. I admire Shamalama's reasoned approach to supporting the wrong side. While the discussions may at times grow heated, I enjoy the exchanges. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Mar-2004, 10:02 AM |
| Don't listen to maisky. He's just being nice to me to soften me up for the eventual kill. As nice as those Liberals appear to be, always remember that they're secretly carrying a rocket launcher under their trenchcoat. "The person who wrote this article is doing their best to cover up the Bush lies and stupidity." - Nah. Ain't nothing wrong with facts. You either have to disprove them or accept them as they stand. Bush may in fact be a liar and stupid. But those opinions do not take away from the fact that Kerry is starting to appear to be another Clinton. Going back as far as Kennedy, y'alls just loves your womens. "deaths of thousands"? How many? Are you blaming Bush for 9/11? "crippling the US economy"? Just about every economist agrees that the recession started during the end of the Clinton administration, that Bush inheirited a recession, and that the economy is in fact rebounding (including jobs, although not as quickly as other facets of the economy). Now "increasing the size of the federal government"? Oh boy, will I agree with you on that. Bush has not followed a basic principle of the Conservatives. "Making a mockery of national security"? Yep. He ain't done nothing worthwhile. There was a report yesterday about al Queda #2 claiming that they have bought several suitcase nukes over the years from disgruntled Soviet scientists. Inbound aircraft customs inspections may be a bit better, but who's watching the truck traffic across the borders, and the shipping across the seas. If any terrorist wants to do something bad, they still can. Maybe not by plowing a commercial aircraft into a building, but something just as bad. "Granting amnesty to illegal aliens just to get the Hispanic vote"? Yep. Now I'll agree that most of these laborers are doing jobs that the everage American wouldn't dream of doing (manual labor) and thus do nothing harmful to the overall economy or job market, but I still don't like it. But "cripple the economy", "kill thousands", "stupid", "lies" - Nah. |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Mar-2004, 11:13 AM |
| That sneaky conservative is mixing facts in with his ranting! Don't forget that the dead Iraqais count in the thousands with the dead Americans. Bush Jr.s stupidity becomes more evident daily. His lies are slowly, one by one being exposed. As the number of people who believe his lies dwindles, the election approaches..... |
| Posted by: andylucy 24-Mar-2004, 04:04 AM | ||
I agree with you, except for the above statement. Kerry is a pro-abortion politician, which does not make him a "good Catholic." Taking a position contrary to the dogmatic teachings of the Church puts him outside the Church. He's lucky he's not in the St. Louis Archdiocese. The new archbishop is refusing communion to pro-abortion politicians. Dick Gephart better watch out!  Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Mar-2004, 08:57 AM |
| andylucy: which does not make him a "good Catholic." That was my typo. I meant to put that in quotes for satire effect like you did. maisky: His lies are slowly, one by one being exposed I'm glad you brought that up. That leads me into Today's Installment. --- There was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder - they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. The idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected. Our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of Congress. When these reports first came out the Kerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that Kerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, Kerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room, he was there. Now it seems that the Kerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting, the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that Kerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war." "Historical footnote?" The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?" We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned? You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials and you merely resign? How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress? Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities? What if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? There would be demands for investigations, criminal investigations, and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. It would be a major story. With Kerry and his pals there is no media outrage. No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report, but that's pretty much it. This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront. Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress and then did nothing about it? November is getting closer. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Mar-2004, 10:05 AM |
| This discussion you refer to was proven (in court) to be joking, rather than a serious discussion. This is right at the point where the group was drifting further left and Kerry left the group. The incident WAS investigated and the leader was indicted and acquited. i.e. not guilty. As for Kerry being watched by the FBI, don't kid yourself, ANY political dissident is CLOSELY watched by the FBI. The fact is, they watch ALL of us. Big Brother is alive and well. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Mar-2004, 10:07 AM | ||
Andy, I would like to point out that being "pro choice" and being "pro abortion" are two different things. Many of us in the US are pro choice without being pro abortion. |
| Posted by: andylucy 24-Mar-2004, 11:54 PM | ||
There is no difference between the two, being that both lead to the death of innocent children- one by indifference and one by active decision. If one supports the "right" to choose to have an abortion, one ipso facto supports abortion. But then again, this topic has been flogged to death here before. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Mar-2004, 07:47 AM |
Geee, I thought the horse twitched a little when we whipped it this time...  |
| Posted by: RavenWing 25-Mar-2004, 09:21 AM | ||
That comes with ANY commentator. |
| Posted by: RavenWing 25-Mar-2004, 09:22 AM | ||
I gotta agree with you there. |
| Posted by: andylucy 25-Mar-2004, 03:00 PM | ||
Please elaborate as to how you can logically justify that statement. Pro abortion actively supports infanticide by conscious decision. "Pro choice" supports it through indifference. I fail to see any differentiation between the two. The end result is the same. Children are killed. Just my tuppence. Andy |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Mar-2004, 07:59 AM |
| Frankly, no MALE rates an opinion on abortion. WE don't have to directly deal with pregnancy. Extreme religious opinions aside, strong consistent logic doesn't work if the starting premise is fallacious. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Mar-2004, 08:16 AM | ||||
You are right. A commentator has only one priority: to keep people listening so they can be employed. Extreme views keep people listening. Truth doesn't necessarily have any part in the process. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Mar-2004, 10:44 AM |
| Today's Kerry Watch: The Kerry campaign has a new ad out suggesting that President Bush has "cut key education programs by 27 percent." According to the Annenberg Political Fact Sheet, they derived this figure by comparing the amount Congress had wanted to spend on the 'No Child Left Behind' bill with what the president finally signed. That isn't a "cut" - that is a dispute over how much to increase spending. Yep, that's called a lie. In fact, President Bush has increased federal spending by 58 percent across the board - a larger increase than President Clinton presided over and one that some of us very much regret. It is also peculiar to raise this particular criticism (false though it is) in an ad whose overall point is that Bush has ballooned the deficit. You're a bad guy if you "cut" spending on one item, and you're a bad guy for increasing the deficit. So, according to Kerry's logic, you need to INCREASE spending on 'No Child Left Behind' and DECREASE the deficit - which can only be accomplished by RAISING taxes. Always remember that every dollar the candidates talk about is the very same dollar that's currently in your wallet. It should be impossible for anyone of either party to suggest that more government spending is a good idea for education. A look at education spending over the past several decades shows that spending at all levels of government on education has tripled since 1960 (in constant dollars). Education spending has increased far more than spending on healthcare. Last year Americans spent half a trillion dollars on education. And unlike health care, which has delivered life-enhancing and life-saving medicines, procedures and tests, the money we've spent on education has brought us zero improvement. Zip. Nada. Per-pupil expenditure averaged $3,713 in 1970 compared with $6,447 in 1995 (in constant 2000 dollars). The pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 22.3 to one to 17.3 to one. Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have declined by 56 points. Sen. Kerry has promised, during his first hundred days in office, to spend $895 billion over 10 years on health care, $165 billion on this and that, and repealing the Bush tax cuts. His words. And every dollar has to come directly out of taxpayer's wallets. Kerry's government will make the rich poor and the poor taken cared for by the government - welcome to Socialism. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Mar-2004, 11:46 AM |
| Increase spending? B.S. How come schools are doing layoffs and becoming insolvent. The "no child left behind" program has increased costs to schools while being WAY underfunded. Increased government regulation without paying the costs. Isn't that what the 'publicans accuse the Demos of? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Mar-2004, 03:05 PM |
| B.S.? WAY underfunded? Huh? President Bush proposed a record $57 billion for the FY 2005 Education Budget. It got the largest dollar increase of any domestic agency. It's a 3% increase over FY 2004 and a 36% gain for education programs since the Bush took office. The budget proposes $13 billion, a $1 billion or 8% increase, in Title I grants to help the neediest local schools and a $1 billion increase for special education grants to states. The budget would be an overall increase of $4.6 billion, or 52% - in Title I funding since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. It includes $1.1 billion - an increase of $101 million, or 10 percent - to expand Reading First. The proposed budget also includes $132 million - an increase of $38 million, or 40 percent - for Early Reading First, the pre-school component of Reading First. The 2005 request also includes $12.9 billion - an $823-million increase - for Pell Grants, to help an estimated 5.3 million students from low-income families pay for their higher education; one million more students than when Bush took office. The budget includes $100 million for a new Striving Readers plan to improve the reading skills of teenage students who are reading at or below grade level; $120 million for a new Secondary Education Mathematics initiative to help ensure that high school math teachers are highly qualified and can meet the needs of struggling students; $40 million for an Adjunct Teacher Corps that would enable well-qualified individuals from business, technology, industry and other areas to serve as adjunct high school teachers; $12 million to increase the number of states in the State Scholars program; $33 million to provide an additional Pell Grant award of up to $1,000 to low-income students who are State Scholars and take a rigorous high school curriculum; and $28 million to ensure that teachers in low-income schools are qualified to teach Advanced Placement courses. Bush's proposed 2005 budget includes several proposals to ensure that parents have meaningful choices about their child's education, including: $50 million for a new Choice Incentive Fund to provide more parents with the opportunity to transfer their children to a higher-performing public, private or charter school; $27 million for Voluntary Public School Choice grants that would help states and school districts establish or expand public school choice programs, including those across a state or across school districts; $219 million for charter school grants to support 1,200 new and existing charter schools; and $100 million to assist charter schools in acquiring, leasing and renovating school facilities. The Libs especially hate this. In total, student aid for higher education would increase to more than $73 billion - a $4.2 billion or 6% increase over 2004 levels. Almost 10 million students and parents - a 426,000 increase - would receive one or more grants, loans or work-study awards. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Mar-2004, 04:29 PM |
| It's a pitty this underfunded initiative is a complete flop, merely making the plight of the schools (and students) worse. |
| Posted by: Knightly Knight 27-Mar-2004, 10:57 PM |
| I dont give a rats backside what a person is against - thats just talk What Is HE FOR? |
| Posted by: maisky 28-Mar-2004, 06:02 AM | ||
Kerry is still developing and rolling out his platform, though it is mainly centered around the economy. Bush is for enriching the oil companies and tax breaks for the rich. He is also for whatever the oil companies tell him to be for. |
| Posted by: JaneyMae 28-Mar-2004, 11:56 AM |
| John Kerry walked into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, he noticed a very life-like, life-sized bronze statue of a rat. It had no price tag, but was so striking he decided he must have it. He took it to the owner: "How much for the bronze rat?" "Twelve dollars for the rat, one hundred dollars for the story," said the owner. Mr. Kerry gave the man twelve dollars. "I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story." As he walked down the street carrying his bronze rat, he noticed that a few real rats had crawled out of the alleys and sewers and began following him down the street. This was disconcerting, so he began walking faster. But within a couple blocks, the herd of rats behind him had grown to hundreds, and they began squealing. He began to trot toward the Bay, looking around to see that the rats now numbered in the MILLIONS, and were squealing and coming toward him faster and faster. Concerned, even scared, he ran to the edge of the Bay, and threw the bronze rat as far out into the Bay as he could. Amazingly, the millions of rats all jumped into the Bay after it, and were all drowned. Kerry walked back to the curio shop. "Ah ha," said the owner, "You have come back for the story?" "No," said the Kerry. "I came back to see if you have a bronze Republican.  |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2004, 08:06 AM |
| Maybe it was a Republican rat? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 29-Mar-2004, 08:46 AM | ||
Kerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create these 10 million new jobs. Now think about this. How is it that the government can create jobs? I thought the private sector built jobs, unless you're talking about federal jobs. Does he mean 10 million new govermnent employees? Kerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create 10 million new jobs. Does he mean massive works projects like FDR did? Is he claiming that it is the job of the federal government, not the private sector, to create a job for anyone that wants one? Kerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create 10 million new jobs. Kerry will also come up with plans to seize money from the private sector by way of taxes, and then redistribute that money back to the private sector to create government subsidized jobs. Kerry says he will put forward a comprehensive economic plan in the coming weeks to create 10 million new jobs. Meaning the federal government will spend taxpayer dollars to create such jobs. Now remember that the government has no money - it all comes from you. So Kerry is saying that he's going to spend your money to create a job for someone else. Bottom line ... jobs aren't a problem. The economy is growing, and the private sector is creating jobs at a swift pace. Preliminary figures show that there were more new jobs created in March than in any month since 2000 - about 120,000. There are predictions that as many as one million jobs or more may be created before the election. The Associated Press on March 25 stated: "America's economic recovery ended 2003 on a good note, growing at a solid 4.1 percent annual rate, and is expected to do even better in the opening quarter of this year ... Tax refunds and other tax incentives should motivate consumers and businesses to spend and invest more - energizing the economy in the first half of this year, economists said ... Although the fourth quarter's growth rate was slower than the red-hot 8.2 percent pace of the third quarter, the economy's performance in the second half of 2003 marked the fastest back-to-back quarterly increases since the first two quarters of 1984 ... A noteworthy factor in the pickup in the second half of last year was brisk spending by businesses. Businesses finally cast off some of the caution that had previously restrained capital investment. It was big cutbacks in capital spending that helped to thrust the economy into recession. Economists said a sustained turnaround in capital spending is a crucial ingredient for the recovery to be lasting ... Consumers, whose spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of all economic activity, also helped the economy. Consumer spending rose at a respectable 3.2 percent pace in the fourth quarter. That was better than the last estimate of a 2.7 percent pace and followed a 6.9 percent growth rate in the third quarter." reference: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040325/D81HE2VO0.html OK. So the economy, after having suffered a mild recession, is in fact rebounding, and rebounding well. Tax refunds are allowing both consumers and businesses to spend and invest more. Lack of capital spending by those evil rich corporations is what caused the recession in the first place. Two years before the Bush tax cut the private sector GDP growth rate was 2.5% Two years after the Bush tax cut the private sector GDP growth rate was 5.3%. Manufacturing is at 20-year highs. The stock markets are up 45% over last year. CNN, in October 2003, stated that US economic growth is the "strongest in nearly 20 years". Home ownership rates are at 68.8% (highest level ever). Clinton started his administration with a 3.25% inflation rate, and three years later got it down to 2.75%. Bush started his administration with a 3.75% inflation rate, and three years later got it down to 2.00%. The family poverty rate during the Clinton administration averaged 10.5%. The family poverty rate during the Bush administration (so far) averages 9.4%. The total US household Net Worth is $44.4 trillion (highest level ever). But Kerry, and his liberal followers, still keep crying about unemployment. Practically every factor of the US economy, including jobs, is turning around but Kerry wants to talk about unemployment. Well, if unemployment is such a big issue, then let's look at that 5.6% unemployment rate in Bush's third year. Oh my, that's the exact same figure for Clinton's third year, a time when (according to liberals) everything was nearly perfect. And initial unemployment claims are now at 3-year lows. The economy. That's what you're going to hear about all summer, about how Bush destroyed it and how Kerry can rebuild it. Kerry will make the rich poor (tax those evil people at a 50% rate, cut them in half), and the poor dependant on the govermment to create and provide their jobs. Classic socialism. |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2004, 08:55 AM |
| What we know about the plan so far is that it centers around removing the tax breaks corporations have for overseas investment and shifting the tax breaks to investment inside the US. This makes sense. Remove the incentives for exporting the work and create new insentives for jobs within the US. We will have to see what other proposals arise. Bush has HIS agenda already dictated and wripped with a pretty ribbon from his "masters" (Halliburton et all). |
| Posted by: Shamalama 29-Mar-2004, 09:36 AM |
| I will say that "tax breaks to investment inside the US" is a great idea. Although I'd like to see proof of "Haliburton masters" from anywhere other than MoveOn.org. I hear this over and over, but have yet seen the proof. |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2004, 10:49 AM | ||
Have you read about how much per day they are making on Iraq? Halliburton is still partially owned by Mr. Cheney. SERIOUS conflict of interest there. The court battle over the notes on the closed door sessions with the energy companies to set US policies is ongoing. We can only WISH it would be settled prior to the election. what good to find out the truth a year from now? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 29-Mar-2004, 02:38 PM |
| There are only a handful of energy infrastructure companies in the world that are equipped to handle massive projects such as those in Iraq. Halliburton is one of them, and maybe the only US company so equipped. As no other countries, other than the UK, were willing to participate in Iraq in any meaningul way, it makes sense to me that the contract should be awarded to the US company. And yes, they are probably making a zillion dollars each day over there - as are any huge company duing serious business over there. In 5 years Coca Cola and McDonald's will be making even more money over there. Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries. Today it is in 120 countries with 83,000 people on payroll. Halliburton became military contractors in 1942 when Brown Shipbuilding Company built the first of 359 ships for the US Navy at their Greens Bayou Fabrication Yard, Houston, Texas. Halliburton is the managing owner of the Devonport Royal Dockyards in the UK where British surface combatants and nuclear submarines are refueled and refitted. Halliburton (oh my goodness) was a prime defense contractor under Clinton. And had the US liberated Iraq under Clinton Halliburton would probably be doing the same job as they're doing now. Yes, Cheney owns stock in Halliburton. Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through 2000. The truth be known he probably still has a lot of $$$ of Halliburton stock unexercised. And exactly how many other former CEO's have a similar situation? Yeah, I know you want to say that it was because of Cheney's unexercised options that he pushed Bush into war with Iraq under the assumption that Halliburton would be a prime contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq so that Cheney's options would be more valuable. And Elvis is alive and well in South Dakota. I don't even think Halliburton pumps any oil - they only make oil drilling parts and pipes. Do you assert that no one that has ever run an oil/timber/health/computer/etc. company can be an elected official? Would any of those also be serious conflicts of interest? And a conflict for how many years? If so then you knock over a ton of good Democrats. Now the Army Corps of Engineers did award Halliburton a no-bid contract in Iraq to put out oil well fires. Sometimes that's OK, sometimes that stinks. I've just completed my new house and some of the contractors had to bid (I wanted the best price) and some of them were not bid (I already knew who I wanted because of their reputation). And, in Halliburton's case, the oil field damage was much less than anticipated and Halliburton will end up collecting only a small fraction of the $7 billion contract. In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million. He isn't, and won't be, the richest or "well connected" Vice President the US has ever elected. Bush's fortune came from oil. Yeah, so? Kerry's primary income comes from his wife's ketchup - are you going to claim that should the US ever go to war under Kerry that he only did so because all the MRE's the Marines eat contain a packet of ketchup? This "war for oil" cry is growing tiring. We're going to see record gasoline prices this summer - where is all this cheap oil that we invaded Iraq to get. Couldn't it remotely be because it wan't for oil, but in actuality to kick the butt of the Walt Disney of modern terrorism? |
| Posted by: Herrerano 29-Mar-2004, 03:06 PM | ||
Shamalama Posted on Mar 29 2004, 03:38 PM
I have to disagree with you on this particular point. He lives just down the street from me. The guy has gotten enormous though, right after he came down here he slimmed down real good, but then a couple of years ago he started importing moon pies. Now the neighborhood is constantly assailed with empty moon pie wrappers blowing around in the breeze. Oh yeah, and those slim jim sausage things. I don't think the guy eats anything else but moon pies and slim jims. He has to be pushing 350 and can hardly get out the door of his double wide. He has the only one in Pesé. Leo (now with the tune of 'Are you Lonesome Tonight' running through my head, 'the big guy' plays that thing day and night on his old eight track) |
| Posted by: Knightly Knight 29-Mar-2004, 05:53 PM |
| Im very worried that this entire group knows more about politics than music. Groucho Marx, Carl Marx's brother I think, said , "I would Never join a group or organization which would have me as a member. My best friend has the answer, Ask a politician Do you Lie? If he says Yes then say I do not vote for liars. IF they say No, say You are a liar and I do not vote for liars. The problem as I see it is credibility. Who Do You Trust? If presidents had to go back to the coal mines after office then maybe there would be a reason To vote for him now. The priveleges after office are so many that you can understand why someone would want the office and spend over 100 times the amount they will make while in office. The only two parties ive seen in office in my 48 years are the Democrats and the Republicans. Maybe its time for the Do-Nothing Party. Perhaps we couldnt get as hurt with them in office. |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2004, 08:32 PM | ||
massive oil projects like feeding the troops? No bid contracts with a clear conflict of interest. They are liers and crooks. I resent paying for their graft. It is bad enough having to pay for domestic projects, but lining halliburton's pockets in Iraq? Give me a break! |
| Posted by: maisky 29-Mar-2004, 08:35 PM |
| The US demand for oil will continue to grow, until the cost of gasoline reaches about $5/gallon (current dollars) At that point, the economics of things like oil shale recovery changes the equation from oversees sources to US. This will also push alternative energy source utilization. Until then, the oil companies can gouge as they wish. And we are stuck with "George's Folly", or the occupation of Iraq. With the money poured down that rathole, the US schools wouldn't be laying off teachers and cutting programs. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Apr-2004, 08:26 AM |
| On the topic of "money down a rathole", let's begin today's installment by examining what Kerry has proposed in regards to federal government spending. And remember that neither Kerry nor the federal government has any money of their own - all these figures are for dollars removed from your pocket and spent by Kerry (if you vote him into office). According to the National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/), a non-partisan group that lobbies for reductions in taxes and government spending, Kerry has proposed -- as of March 8 -- a whopping $2.76 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. The NTU says Kerry has earned an "F" in its congressional ratings for every year but one since its ratings were first issued in 1992. Citizens Against Government Waste (http://www.cagw.org/), another non-partisan group concerned with government spending, labels Kerry "hostile to taxpayers," giving him a score of 13 percent for 2003 and a lifetime score of 25 percent. Some taxpayers may wonder what they're getting for their money: - $3.2 billion to provide four years' tuition at a public university to any American who performed at least two years of national service (whatever that is) - $17.1 billion in expanded unemployment benefits (one wonders why this is necessary since Kerry has promised to virtually eliminate unemployment) - $5.75 billion ($28.73 billion over five years) for Head Start - $89.5 billion ($447.5 billion over five years) to allow all Americans to buy into the same health plan that the President and Members of Congress give themselves--with subsidies for those who can't afford insurance--and provide health care coverage for every child in America, resulting in nearly universal coverage - an currently unknown expense to restore health care benefits to illegal immigrants According to NTU calculations, Kerry voted to approve $218 billion in new spending and proposed $45.2 billion in new spending in the 107th Congress. Kerry implies he will pay for all of this new spending by repealing President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." Even under the best circumstances, however, this admittedly massive tax increase wouldn't come close to paying for all his proposed spending -- raising perhaps $700 billion in 10 years, leaving a $2 trillion deficit gap. As the Washington Post recently reported, "Kerry's aides privately admit the Democratic candidate cannot fulfill all of his campaign promises and still reduce the deficit by half as promised." Tax increases rarely raise as much revenue as predicted because of their negative effects on the economy. Tax hikes tend to inhibit economic growth, which leads to fewer revenues flowing into Washington. For instance, one of Kerry's proposed tax hikes would increase the top personal income tax rate. Kerry hopes Americans will back this tax hike as an effort to soak the rich. Unfortunately, the top wage earners in this country are those who invest their earnings in America's economy, helping it grow and creating jobs and wealth. When Uncle Sam picks their pockets, they don't invest as much, and the economy will likely slow and create fewer jobs. According to IRS data, the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States pay 34 percent of all income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 53 percent. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay 4 percent of total income taxes. Someone needs to inform Kerry that it is unwise to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Apr-2004, 03:46 PM |
| And the announcement was made today (I told you so): "Kerry:... I've proposed a strategy that that revitalizes our manufacturing sector and puts us on track to create 10 million new jobs in the next four years." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&u=/usnw/20040402/pl_usnw/kerry_statement_on_job_numbers_released_today115_xml&printer=1 Kerry, as President, is going to create 10 million jobs (which is a bit more than the current 8.2 million unemployed - go figure). But how? How can a President create jobs? I was under the impression that the private sector creates jobs. What could his strategy be? He will either: 1. Seize money from the private sector by way of taxes, and then redistribute that money back to the private sector to create government subsidized jobs. 2. The federal government will spend taxpayer dollars to create such jobs out of nowhere. Now remember that the government has no money - it all comes from you. So Kerry is saying that he's going to spend your money to create a job for someone else. 3. Massive works projects like FDR. Pay someone to dig a hole, and then pay someone else to fill it back in. 4. 10 million new govermnent employees Is it the function of the federal government to create jobs? Where is it in the Constitution that it's the job of the federal government to create jobs? But jobs are going up everyday without government interference. We're still rebounding from a recession that started before Bush even took office. "American manufacturers boosted activity for the 10th straight month in March and factory jobs growth accelerated, cementing a key pillar in the recovery, a survey showed. The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) purchasing managers' index, based on a survey of supply executives, rose 1.1 point from February to 62.5 points in March. It was the 10th month in a row above 50 points, indicating expansion in manufacturing activity. "It looks like the factory sector is really ramping up and is now in the midst of a strong, broad-based recovery," Wachovia senior economist Mark Vitner said. The survey showed factory jobs growth picked up, with the employment index rising 0.7 point to 57.0. It was the fifth month of expanding manufacturing employment in the survey following a 37-month contraction." http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040401/1/3j7km.html "It is the job of the federal government to create jobs." Now that sounds a lot like Socialism. Which also sounds a lot like Kerry and his 19-year record in the Senate as the most liberal senator in office (yep, he even beat Kennedy). "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Apr-2004, 09:34 AM |
| You're going to hear a new phrase from the Kerry Campaign very soon - the "Misery Index." He's going to try to tell Americans just how horrible things are for them. Well, let's see: - Inflation is low - Interest rates are low - Unemployment is low and new claims for jobless benefits are going down - Jobs are being created at the greatest rate in years, and a greater proportion of these jobs are high-paid managerial positions. - Family income is at an all-time high (adjusted for inflation) - Almost one-half of wage-earners pay no federal income taxes at all - Home ownership levels are also at an all-time high. - Fewer people are on welfare - Illegitimate birth rates are down - Record amounts are being spent on entertainment like movies, theme parks and vacations - More and more people are rediscovering their religious faith Yep, it's a miserable time to live in America, isn't it? Well, John Kerry is sure going to try to convince you that it is. Remember, good news for you is usually bad news for Democrats. Bad news for you is good news for Democrats. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Apr-2004, 09:34 AM |
| You're going to hear a new phrase from the Kerry Campaign very soon - the "Misery Index." He's going to try to tell Americans just how horrible things are for them. Well, let's see: - Inflation is low - Interest rates are low - Unemployment is low and new claims for jobless benefits are going down - Jobs are being created at the greatest rate in years, and a greater proportion of these jobs are high-paid managerial positions. - Family income is at an all-time high (adjusted for inflation) - Almost one-half of wage-earners pay no federal income taxes at all - Home ownership levels are also at an all-time high. - Fewer people are on welfare - Illegitimate birth rates are down - Record amounts are being spent on entertainment like movies, theme parks and vacations - More and more people are rediscovering their religious faith Yep, it's a miserable time to live in America, isn't it? Well, John Kerry is sure going to try to convince you that it is. Remember, good news for you is usually bad news for Democrats. Bad news for you is good news for Democrats. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Apr-2004, 09:37 AM |
| ........... wow, how'd that happen? ............ |
| Posted by: maisky 12-Apr-2004, 09:42 AM | ||
Better slow down on the oxycontin, errrr, claritin. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Apr-2004, 09:56 AM |
| I'm STILL holding a case of the stuff for Brother Limbaugh. Do you think he'll want it back? --- OK, more on the "misery index" (inflation plus unemployment) in Presidential re-election years: 1976-Ford ..... inflation at 5.8% ..... unemployment at 7.7% ..... Misery= 13.5% 1980-Carter ................ 13.5% ............................... 7.1% .................. 20.6% 1984-Reagan ................. 4.3% .............................. 7.5% .................. 11.8% 1992-Bush I .................. 3.0% ............................... 7.5% .................. 10.5% 1996-Clinton ................. 3.0% ................................ 5.4% ................... 8.4% 2004-Bush II ................. 2.0% ................................ 5.7% ................... 7.7% (Bush II rates are as of March 2004) |
| Posted by: maisky 12-Apr-2004, 11:58 AM |
| Don't forget the misery index for the Iraquis at 187.5%. |
| Posted by: maisky 12-Apr-2004, 02:07 PM |
| I'm seeing different numbers on the "misery index". John Kerry for President has released a report that reveals a dramatic worsening of a "Middleclass Misery Index" which combines seven different indicators: median family income, college tuition, health costs, gasoline cost, bankruptcies, the homeownership rate, and private-sector job growth. The Middleclass Misery Index worsened by 13 points, the largest three-year fall on record. How George W. Bush compares to previous Presidents: Previous Presidents Change in the Middle-class Misery Index Carter 6 Reagan -5 Bush I -12 Clinton 23 Bush II -13 Incomes have declined by $1,462 under President Bush. In the last year the middle class has experienced near-record jumps in the cost of healthcare, college tuition, and gas: College tuition up 13 percent -- the largest increase on record Health premiums up 11 percent -- the largest increase since 1977 Gas prices have risen by 15 percent, causing the average family to spend $300 more per year -- the second largest increase since 1980 John Kerry's proposals -- including $225 billion of middle class tax cuts for health and education -- address all aspects of the middle-class squeeze. John Kerry's plan includes: Creating 10 million new jobs Promoting universal access to college Providing affordable health insurance for all Americans Creating energy independence Taxes: The Bush Campaign's strategy on taxes is to convince America that John Kerry wants to raise them. Right now Dick Cheney is pushing an absurd distortion that John Kerry wants to raise taxes by $1.7 trillion dollars. In fact, John Kerry wants to lower taxes for 98% of Americans while seeking fiscal discipline by repealing the budget-busting tax cuts Bush gave to the richest Americans making over $200,000 a year. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 13-Apr-2004, 08:49 AM |
| The first thing you have to understand is that this is not the 'official' misery index - it's Kerry's index. For 30 years the misery index has been described as the sum total of the unemployment rate and inflation rate. Both political parties have agreed on this index for decades. But Kerry has a bit of a problem with the traditional misery index. Using the 30-year-old measurement standards the misery index is lower under Bush 2 than it was under Clinton and Bush 1. Well, you can't very well make people feel miserable using a misery index that shows them anything but miserable, can you now? The Kerry solution - create a new misery index. How does Kerry's misery index measure up to the one we've been using for 30 years? The inflation rate is left out. Why? Because it's low, that's why. Ditto for the unemployment rate. Kerry is simply picking-and-choosing what he thinks will make him look good and make Bush look bad. If you can't dazzle them with truth then baffle them with BS. Kerry uses median family income. Why not use family net wealth? The true measure of how a family is doing economically is how wealthy they are, not how much they earn. Kerry uses college tuition. Most American families aren't paying any college tuition. What kind of a measurement is this? And does it include state lottery money? I got one daughter through college using a mix of lottery money along with my own. Kerry uses health premiums. What does this figure mean to families who have health insurance as a job benefit? My company has a health plan, and my company pays a percentage of my medical costs. Did Kerry use only the $15 copay or the $500 monthly premium my company pays? I don't know, and Kerry doesn't specify. Kerry uses gasoline prices. Adjusted for inflation, they were higher in the early 1980's. So this one is actually a lie. Kerry uses home ownership. Private home ownership is currently the highest in history, so I don't understand why he's using that number. Kerry uses job growth This doesn't matter to someone who already has a job, which is over 90% of the nation. And jobs are being created right and left right now. New claims for jobless benefits are going down. Jobs are being created at the greatest rate in years. Kerry uses personal bankruptcies. A bankruptcy doesn't make me miserable unless the person declaring bankruptcy owes me money. Now for his proposals: Creating 10 million new jobs - (1) that's impossible, and (2) do you really want the federal government instead of the private sector creating jobs in the first place? Creating energy independence - that claim has been preached since Carter and not one President nor Congress has done anything meaningful about it. Promoting universal access to college - that's just great, we can dumb-down college the same way the government has done it to high schools. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have any right to college education. Providing affordable health insurance for all Americans - ahhh, a Democrat's fondest dream. Geez. For everyone to have a $10 copay someone is going to have to come up with a ton of money to subsidize medicine. And where is this money going to come from - taxpayers. So I'm already taking a practical cut in pay so that my company can subsidize my healthcare, and now my taxes are going up so that I can personally subsidize a stranger's healthcare? Financially speaking I'd be better off not working and getting it free from the government and those that do have jobs - classic socialism. "John Kerry wants to lower taxes for 98% of Americans". That has to be a lie. He states that he wants to pay down the deficit, add all these freebies (college, healthcare) and pay for all of this with the taxes from 2% of Americans? Do you really want a system where 2% of the population carries the financial burden for the other 98%? |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 13-Apr-2004, 12:57 PM | ||||||||
And the forclosure rate is at record levels also.
No one suggests "dumbing down" just allow access to those that wouldn't have a chance at it. By increasing the ability to earn more money you create a tax base that didn't exist.
So for approx 52 thousand you can get an education that loss could be recouped in less than four years on the work force. There are many smart young men and women that would just be sent to work out in the fields if someone did not seek them out. I also am suggesting that they are made responsible for the repayment of student loans. Turn the debt over to private collection agencies |
| Posted by: RavenWing 13-Apr-2004, 02:42 PM | ||
That's funny, mine has done nothing but go up. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Apr-2004, 07:59 AM |
| Unfortunately the average middle class family can't say the same: Do you want fries with that? I do six figures + myself, but only because I am in a carefully developed nitch market in the Pharmaceutical industry. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Apr-2004, 09:22 AM |
| RavenWing: "That's funny, mine has done nothing but go up." Well mine hasn't gone up one penny in years, but considering that I'm (1) a tech geek that (2) works in the commercial airline industry, I'm just happy that I even have a job today. --- I have nothing against student loans. I wish they were available to anyone that wants one. High schools are complete jokes, and a college education is practicaly manditory today if you want a decent-paying job. But Kerry is promoting universal access to college, and by that I think he's saying that anyone that wants to go to college should go whether they can pay or not - another entitlement program. College is neither free nor easy to get in to, and it has never been designed to be used by everyone (like public high school). If college is now "universally accessible" then the overall entrance requirements will have to be lowered and someone else is going to have to pick up the financial burden. Are you willing to pay double the normal tuition for your child just so someone with no funds can get it? If so then you cannot complain about the "College tuition up 13 percent" topic. Or are you going to demand that colleges cap their tuition to, say, $500 per year? If so then prepare for your state or federal taxes to rise to cover the university's costs. Or do you desire guaranteed loans? If so then prepare to see lots of poor college graduates either in jail or in bankruptcy for non-payment of loans because not many recent college graduates start at $32,629. Besides we already have Federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, also known as PLUS loans, which are low-interest education loans that allow parents to fund the cost of their child's education. A parent is eligible to borrow up to 100% of the estimated cost of their child's attendance, including tuition, room and board, books, transportation and additional expenses, minus any other financial aid awarded to the student. The PLUS loan is not income sensitive, which means that family income is not a factor when determining eligibility. Currently the interest rates are as low as 2.22% Just like Universal Health Care the Democrats want Universal Education - let the government take care of you (and make sure you're dependent on the government to take care of you) from cradle to grave. Once again Classic Socialism. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Apr-2004, 09:58 AM |
| So here we are the day before April 15th, the drop dead date in the US to have your income tax return filed. Chances are if you've waited this long it's probably because you owe money . Why write the check early? So with that in mind, I am sure you're just dying to know if the two candidates for president in the fall have paid theirs. Well, President Bush filed his taxes. Of course, being president, these things are always made public. George and Laura Bush reported federal adjusted gross income of $822,126 and paid $227,490 in federal income taxes, or about 28%. Fairly straightforward, and nothing out of the ordinary. So what about Kerry's taxes? With much fanfare the Kerry campaign released his 2003 return and it showed $395,000 in taxable income with $90,575 in federal income taxes paid, or about 23% of his income. Senator Kerry filed all by his lonesome. Now obviously all of the mansions that Kerry routinely inhabits around the world aren't coming his way on $395,000 a year. And remember that $6 million 'loan' for his campaign? The big money comes from his wife who is worth millions (and you thought he married her just because he likes ketchup?). But what did she pay? What about her fair share? That we don't know. It's certainly Kerry's right to file separately. There is nothing illegal here. But can you imagine the protest of the media if Bush had done the same thing? People would be demanding to know what he was hiding. But once again the Democrats get a pass. |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 14-Apr-2004, 10:06 AM | ||||
I say we turn it over to the "RWDC&BB Co. Ltd. Inc. Esq." otherwise known as the Ravenwing Debt Colection & Baseball Bat Co. As it stands former students with College loans repaying their loans are the exception rater than the norm. I also have the strong opinion that those in prison should be given the opportunity for education, either basic or higher as needed. If you could give them the opportunity to make more than minimum wage they might not continue down the pasth they are on. Now I also say that they "hot cot" on beds and go in 3 shifts of 8 hours each. 8 hours of school, 8 hours of hard labor and 8 hours of sleep. No free telephones, tv etc... When I was in high school my school sent me to the county lockup on a tour as a student in danger of failing or dropping out(it was a "special program"). The prisoners really had it made better than I did. And if you said you were going to commit suicide they just doped you up for the rest of your sentence because they didn't have the manpower available to watch everyone on suicide watch, there were several men just staring out in the distance and drooling. turns out the trusty giving the tour was my uncle he had been in the state pen for over 16 years for a heroin conviction and was transfered to county as a transistion to being released |
| Posted by: RavenWing 14-Apr-2004, 10:15 AM | ||
I am of the opinion that we should bring back hard labor. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Apr-2004, 10:37 AM | ||
That will only be until it is "outsourced to India" to make for more corporate profits. Don't worry, there are still service sector jobs available: "do you want fries with that?" |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 14-Apr-2004, 11:13 AM | ||||
me too. |
| Posted by: JaneyMae 16-Apr-2004, 11:28 AM |
Just once more  |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Apr-2004, 12:00 PM |
| Ok, here is a picture of young Mr. Bush: |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 16-Apr-2004, 10:46 PM | ||
I agree with you Todd. In my opinion, if we can't have Reagan who was one of the strongest President's of the 20th Century then I'll take the next best thing...GWB. No, I don't agree with every position Bush has taken, but we need a President who won't Cow Tow to the enemy and kiss France, Germany, and Russia's "Behinds" and sell out America's foremost interests and sercurity for the whims and tantrums of Europe. Kerry to me is Ted Kennedy's puppet. T. Kennedy pulls the strings and Kerry performs. Either in peaceful times or in a time of war the American people do not need a President that is a hypocrite and who is double-minded. We need a man who knows what he believes, says what he's going to do and does it with courage and strength even in the face of global-public opinion. |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Apr-2004, 04:55 AM |
| I am strongly supporting, and campaigning for Kerry. The choice is easy. The highly decorated Vietnam vet versus the lying draft dodgers that currently are in the white house (The nice frat boys that dodged serving), busily calling the Veteran unpatriotic; what a bunch of hypocrits! As one by one, the nice Republican staffers are peeling away and going public with the lies and deception that surround Bushnam, the truth behind the lies is revealed. |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 17-Apr-2004, 12:48 PM |
| It seems most of the democrates didn't have a problem with the last draft dodger who fled to Russia to snuggle up to the communist. I didn't hear one democrate critize Clinton for his Vetinam actions! Sounds like a double standard? Clinton didn't have the guts to fight or even serve in some type of military compacity. My father was stateside during the Vet. War as a AirForce Reserve---that doesn't make him a coward or any less honorable a military serviceman---He served his country. Just my three-pence worth, Roisin  |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 17-Apr-2004, 05:53 PM | ||
I think the point is that Clinton used his brain inorder to prevent his conscription. Bush used his family influence and that is what pisses me off. My Grandfather his brothers, my father, me and my brother were not fortunate sons. Gore didn't even BUY his way out. But Bush did and didn't even serve honorably, Quayle didn't and Reagan just acted in syphilis movies. |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 17-Apr-2004, 08:35 PM |
| If being a coward and a non-patriot is the result of using your brain, then he's the smartest man alive! |
| Posted by: CelticRose 17-Apr-2004, 10:37 PM |
| I haven't been real thrilled about this Iraqi war and what is still going on, but between Kerry and Bush, I find that I am even more now a strong Bush supporter. Nobody has convinced me yet of Kerry and I HATED Gore. Thankfully he is not running again. |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Apr-2004, 11:04 AM |
| The latest Bush lies are pretty good. His statements about daily briefings with Tenet before 9/11 vs. Tenet's sworn testimony about not having met with Bush AT ALL in 8/01. Bush lies again. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 19-Apr-2004, 07:57 AM | ||||
Geez. I've really wanted to stay away from this one, but there are things that I just don't understand.
Full story at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/ I didn't serve in 'Nam; just missed it by a couple of years. So I don't want to criticize what either did or didn't really happen over there. But there are those that did serve, and many of those are complaining about what can seem to be a way to escape Vietnam. By all accounts Bush 2 served in the Texas Air National Guard. Clinton ran away. Kerry was 'in country' for 4 months, but did he find a technical way to get out? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 19-Apr-2004, 08:07 AM |
| Kerry lashed out at President Bush over the Iraq issue during Sunday's "Meet The Press". He accused Bush of having a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and worst of all, he said that the war on terrorism wasn't primarily a military struggle. Kerry still believes that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Apparently he believes that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda can be fought with lawyers and subpoenas, much the way the Clinton administration did for 8 years, and we all know where that got us. Is he not paying attention to the 9/11 Commission hearings in Washington? Time and time again we are hearing from the FBI and the CIA that they were hamstrung by legal red tape when it came to hunting down terrorists and protecting this nation. What Kerry is saying is that he wants to turn the United States back to sitting ducks, with somehow our safety and security provided by the United Nations. "Our diplomacy has been about as arrogant and ineffective as anything I've ever seen," Kerry said. "I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals." I guess Kerry forgot that all of that was tried. The United Nations had 12 years, and could not contain Saddam Hussein. But then Kerry, like most liberals, would hand a portion of US sovereignty over to the UN. - Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but he used them to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds - Saddam Hussein refused to abide by multiple UN Resolutions concerning those weapons - Saddam Hussein refused to abide by the agreements of the cease-fire he asked for in 1991 - Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States - Saddam Hussein was clearly in contact with Al Qaeda, even offering medical care for Al Qaeda operatives in Baghdad - Saddam Hussein was clearly supportive of terrorist efforts against Israel - There was no reason NOT to believe that sooner, rather than later, Saddam Hussein would make some of his WMDs available to terrorist elements. - Saddam Hussein was pursuing a war of terror, rape, pillage, and murder against his own people Why is it the United States shouldn't have removed this monster from power? Or, I guess, we can simply mimic Spain this fall. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-Apr-2004, 10:49 AM |
| We should mimic Spain in the part about removing the corrupt regime from power, if nothing else. |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 19-Apr-2004, 07:14 PM |
| This November the "People" will speak...(if they know how to punch a voting card correctly that is??)...then either Bush or Kerry will be at the helm. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-Apr-2004, 11:17 AM |
| Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked whether he would follow President Bush's example and release all of his military records. "I have," Kerry said. "I've shown them -- they're available for you to come and look at." He added that "people can come and see them at headquarters." But when a reporter showed up the next day to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper. The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material. Kerry has not released the formal evaluations from superior officers, although his campaign has given a letter from a commanding officer that recommended him for service aboard Navy patrol boats and also reports for the Silver and Bronze stars that laud Kerry's actions in combat. By comparison, retired Army General Wesley K. Clark released hundreds of pages of his records during the Democratic primary campaign, including all evaluations of him by his superiors. Bush earlier this year released 300 pages of documents after media outlets raised new questions about the extent of his National Guard service. Those records, which Bush promised during a Feb. 8 appearance on "Meet the Press" to make available, included many military evaluations and medical records. Kerry press spokesman Michael Meehan said no new records would be released when asked if the campaign would make public other medical records. So why won't Kerry release the information? Maybe his evaulations were not praiseworthy? Maybe his medical records show the real reason he got three Purple Hearts? Oh, and I doubt you'll see any of this on the nightly news. Not that the media has a bias. Full story at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/20/kerry_refuses_to_release_more_records?mode=PF |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 20-Apr-2004, 11:43 AM | ||
Or, is it just possible the election has already been decided . . . ? See, for example, http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ and http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm and http://www.ominous-valve.com/pac/votefraud.html. For more, just enter "computer voting machine fraud" (without the quotes) in a Google search. |
| Posted by: barddas 20-Apr-2004, 12:04 PM | ||
It wasn't bush that gave the country strength. It was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani! Bush was no where to seen for hours, upon hours.... |
| Posted by: Raven 20-Apr-2004, 12:49 PM |
| |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Apr-2004, 01:36 PM | ||
Lots of words. Little truth. Bush is a draft dodger and a shirker. Kerry is a much decorated hero. The 'publicans frat club crying 'unpatriotic' at Kerry is pure hypocracy. I don't think Brother Shamalama fits that catagory, he has been lied to like the rest of us. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-Apr-2004, 01:53 PM |
So, Brother Maisky, whatever shall the two of do AFTER this fall's election? ? |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Apr-2004, 02:04 PM | ||
You can complain about President Kerry and I will defend him, OK? And we can have a drink or 3 together. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-Apr-2004, 04:02 PM |
| Now see, you're off target AGAIN! After the current Commander In Chief retains his leather chair in the White House, whatever shall the two of do? And we can have a drink or 3 together. . . . ... I see right now I'm gonna have to go up there and give that boy a whuppin' ... |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Apr-2004, 04:40 PM | ||
THAT doesn't scare me. I've had my butt kicked by experts.... The drinks sound good. |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 21-Apr-2004, 04:42 AM | ||
Umm . . . perhaps it'll be King George's coronation we'll be drinking to . . . |
| Posted by: Shamalama 21-Apr-2004, 06:32 AM |
| For today's installment: On Monday, April 19, while campaigning in Lake Worth, Florida, Kerry says, "Last night ... it was reported that in the Oval Office discussion around whether to invade Iraq that the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices. But here's the catch: the American people would have to wait until the election, until November of 2004. Now, if this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong and if what Bob Woodward reports is true -- that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal -- that is outrageous and unacceptable." But Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S, says on CNN, "We hoped that the oil prices will stay low because that's good for America's economy, but, more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy. And this is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise. So, yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down." Also on Monday, April 20, on CNN Woodward himself says, "In the book, it's one -- I'm sorry, it's two sentences, and I don't say there is a secret deal or any collaboration on this. I say that Bandar and the Saudis hoped to put prices -- now, I understand there's something on the wire from Bloomberg saying that, in fact, the Saudis have said this, that in the period before the election, they told the president directly that they wanted to keep oil prices low in a range. I mean, Kerry has taken this to the next level." So Bob Woodward did not say what Kerry implies on the campaign. Kerry knows this. As a matter of fact Kerry says he's going to stand by his position. But facts should never come between a politician and his words that the media are all too happy to repeat. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Apr-2004, 06:37 AM |
| This isn't the first we have heard about Shrub (and his energy czar bosses) being involved in price fixing for oil and gas. The gun is smoking and the smell of Cordite is strong......What a bunch of crooks. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 21-Apr-2004, 08:06 AM |
| The gun is smoking and the smell of Cordite is strong ... just as it was for Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter. There's nothing here but another ranting Democrat. Move along. |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Apr-2004, 03:56 AM | ||
Clinton's Hummer in the hallway didn't kill thousands of people, criple our national guard and cost hundreds of Billions of dollars of OUR tax money. From CNN this morning:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has failed to provide a realistic assessment of how much the war in Iraq will cost taxpayers, lawmakers charged Wednesday. That charge, leveled by Democrats and Republicans, came as Pentagon officials spent a second day on Capitol Hill talking about the situation in Iraq. At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, several lawmakers suggested the administration was avoiding committing to any firm costs until after the general election in November. |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Apr-2004, 03:58 AM |
| Sorry that I haven't had as much chance to play in the daytime, my pesky customer has loaded me down with WORK. Yuck!!! |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 22-Apr-2004, 05:13 AM | ||
Clinton drove his car into a building? I guess I wasn't paying attention to the news. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 22-Apr-2004, 05:58 AM |
| Doesn't surprise me! He did so many other things. I mean what else could the man have done? ! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 22-Apr-2004, 07:50 AM | ||||||
| The phrase "hummer" does not always mean a brand of automobile. See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hummer [editor's note: the above reference is not for the easily offended] --- The United States Congress, never one to worry about government spending, is all of a sudden concerned about how much the war in Iraq is costing. They weren't this concerned about the government spending when it came to say, the highway bill. Or how about welfare spending? Education? So why all of a sudden have they become fiscally responsible when it comes to defending this nation? Oh ... this one is so easy. It's because they're not the ones spending the money, that's why, and because it's not being spent in their home districts. Right there in the thick of this newfound concern over government spending is alleged "Republican" Senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel says that "Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it's going to be $50 billion to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year." Hagel knows that every dollar that is spent in the war on terror is a dollar that he can't spend on pork projects and social welfare spending. This is like a brat kid complaining about his allowance not being raised, just as the house is being foreclosed on. The liberals don't like their spending priorities being taken away, and they're whining about it. Too bad - the money is needed for the military, not for them to buy votes with government programs. The United States confiscates and wastes so much of our money on so much nonsense that they should spare no expense when it comes to fulfilling an actual Constitutional duty, like providing for the safety and security of the United States. As for a true breakdown of the CNN story:
Is there a spending limit on Iraq? After spending, say, $10 billion are you implying that all following funds should be cut off and all troops brought home? Is it worth $x to rebuild and protect Iraq but not one penny more?
Leveled by how many Democrats and Republicans? 10, 100? Using that very same type of argument I can state that "Americans Hate Breathing Air".
Again there is no considering of quantity or percentage. Does "several" mean 3, 30, 300? Several lawmakers, or several liberal anti-Bush lawmakers? And can you also infer that several lawmakers suggested that the administration was not avoiding committing to any firm costs until after the general election in November? Typical liberal wordplay by the Clinton News Network. |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Apr-2004, 03:47 PM |
| Here is the latest liberal group to decry Srub's environmental policy: The national council of churches, a more conservative group you will have trouble finding: SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A national group of Christian leaders is sending a scathing letter to President Bush to coincide with Earth Day, accusing his administration of chipping away at the Clean Air Act. The National Council of Churches argued that planned changes to power plant regulations will allow major polluters to avoid installing pollution-control equipment when they expand their facilities. "In a spirit of shared faith and respect, we feel called to express grave moral concern about your 'Clear Skies' initiative -- which we believe is The Administration's continuous effort to weaken critical environmental standards to protect God's creation," the council wrote in an advance copy of the letter provided to The Associated Press. The New-York based group, which represents 50 million people in 140,000 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox congregations, said it was sending its two-page letter to the president on Thursday, as people all over the country celebrate Earth Day. It took out a full-page ad in The New York Times, scheduled to run in Thursday's editions, calling on Bush to leave the Clean Air Act's new source review rules in place. The Environmental Protection Agency did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday, but the agency has defended the rule changes proposed in August. EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt has called it "the biggest investment in the air quality improvement in the nation's history." The proposal would cap emissions and allow polluters to buy and sell pollution allowances, but environmental groups complain the new system would be far too lenient. In December a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the new rules from taking effect, agreeing with more than a dozen states and cities that contended the changes could cause irreparable harm to their environments and public health. "The people we talk to, both inside and outside the administration, say ... that these changes will in fact weaken, not strengthen the Clean Air Act," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and the church council's general secretary. "And we will in fact have dirtier air and less compliance," said Edgar, who served six terms in Congress in the 1970s and '80s, representing a suburban Philadelphia district. The council is urging ministers across the country to talk about the problems of air pollution during this week's services. |
| Posted by: Herrerano 23-Apr-2004, 08:22 AM |
| Kerry Gets Permission to Drive 'Family' SUV (2004-04-22) -- Just hours after telling reporters that he doesn't own an SUV but his family does, Sen. John Forbes Kerry announced today that he had gained permission from his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, to drive the family's Chevy Suburban on brief trips to the grocery store or dry cleaner. "I didn't ask to take it on the campaign trail because it gets lousy gas mileage which is bad for the environment," said Mr. Kerry. "But I was excited when Teresa told me that I could run out to the Piggly-Wiggly in the big rig." Mr. Kerry's spokesman later explained that, "the family calls the SUV 'the big rig', not Senator Kerry, because it's not his vehicle, so he doesn't need a nickname for it. The SUV belongs to someone else in the family--in this case, his wife, but not the Senator." President Bush could not be reached for comment because, according to his spokesman, "he's out hauling some lumber in his Ford F-250 Super Duty, four-door pickup truck." by Scott Ott http://www.scrappleface.com/ |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Apr-2004, 08:48 AM |
| Yeah, even The New York Times similarly indicted the administration in its recent Sunday magazine cover story: "Changing the Rules -- How the Bush Administration Quietly -- and Radically -- Transformed the Nation's Clean-Air Policy." If you cap emissions, how are you far "too lenient"? If you cap emissions, how do you have "dirtier air and less compliance"? Former U.S. Rep. Bob Edgar is Democrat and is considered quite a Liberal. As a matter of fact he was the first Democrat in more than 120 years to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from his heavily Republican district, Pennsylvania's Seventh District. He considers himself a self-described 'Watergate baby'. Edgar ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 1986 and won the primary despite the fact that he was not his party's endorsed nominee, but lost the election. In spring 1987, as Eugene Lang Visiting Professor for Social Change, he taught a course on the "Politics of the Future" at Swarthmore (Pa.) College. From 1987-88, he served as finance director for Sen. Paul Simon's presidential campaign. So he's just one more liberal ranting against Bush. Not one bit of actual news here - just politics. Now as for your claim that "more conservative group [then the NCC] you will have trouble finding" (this was easy): "The National Council of Churches (NCC), known by many as the most liberal religious organization in the U.S., is reported to be in serious financial straits because of declining membership in the mainline churches which support its work. The NCC typically condones abortion, feminism, massive government regulation, and homosexuality. "It is no accident," continued Dr. LaHaye, "that at a time when conservative churches are bulging at their seams, liberal churches are dying."" http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0323_National_Council_of_.html "A delegation from the left-leaning National Council of Churches is now visiting Cuba, hoping for a visit with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The NCC has in recent decades adopted an uncritical stance towards the Castro regime, instead faulting the U.S. for much of Cuba?s problems." http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=792&c=3 "There are two umbrella organizations for American denominations: the conservative National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and the more liberal National Council of Churches (NCC)." http://www.religioustolerance.org/nae_ncc.htm "The NCC is concerned primarily with seeking to mold and influence politics, education, and economics. Its leaders advocate the passage of bills by Congress which have little if any religious content. We recognize that the NCC has no "theology" of its own. But the basic principles and ideals held by its advocates, and reflected in its literature, are a cause for concern. The general direction of the whole movement is on the side of liberal (neo-liberal) theology, and is hostile to the evangelical faith." http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1967v2n1.htm "Two former Democratic Party partisans have taken the leadership of the liberal National Council of Churches and may hope to make it into a left-wing political powerhouse. Two former Democratic congressmen, Bob Edgar and Andrew Young, have assumed the top positions at the National Council of Churches, or NCC. The surprising news is not that they are men of the left but that they are aggressive political partisans. From the time the NCC was born in 1949, replacing the left-wing Federal Council of Churches after World War II, its leaders have been advocates of the social gospel. As it celebrates its, 50th anniversary this year, the NCC is seeking to regain some of the momentum it has lost since liberalism's heyday in the 1960s." http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/18_16/62298515/p1/article.jhtml "We're counting on you to let us know immediately if the Presbyterian Church USA gives one more penny, in any form, to this politicized organization, the National Council of Churches." - Dan Robertson, First Presbyterian, Reinbeck, Iowa "The General Assembly Council wants to send money to help bail out an organization [National Council of Churches] that wants to boycott a pickle firm? There is something wrong with this picture." - Paul Gerber, Massillon, OH "Enough! Enough, enough, already! The NCC deserves no better fate than to sink in the liberal mud they have made for themselves. I as a Presbyterian elder resent my money being sent to the NCC." - Jack W. Fox, elder, First Presyterian Church, Towanda, PA "Even if they succeed in cleaning up their financial house, let's not forget the NCC's mission is limited to left wing political causes, and not the true Gospel of Christ. The new NCC leader (and former left wing Democratic representative), Bob Edgar, is truly the icing on the cake. In the midst of such a huge financial deficit, it is inconceivable the NCC is chartering jet aircraft to ferry around themselves and the relatives of Elian Gonzalez to and from Cuba. Perhaps these limousine liberals would also be so kind as to explain how the cause of Jesus Christ is advanced by their pandering to the Communists in Cuba?" - Mike Montgomery, Atlanta, Ga. So the NCC is just one more liberal group ranting against Bush. Not one bit of actual news here - just politics. The Associated Press wrote this article in the way they wrote it because (1) then did no research into what they blindly wrote, or (2) they have the same liberal slant that Edgar has. The correct answer: BOTH. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Apr-2004, 09:02 AM |
| That's right, Herrerano. During a conference call Thursday with reporters to discuss his upcoming jobs tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether he owned a Chevrolet Suburban. "I don't own an SUV," said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies. Kerry also has made rising gasoline prices an issue in the campaign against President Bush. In Houston on Thursday, Kerry said the president broke a 2000 campaign pledge to "jawbone" oil-producing nations by pressuring them to increase their output. Just like Clinton when he said "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Apr-2004, 09:10 AM |
| Could there actually be anything good about Kerry winning the Presidential elevtion this year? OK, I'm on high doses of caffeine, so bear with me. Right now Hillary is the presumptive Democratic candidate in 2008, a year in which there will be no obstacle of a Republican incumbent. If Kerry wins he'll run for reelection in 2008, pushing Hillary back to 2012. This would mean that Hillary would have to run for reelection in New York in 2006, and she knows that Rudy Giuliani might have something to say about that. How can she run for president in 2012 if she's been out of the public eye for six years? There is just no way that Hillary is going to let this scenario come to pass. She's vicious and treacherous, and nothing must come between her and her presidential dreams. Would "Clinton, Inc." actually do anything to torpedo Kerry's chances at being President? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 23-Apr-2004, 09:47 AM |
| Well, it's Friday morning and I'm already on my 4th Coca Cola, so here goes another Kerry snapshot. On "Meet the Press" this week, NBC's Tim Russert pressed Kerry to spell out just what it is he hopes to accomplish in Iraq, and how his goals differ from Bush's. Among his questions: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Do you have a plan to deal with Iraq? If you are elected, will there be 100,000 US troops in Iraq a year from now? Why do you say the UN and NATO should take over when they don't have the troops or the desire to do so? Here are some of Kerry's replies: (1) We need a new president . . . to re-establish credibility with the rest of the world. . . . Here is the bottom line: Number one, you cannot bring other nations to the table through the back door. You cannot have America run the occupation, make all the reconstruction decisions, make the decisions of the kind of government that will emerge, and pretend to bring other nations to the table. (2) Now, finally, George Bush is doing what I . . . have recommended. In effect, he's transferred to the UN the decision about what government we'll turn it over to. But he won't transfer to the UN the real authority for determining how the government emerges, how we will do the reconstruction of Iraq. . . (3) If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the UN, I will go to other capitals. . . . I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world. No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves. Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all. There is more of this UN fetish in Kerry's recent Washington Post column on Iraq. "The United Nations, not the United States," he writes, "should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and recreate a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people." Compare that to Bush's speech the other night: "The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . " The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN. In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to. |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Apr-2004, 06:56 PM | ||
"Could there actually be anything good about Kerry winning the Presidential elevtion this year?" Yes, the crooked a.. H...s in the administration would have to fall back on the multimillion $ annual income from thier oil stocks. "Would "Clinton, Inc." actually do anything to torpedo Kerry's chances at being President?" After reading "An American Dynasty" about the rampant corruption in the Shrub family, I don't worry about the Clintons at all. The Shrubs are the ones capable of buying a hit, an election or a war. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 23-Apr-2004, 07:12 PM |
| I NEVER liked Clinton or anything about him.............IMHO gosh! If we get Hiliary as president then I am leaving the country! |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Apr-2004, 07:20 PM | ||
Going to Mexico or Panama? Maybe Scotland? We will miss you. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 24-Apr-2004, 02:36 AM |
| Maisky, you are naughty! Actually I thought of Canada. I would love to go to Scotland though too. Maybe I can spend six months in Canada and six months in Scotland. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Apr-2004, 05:57 AM | ||
Which are you going to chose for winter? (brrrrrr!) |
| Posted by: CelticRose 24-Apr-2004, 06:17 AM | ||
Now Maisky! You are up early and ready to fight!  Actually, I thought maybe I should consider Australia for the winter and Canada or Scotland for the summer!. However,if we republicans win the race again for this year..............and we will............. ...............I shall reconsider staying in the US. Hmmmm.............not sure if hubby will let me leave regardless.However, he always wanted to move to New Zealand..................LOTR country! |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Apr-2004, 11:34 AM |
| I am sure you will like New Zealand. Don't forget to write. |
| Posted by: Knightly Knight 24-Apr-2004, 01:55 PM |
| speaking of Hillary. I heard the number one selling bumper sticker in the US is the Run, Hillary,Run bumper sticker. Its an all purpose sticker. Democrats put in on the back of their cars and Republicans put it on the front of their car. LOL ( Warning ) This notice is meant as a light hearted attempt at humor. This is not meant as an commentary on any politician character either fictitious or real. The aforementioned political parties mentioned have not endorsed this random thought in any way. If you have a suggestion about the aforementioned humorous attempt please call either your local ACLU, Sierra Club, Rotary Club, Lions Club, SAMs Club or perhaps your childs nursery school. You will need to look up the number yourself. Jeeeeez Louise comedy is getting harder all the time LOL |
| Posted by: Shamalama 03-May-2004, 08:33 AM |
| We'll call today's installment "Buyer's Remorse". That's right. It's six months until the election, and some Democrats are already having buyer's remorse in that Kerry cannot win. Village Voice columnist James Ridgeway says prominent Democrats should "sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike" and withdraw. He writes "With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go." "Dem leaders" he says," are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean." Call that the Torricelli option, after the former New Jersey senator who was muscled out of the race by party elders. Time magazine columnist Joe Klein says Mr. Kerry is "engulfed by the sort of people Howard Dean railed against: timid congressional Democratic staff members and some of the old Clinton crowd. . . . Kerry's may be the most sclerotic presidential campaign since Bob Dole's." Ouch. John Weaver, who was strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign before he became a Democrat, calls Mr. Kerry's TV skills "abysmal. . . . I don't know if it's a stream of consciousness or stream of unconsciousness." MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who has lavished airtime on Mr. Kerry, is nonetheless frustrated with his elliptical speech patterns. "There's no such thing as a trick question with Kerry, because he won't answer it," he sighs. "We'll be having conversations afterward, and it's hard to get to him even then." ABC's Charlie Gibson asked him last Monday on "Good Morning America" to reconcile his inconsistent stories about whether he had flung his medals or merely his combat ribbons over the White House fence during a 1971 antiwar protest . After Mr. Gibson pointed out that he had covered the demonstration and had personally seen Mr. Kerry throwing medals away, the candidate replied: "Charlie, Charlie, you're wrong! That is not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. And all you have to do is go back and find the file footage." He then lapsed into incoherence. Pollster Frank Luntz said he raised the issue when he conducted focus group surveys of voters for MSNBC in six states earlier this year during the Democratic primaries. The groups, made up of "swing voters," described Mr. Kerry as "distant" and as someone who looks "sad" and who rarely smiled or laughed. Mr. Luntz said he has received similar responses in subsequent focus groups. But he was in Vietnam, wasn't he? Geez, how much mileage is Kerry trying to get out of 4 months in country and 3 "battle wounds"? James Taranto points out that in a December 2002 interview with NBC's Tim Russert, Mr. Kerry managed to work Vietnam into an answer about the death penalty. Kerry will begin a series of $25 million television ads in key battleground states today. The purpose? To highlight his biography, with special emphasis on the fact that Kerry served in Vietnam. You would think that he would want to showcase his own vision of America, and detail just how he would pursue World War IV, the war on terror. But no. Kerry is afraid that there might still be some Americans who don't realize that he served in Vietnam. Twenty years in the U.S. Senate, and during those years he didn't accomplish one single thing that he can point to as a qualification for the presidency. But he was in Vietnam! Robert Sam Anson, a Kerry friend who first met him during that same antiwar protest at which Mr. Kerry burst onto the national scene in 1971, concludes that Mr. Kerry is suffering from a desire to "explain away, deny, revise, trim or flat-out lie about all past events, beliefs and statements that got you the Democratic nomination in the first place. It happened to another friend of mine in 1972. His name was George McGovern." Late last month, the AFL-CIO conducted focus group interviews with undecided union members in St. Louis and Philadelphia who said that Kerry "doesn't warm anybody up" and that Bush was viewed as a more likable and stronger leader. The focus group interviews suggested that Kerry's perceived aloofness was an obstacle in appealing to union voters. Bush won 35 percent of union voters in 2000, despite union leaders' near-uniform endorsements of Democrat Al Gore. A Mickey Kaus article on Slate.com cites one Democrat blogger asking "At what point do Democrats begin to consider that they haven't nominated this guy yet?" Will the replacement will be The Hildabeast, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich? |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 03-May-2004, 09:12 AM | ||
Actually my wife and I were speaking about going to Belize if Bush wins the re-election. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 03-May-2004, 09:25 AM |
| Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday. "What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander. The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign." "We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said. "We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry. The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War." Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April. This is the same Kerry that is going to release new campaign ads this week highlighting his service in Vietnam. OK, he wants to promote his actions in the 1970's? Then what about his Nov. 2, 1971 statements in the Bethany College student newspaper, The Tower: "Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world." So John, then which country does have the best Democracy in the world? His statement also said that communism did not pose any kind of threat to the United States. I've been telling you for months that Kerry is a closet Socialist. November 1971 was also the time of the meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City at which the possible assassination of U.S. senators was discussed. It's been mentioned on this board that all discussions were only "in a joking manner" and that Kerry "resigned after the meeting". OK, so then why did, until this year, Kerry constantly deny attending the meeting? Kerry also retreated from an earlier comment he made in response to a question about former VVAW executive director Al Hubbard. Kerry and Hubbard appeared together on an April 18, 1971 broadcast of the news show Meet the Press to discuss their anti-war efforts (Hubbard, who had passed himself off as a decorated Air Force captain, was later shown to have lied about his military record. An investigation in 1971 by a CBS News reporter revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there.) When asked about his relationship with Hubbard at a televised press conference two weeks ago, Kerry said, "I haven't talked to Al Hubbard since that week" of the April 1971 Meet the Press appearance. But there are FBI files and eyewitness accounts from former VVAW members had placed Kerry and Hubbard in the same place on several occasions after the Meet the Press appearance. The Kerry campaign has conceded that the senator was also incorrect on that point - and the New York Times, the Washington Post, and ABC News already knows it. Kerry, exactly what are you hiding? Or is this a part of your Vietnam heroics you don't want discussed? Four months in country, three band-aids, and so many lies - and people still consider him to be a hero? |
| Posted by: maisky 03-May-2004, 06:34 PM | ||
The lies are by the Republicant administration. The heroism is real, as was the Bush and Cheney draft dodging. Bandaids? I suppose the bronze star and silver star were 'nothing', too. You have been listening to TOO MUCH of the Republicant propaganda. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 04-May-2004, 07:38 AM |
| Personally I'd really like to see why those medals were awarded, but Kerry won't release all of his records the way Bush did. If I had a Silver Star you can bet I'd be showing that sucker off to anyone that wanted to see it and would provide a ton of evidence to back it up. The issue here is "I just don't know". I've only known personally one Purple Heart recipient from Vietnam. He refused them starting at #3 because he didn't want to leave. He's a hero. Kerry gets three in four months, and no one knows how he got them. The wounds weren't bad enough for Kerry to miss any time. But he certainly went home quick enough. Yes, I'm very suspiscious about it, and the jury is still out whether he's a hero or not. Think about it: three Purple Hearts, one Silver Star, and one Bronze Star - all in four months. Normally a combination of Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, and Sly Stallone couldn't generate that many awards in so short a time. I wonder if any other person in Vietnam generated such awards in the same amount of time? You ask me to accept his 'hero-ness' because he received some medals, but you cannot accept that Bush did his time even through he received some pay records, and has made those pay records public. Sounds partisian to me. I submit that you have been listening to TOO MUCH of the Demo-Lib propaganda. Kerry cannot point to anything he's ever done in his 20 years of serving in the Sanate, so he constantly points to his service in Vietnam as his "defining moment". Assuming everything he's said is true, and I don't, I find it difficult to define a person based on four months from 30 years ago. Kerry wants to make his service so very important, and as he does I'm going to question this very important time. Remember, Kerry made his military service an issue in his campaign, where Bush has not. Can you name one single legislative initiative pursued by Kerry during his years in the U.S. Senate? Nobody says Kerry wasn't brave when he was in Vietnam. But once he came home, he disavowed his oath as an officer and he gave aid and comfort to our enemy by his antiwar stance. And remember: Kerry himself told us that military service didn't matter in 1992 when it was revealed that Clinton dodged the draft. Another flip flop. He is intrinsically weak on defense and national sovereignty, especially on foreign policy and environmental matters, anemic on traditional values and passionately in favor of redistributing wealth - except for his own. His beginning as both a war hero and war protester are a foreshadowing of his future political career - Mr. Flip Flop. |
| Posted by: maisky 04-May-2004, 03:43 PM | ||
Purple hearts were all too easy to come by on the Meikong Delta. All this ranting about Kerry's heroism is a typical Republicant ploy to divert attention from the fact that the "frat boys" currently in power are a bunch of draft dodgining "chickenhawks". The sad thing is that so many people eat up their BS. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 05-May-2004, 10:02 AM | ||
| One thing I love about the internet is the ability to discover information that the mainstream media wouldn't dare expose - it doesn't fit their liberal agenda. Kerry has made his military service in Vietnam a campaign issue. The rule at the time of his military service was that three Purple Hearts got you sent home from Vietnam. So was Kerry working the system? Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished. Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party. What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it:
If Kerry would lie about being wounded during time of war, what else would he lie about? This is not about diverting attention from the Republicans, it's about understanding the character of someone desiring to be President, and as such is legitimate. |
| Posted by: maisky 05-May-2004, 05:41 PM | ||
It's a terrible shame we didn't know more about BUSH baby before the last campaign. We wouldn't be mired down and Losing a war in Bushnam that the 'chicken hawks' decided it would be fun to start. Even Georgies dad is disgusted with him. George SR. explained in some detail in his book why we didn't invade Iraq after the first war their. He was too smart to put us where the idiot son has us. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 06-May-2004, 09:08 AM |
| "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." The President also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." The President also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, the President said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces. --- All the above was from http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ It is a CNN story from December 16, 1998 reporting on the previous night's speech by then President Clinton. The attack on Saddam was not simply Bush's Folly - it was created out of fear and frustration carried through other administrations as well. The US isn't mired down or losing a war no matter what the mainstream media tries to imply. Do you realize that just about all the media has to say about what's going on over there is their nightly casualty reports? The cumulative impression is of a U.S. occupation that is simply hunkered down, waiting for the next bomb to go off or mortar round to land, occasionally lashing back to lethal but uncertain effect. There are no reports of Iraqis fleeing from here to there. If people were desperately afraid for their personal security, there would be exactly such movements. If the vast bulk of the reconstruction effort had crawled to a standstill over a lack of security, we would be hearing about that, too, which suggests that a lot of work is, in fact, proceeding. For all the bad-news reporting, we haven't been hearing about deterioration in Iraqi quality of life. I don't mean complaints about being occupied, but rather want and deprivation. If those were the order of the day, we'd know about it. Those people are discovering freedoms and qualities of life that they haven't seen in decades. On March 12, CNN?s Larry King asked Dan Rather, who appeared from Baghdad, what changes he?s noticed since his last time there in September and earlier. Rather replied, "I guess the biggest change, Larry, if you were here, I think the biggest thing you would notice is freedom. I know that will strike some people as corny or cliche but it's what you feel. And it's what the Iraqi people, by and large, feel. They, most Iraqis alive today have never known anything approaching freedom. And just the fact that Iraqis can speak out, that they can say what they want to say, is probably the biggest change that's happened over the last year." On the April 1 Larry King Live, ABC?s Peter Jennings told King of what he learned during his recent visit to Iraq: "One of the really strong impressions I had, having been there for only 10 days, is this strange ambiguity because life is improving for people in Iraq in many, many ways, and the U.S. influence in Iraq is having, in many ways, a very significant influence. Our focus on the loss of American soldiers and now civilians on a sometimes almost daily basis, it gets so intense, somewhat I think overshadows what has been happening, in more general terms, in restructuring or structuring the country." It's got to be understood that nobody under the age of 80 has worked on as ambitious a nation-building project as what's going on in Iraq. An operation of this magnitude has only been conducted twice before in the modern era, in Germany and Japan, and both took many years and cost many dollars. Before us stands the first chance for democracy, outside of Israel, in the Middle East. That one event, if allowed to occur, will do more to conquer Islamic terrorism than all the bombs in our arsenal. |
| Posted by: maisky 06-May-2004, 03:43 PM |
| Pretty thoughts, my friend. It would be nice if it were possible to turn the "war crime"/invasion into something posative for SOMEBODY. The question is, "at what price"? hundreds of billions of OUR dollars poured into an illegal war. Hundreds of US soldiers dead, thousands wounded and crippled. The US status in the world going down the toilet. Even our staunchest supporters turning away from us. I hope the NEW regime can improve the situation. Bush certainly has mishandled EVERYTHING so far. The latest is symptomatic: He said he was "out of the loop". In spite of repeated warnings to the US about the violations before the pictures were released. Who will pay? Only the lowest level soldiers. It turns out that the torture had a common thread. Military intelligence was involved. EVERY ex-military person knows what an oxymoron THAT is. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 17-May-2004, 10:56 AM |
| In Boston, during July 26-29, the Democrats will be hosting their Convention. So what's the best way to be a Delegate for the Convention - being gay doesn't hurt! Democratic parties in 15 states and Puerto Rico have set numerical goals for gays and lesbian delegates at the party's national convention this summer, double the number that set a standard in 2000. Both President Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry oppose gay marriages. For example: CALIFORNIA: 440 total delegates, including 22 gay men and 22 lesbians. FLORIDA: 201 total delegates, including 20 gay or lesbian delegates, plus three alternates. MAINE: 35 total delegates, including three gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered delegates. NEW YORK: 285 total delegates, including at least 23 gay and lesbian delegates. PUERTO RICO: 58 total delegates, including two gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered delegates. Full story at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040512-2303-gays-delegates.html Do the Democrats really intend to quiz would-be delegates about their sexual orientation? Is Affirmative Action based on sexual preference just over the horizion. Typical Liberal mantra - we don't want the best, just the percentages. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 17-May-2004, 11:26 AM |
| Now what will he do? The Kerry campaign has released data on Teresa Heinz Kerry's taxes and promises to release her 2003 return once she's filed it (she filed for an extension), CNN reports: "Mrs. Kerry--whose wealth derives from the Heinz food fortune--earned about $5 million in 2003 and paid approximately $750,000 in taxes, according to the information." That would mean she paid roughly 15% of her income in taxes. But wait a minute. His website states: "John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare." Does this mean he will propose legislation that will take more of his wife's take-home pay? I doubt that. So exactly what does he mean? |
| Posted by: maisky 17-May-2004, 04:55 PM | ||
Yes, that is precisely what he means. You got it right! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 18-May-2004, 10:19 AM |
A group of more than 220 veterans who served in Sen. John Kerry's swift-boat unit in Vietnam are calling on the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate to stop unauthorized use of their images in national campaign advertising.  Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has declared the Massachusetts senator "unfit to be commander in chief," says 11 of the 20 officers in one photo Kerry uses have signed a letter condemning him. The photo, which includes Kerry, was taken on the island of An Thoi Jan. 22, 1969. "Of the remaining eight officers in the photo, two are deceased and four don't want any involvement," the veterans said in a statement. Only two of the 20 are believed to support Kerry. Among its members is virtually the entire chain of command to which Kerry reported and a large majority of peers who served during his four-month stay in Vietnam. At the group's May 4 press conference, Hoffman, who headed Kerry's Coastal Division 11, said Kerry was seen by colleagues as a self-serving, "loose cannon" who came only to launch a political career. Hoffman said Kerry "arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future." "He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard to specific tactical assignments," Hoffman said. "He was a loose cannon." |
| Posted by: maisky 18-May-2004, 05:03 PM | ||
Gee, he sounds almost as bad as Georgie, the draft dodger! At least Kerry knows what war LOOKS like! |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 19-May-2004, 04:36 AM |
| IMHO, this election will be less about who is the better choice than who is the lesser of two evils. Kerry is a vain, pompous poser who may still get my vote simply because he's not Bush. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 19-May-2004, 09:05 AM | ||
So you'd vote for a "vain, pompous poser" over a man who stands by his convictions?  |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 19-May-2004, 10:01 AM |
| If his convictions were wrong YES In a heartbeat. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 19-May-2004, 10:06 AM | ||
And you're sure his convictions are wrong? |
| Posted by: tsargent62 19-May-2004, 11:01 AM | ||
Careful, my friend. Being a veteran myself and a person of reasonable intelligence, I take exception to that kind of stereotyping. You may have been joking, but that joke has always gotten under my skin. I knew a great number of highly intelligent folks serving our country. Don't assume that military service equals low intelligence and lack of ability to succeed in civilian life. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-May-2004, 06:11 PM | ||
This is a simple misunderstanding. It is not the intelligence of the military personnel I was referring to, it was MI or Military Intelligence. The spooks. I have great respect for the men and women who serve our country, even if I have very little respect for the current commander-in-chief. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-May-2004, 06:12 PM | ||
Bush does NOT stand by his convictions. He stands for what Cheney and the rest of the energy czars (and princes) tell him he stands for. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-May-2004, 06:37 PM | ||
Yes, his convictions are wrong. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 20-May-2004, 11:38 AM | ||
You'll forgive me if I disagree with you on this. While I do disagree with President Bush on many things (homeland security, illegal aliens) and agree on a few others (tax cuts) I think he's the right man for a dirty job (war on terrorism) at this time. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-May-2004, 11:43 AM |
| Everybody has heard the "anybody but Bush" slogan. But are the Democrats really that desperate? The New York Times last weekend front-paged a story about Democrats close to John Kerry who long to make McCain his running-mate. CBS News hailed Kerry-McCain as a "dream team," while Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" pleaded with McCain to hop on board Kerry's bandwagon. Sen. Joe Biden declared that McCain "would be a great candidate for vice president." Sen. Bill Nelson, himself on Kerry's VP short list, conceded of McCain that "there's a collective sigh that says, 'This feels right.' " And veteran Democratic strategist Chris Lehane said flatout that recruiting McCain ? who is officially co-chairman of Bush's re-election campaign ? "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees' signing A-Rod." As for Kerry, sources keep saying that he remains "interested." Much has been made of the notoriously independent McCain's occasional lapses from GOP dogma. And there are more than a few Republicans that don't consider McCain to be a true party member. But hasn't anyone in the Democratic Party ever checked out his voting record? Or do they actually care? - McCain voted to confirm both Robert Bork and John Ashcroft - McCain voted against raising the minimum wage - McCain voted repeatedly against any abortion-rights concessions - McCain voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts - McCain voted to withhold federal funds from schools that bar the Boy Scouts because of their refusal to admit gays - McCain voted against federal funding for hate-crime prosecutions and broadening coverage of the federal hate-crimes law - McCain has voted in the past to bar U.S. cooperation with the International Court of Justice - McCain has voted in the past against a Medicare prescription-drug benefit - McCain has voted in the past against ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty - McCain has voted in the past in favor of a constitutional amendment outlawing desecration of the U.S. flag - McCain has voted in the past in favor of tightening the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. - McCain also has voted against requiring federal background checks of those buying firearms at gun fairs - McCain also has voted in favor of limiting jury awards on product liability - McCain also has voted against the unionization of Homeland Security employees - McCain also has voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation - McCain also has voted against reparations for Japanese-Americans interned during WWII Would the Democrats seriously place a heartbeat from the presidency someone who, as Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager, notes, stands counter to all the "core issues that defined the Democratic Party"? Are Democrats so desperate for victory at any price that many seem prepared to select a vice-presidential candidate whose positions constitute an enormous red flag being waved in the face of every one of the Democrats' constituency groups? What about former Sen. Bob Kerrey's words: McCain "would not have to leave his party," he told The Times. "The only thing he would have to do is say, 'I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.' " Is that all it really boils down to - abortion (the correct answer is No, it's more than abortion, it's just that abortion is the #1 rally point for Democrats)? So what does Sen. Kerrey propose? In return for a place on the Democratic ticket, McCain need only compromise his principles by turning his back on one of his most consistent and uncompromising positions - opposition to abortion. And the Democrats would volunteer to turn their backs on many of their most consistent and uncompromising positions - as long as they don't lose abortion. Democratic principles - an oxymoron. |
| Posted by: maisky 20-May-2004, 04:30 PM | ||
EVERYBODY is that desperate! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-May-2004, 10:23 AM |
| Kerry's latest ploy: He wants to actually delay his nomination by the Democratic National Convention by several weeks so that he won't be restricted by the campaign finance reform act that he supported. The Kerry soldiers are considering this maneuver so it can keep raising and spending money as long as possible without having to abide by spending limits that kick in once a party formally nominates its candidate. Of course, the late July date was the Democratic Party's own choice, and it was selected precisely so it would let the nominee accept matching federal campaign funds a month earlier than President Bush, who will be nominated in late August. The assumption had been that the Democratic candidate would have run out of cash by this summer, but Mr. Kerry has been raising more money than he expected. In other words, Mr. Kerry embraced the rules when they helped him but now wants to ignore them when they don't. This is always the way with campaign-finance limits. Politicians endorse them to sound holier-than-thou but then immediately turn around and exploit or invent loopholes and exceptions. Here is just one more example of Kerry's flip-flopping, but if you look carefully you can see this behavior all across Washington. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-May-2004, 06:40 PM | ||
Bush and Co is having the Republicant convention at the latest date EVER to circumvent the campaign laws, knowing in advance the big corporate donors had provided 170 Million bucks for the campaign. The democrats are merely responding to the usual dirty tactics of Cheney and his (comic relief) sidekick, George. |
| Posted by: Raven 24-May-2004, 06:42 PM |
| Dang that chaps my barnacles |
| Posted by: maisky 24-May-2004, 06:46 PM | ||
That sounds PAINFUL! Does medication hand lotion help the chapping? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 25-May-2004, 08:24 AM | ||
Is that the same thing as barnacles on your chaps? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Jun-2004, 09:46 AM |
| Yeah, old Kerry says he's a "man of the people". The question is: what people? - Kerry's suburban Pittsburgh estate, in Fox Chapel, includes a nine-room colonial and a nine-room carriage house. Cost: $3.7 Million - When in the nation's capital, Kerry lives in a 23-room Georgetown town house. Cost: $4.7 Million - Kerry's ski retreat in Ketchum, ID, is a 15th-century manor imported from England and later reassembled in Idaho. Cost: $4.916 Million - Kerry's vacation home in Massachusetts is a three-story, five-bedroom waterfront retreat on Brant Point. Cost: $9.18 Million - Kerry?s Serotta bicycyle that he loves to be pictured riding has been estimated between $1,800 And $5,000. Not exactly what Joe Sixpack pays for his kid's bike. - Kerry?s 50-Cent Gas Tax increase would have cost average households $1.80 a day or $657 a year. That is, if you are the 51% (that Kerry wants to reduce) that actually pay any tax. - Kerry's 42-foot powerboat is called The Scaramouche. Cost: $700,000, or about $698,000 more that the average American's boat. - In spite of the six-figure Senate salary, Kerry gave just $175 to charity in the same year he bought himself a new Ducati motorcycle for $8,600. - Kerry reportedly spent more than $1,000 to get a haircut recently. I wonder what he tipped? - Kerry's primary residence in Massachusetts is a five-story, 12-room town house located in Boston's exclusive Beacon Hill. Cost: $6.9 Million - 'The Flying Squirrel', Kerry's private jet, has an estimated valued of $35 Million. That sure beats my used Dodge Dakota (recently purchased for $3,200). Hmmm. Come to think of it, Kerry sure sounds like the 'evil rich' that he complains about during his speeches. And just how did Kerry come about this great wealth? - Marry a rich woman. - Find a richer woman. - Dump the first and marry the second. - 'Shrek 2' made over $120 million during its first week. In a related story, John Kerry asked Shrek to marry him." - Conan O'Brien - President Bush listed his income as $822,000. You know what John Kerry calls someone who earns $822,000? Not even worth dating. - Jay Leno - They say John Kerry is the first Democratic presidential candidate in history to raise $50 million in a three-month period. Actually, that's nothing. He once raised $500 million with two words: 'I do.' - Jay Leno - Today, John Kerry announced a fool-proof plan to wipe out the $500B deficit. John Kerry has a plan, he's going to put it on his wife's Gold Card. - Craig Kilborn - John Kerry is busy trying to raise money right now for his campaign. It was reported today that Kerry's hoping to raise $80 million before the Democratic convention. That's a lot of money. Yeah, Kerry has two ways to raise the $80 million: soliciting Democratic donors and going through his wife's purse. - Conan O'Brien - Kerry has already begun his search for a running mate. They say that because John Edwards still has $50 million in campaign money, Kerry might pick him. Pick him? Hey, for $50 million, Kerry will marry him. - Jay Leno - They had a profile of John Kerry on the news and they said his first wife was worth around $300 million and his second wife, his current wife, is worth around $700 million. So when John Kerry says he's going after the wealthy in this country, he's not just talking. He's doing it! - Jay Leno |
| Posted by: maisky 02-Jun-2004, 05:19 PM |
| Good jokes, Mr. S! |
| Posted by: gtrplr 03-Jun-2004, 09:27 AM | ||
They were jokes? |
| Posted by: maisky 04-Jun-2004, 03:03 PM |
| An Interview with Rand Beers One week ago, John Kerry kicked off eleven days of speeches and campaign events outlining his national security policy. As head of the Internet Team, I had the opportunity to sit down with Rand Beers to discuss how John Kerry will build a stronger America, that is respected in the world, and secure at home. After serving at the National Security Council at the White House during Republican and Democratic administrations, Rand Beers resigned as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism in March 2003 to protest the Bush administration's loss of focus on the war on terrorism. Eight weeks later, he joined the Kerry Campaign as National Security/Homeland Security Issues Coordinator. He began his career as a Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam. Josh Ross: Was it a difficult decision to leave the Bush administration? Rand Beers: It was an extraordinarily difficult decision for me to make. When you've worked with people for a number of years, you develop a sense of loyalty and camaraderie. But I feel strongly that if you're going to play a part in any government, you have to be one hundred percent committed. When I could not give that kind of commitment because of differences in philosophy and the administration's rush to war, I decided to leave. After I left, I thought a lot about what I wanted to do, and came to the conclusion that rather than being part of the problem, which I was within the administration, I wanted to be part of the solution. Josh Ross: There were nine Democrats in the field when you joined the Kerry campaign. Why pick John Kerry over all the rest? Rand Beers: I joined John Kerry's campaign because I knew about his record in the Senate, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I knew that he cared about the changing security environment that the world was facing. And one of his former staffers, Jonathan Winer, worked for me as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State Department, so I had a good appreciation of the kinds of issues and concerns that John Kerry was passionate about. I also admire Senator Kerry because of his Vietnam experience. Like him, I served in Vietnam. Like him, I went back for a second tour after having spent a full year there. Like him, I came back to the United States deeply concerned that our efforts in Vietnam had gone off track. I was drawn to John Kerry because of our similar experiences, plus the knowledge that individuals who have served in combat have an important perspective when they make decisions about war and peace. Josh Ross: What steps do we need to take to restore U.S. authority and leadership in the world? Rand Beers: It's absolutely essential that the next president, from his first day in office, makes a major effort to reach out to countries around the world. We need to return to the kind of dialogue that is necessary to knit together relationships and alliances into meaningful coalitions, to deal with the problems around the globe. If you're not prepared to listen, as well as talk, then it's much harder to bring other countries together for common purposes and common solutions. Josh Ross: What lessons from history can we apply to fighting the war on terror? Rand Beers: I think that the major lesson from history is that if we do not work together with allies around the world, we are going to be unable to prevent terrorists from attacking us and hurting us. We will never have a perfect defense; but we will be stronger and more secure with strong allies. Second, we need to adapt our capabilities to the new threats we face. Terrorism was previously a secondary concern not only for the United States but for most countries. The face of terrorism is ever-changing and evolving. We're going to have to look at our military forces, our intelligence forces, and our law enforcement community, both within the United States and globally, to make sure that we have the right kind of people, the right kind of capabilities, and the right kind of skills in order to deal with these new threats. We also have to dry up support and sympathy for al-Qaeda in the Islamic world. We have to reinforce the perception in the Islamic world that the kind of activity and behavior that al-Qaeda engages in is unrepresentative of the religion as a whole. This will take time and considerable effort, but it's a mission that we must participate in with the Islamic world and other members of the international community. Josh Ross: How will a John Kerry presidency differ from a George Bush Presidency, in terms of foreign policy, the war on terrorism, and Iraq? Rand Beers: John Kerry presented a very clear set of differences in his speech in Seattle last Thursday. First, he would return to the alliance structure that has stood so well since the second World War. Those alliances need to be updated, strengthened and refocused for a post 9/11 world, so that organizations such as NATO are no longer confined in their vision. Second, John Kerry will ensure that we have the kind of military that's necessary for security missions. We must have more than just a force that is capable of fighting conventional wars. We also must have the skills and capabilities that will allow us to deal with failed states, terrorism, and threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, especially keeping them away from terrorists. Third, John Kerry will use all the tools in our foreign policy arsenal. We will emphasize the use of diplomacy, which the Bush administration has put in cold storage. We need better intelligence capabilities and better use of economic power, our ideas, and our values. Finally, we need to become energy independent, so our foreign policy isn't distorted by our dependence on Middle East oil. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jun-2004, 09:59 AM |
| Poor old Kerry. First Reagan's death took up all the news stories, and soon Clinton and his memoirs will be doing the same. It seems like no one is paying attention to the man who could be the next US President. So let's get 'ole Kerry back to the front with this little quiz: 1- What do you consider his greatest legislative achievement in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate? 2- Name one bill that Kerry introduced and got passed in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate. 3- Name one policy initiative that Kerry managed to get implemented in over 20 years in the U.S. Senate. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jun-2004, 08:31 AM |
| Teresa Heinz Kerry, the multi-millionaire supporter of numerous liberal causes, tells us that she made the switch from being a Republican to being a Democrat because she became disgusted when Republicans attacked the patriotism of Max Cleland during the 2002 election. I was right here in Georgia during that election. I'm here to tell you that the patriotism of Max Cleland was never an issue in Georgia in that campaign. It didn't happen. Max Cleland was born in Atlanta, Ga., in 1942. He grew up in Lithonia and graduated from Lithonia High School in 1960, only 15 miles from my house. He served in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of captain 1965-1968. He was wounded in combat in Vietnam. He lost both legs and his right arm on April 8, 1968 He was elected to the United States Senate in 1996, and served from 1997 to 2003. He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 2002. Max Cleland remains a beloved figure in Georgia politics. The fact is that Georgian's became alarmed when Max became Tom Daschle's hand puppet after the Republicans took the White House in 2000. Nowhere was Max Cleland's loyalty to Tom Daschle more apparent than in his participation in the Democratic attempts to stall the formation of a homeland security department until certain government employee union demands were met. In short, Max Cleland put the Democratic allegiance to government employee unions ahead of the security concerns of our country. The voters didn't like it, and they turned him out. At one point he actually introduced legislation in the Senate that would allow law enforcement officers to seize private property without any evidence that any crime had been committed. The brutal fact of the matter is that Max Cleland was a liberal Senator representing a conservative state. When the voters found out that Max was more eager for the approval of the Democratic leadership than he was the approval of the people he represented, they turned him out. The Republicans never questioned Cleland's patriotism in 2002. But Kerry continues the myth best: "To this day I am motivated by -- and I will be throughout this campaign -- the most craven moment I've ever seen in politics, when the Republican Party challenged this man's patriotism in the last campaign." Democrats make it sound as though Cleland's opponent, the four-term Republican congressman Saxby Chambliss, ran an ad something like this: "Sen. Max Cleland," -- cue the ominous music -- "is he a patriot? Georgia wants to know." Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense. If you can't criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize? Throughout the race, Cleland tried to hide behind the idea that his patriotism was being questioned. A columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted in June of 2002 that "this 'how-dare-you-attack-my-patriotism' ploy, replete with feigned outrage, is a device to put Cleland's voting records off-limits." It didn't work. Chambliss won the crucial endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which made its nod on the basis of the two candidates' differing records on national-security and veterans issues. The VFW wouldn't have been complicit in a gutter campaign based on smearing a Vietnam veteran. Bottom line: there was no attack on Cleland's patriotism. Therefore Ms. Kerry's reasoning about switching to the Democrats is flawed. She was a Republican only because her former husband was. Today she a Democrat because her current husband is a Democrat. Ms. Flip-Flop. |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Jun-2004, 12:45 PM |
| The latest is the family of Ronald Reagan complaining of the Shrub campaign using pictures of R. Reagan to compare Georgies war on terror with Reagans battle agains Communism. They SHOULD be upset about Georgie being compared to Reagan. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 17-Jun-2004, 10:45 AM |
| John Kerry argues that incomes are shrinking. The data say otherwise. He once talked about the jobless recovery. But the avalanche of new jobs rendered that charge null and void. His advisors talk about 1.2 million net jobs lost since Bush took office. That, too, will be erased as we head to 3 million new jobs this year. New government data show that over the past year consumers are spending at a 9 percent pace at retail, companies are investing at a 9.5 percent rate in new business equipment, and manufacturing industries are producing at a near 6.5 percent clip, all while our high-tech industries are expanding at a 30 percent rate. Overall, business sales are rising at an 11 percent pace. Owing to the post-tax-cut surge of investment funding for business expansion, 1.4 million new jobs have been created over the past nine months. As a result of new job creation, personal incomes have grown 5.7 percent over the past 12 months. Wage and salary income has increased 4.8 percent. After-tax, after-inflation disposable income has climbed 4.3 percent. A year after the Bush tax cuts, the U.S. economy stands on the front end of an economic boom. Recent government reports on consumer spending, industrial production, corporate investment and business sales suggest that overall growth in the second quarter could come in around 6 percent at an annual rate. That would put the trailing four-quarter recovery rate at 5.7 percent -- the fastest pace since 1984. 1984? That year, if you recall, followed the big Reagan tax cuts. This year follows the big Bush tax cuts. A coincidence? No. Here's another 20-year parallel. Mondale wanted to raise taxes. So does Kerry. This is no way to win a presidential election. Until the Democrats recognize the economic-growth incentive power of tax cuts, they'll never be competitive. In other words, "Quit taking away all my money." |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Jun-2004, 04:14 AM | ||
Sure, the # of millionairs has grown dramatically! It's everybody else who are getting screwed. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Jun-2004, 10:12 AM |
| This guy and his buddies continues to amaze me. A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states. America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison. ACT canvassers ask residents which issues are important to them and, if they are not registered, sign them up as voters. They gather telephone numbers and other personal information, such as driver's license numbers or partial Social Security numbers, depending on what a state requires for voter registration. Felons on probation or parole are ineligible to vote in many states. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, which represents election officials, said he is unaware of any laws against felons registering others to vote. A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by The Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses. Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with Kerry's campaign - federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers. Felons have been hired in Missouri, Florida and Ohio and said it is possible they have been hired in the other 14 states in which it's conducting its drive: Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Citing security concerns for the public and the felons, the Missouri Department of Corrections in April banished ACT from its pool of potential employers for parolees in its halfway houses in Kansas City and St. Louis. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040624/D83D3J8G0.html Is anybody surprised at this? Convicted felons, who they themselves cannot vote in many cases, are going around signing up people to vote, and gathering sensitive information like driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers. This is exactly how the voter fraud machine of the Democratic party operates. This would be pathetic if it wasn't so frightening, but this is exactly the way the Democratic party has been fraudulently electing liberals and working the system for decades. |
| Posted by: maisky 24-Jun-2004, 01:41 PM | ||
AW commmon! This is beneath you! But that's ok. Bush is continuing his downward spiral...... |
| Posted by: Shamalama 01-Jul-2004, 01:08 PM | ||
Beneath me? Nah. I just can't see using felons, people that in many places are not even allowed to vote, to register voters. Seems swarmy to me. But afterall, we are talking about the Democrats, aren't we? OK Brother Maisky, go ahead and put on your seat belt. As much as I hate to do this, I have to acknowedge good when I see it, even if it involves Kerry. --- Kerry: No licenses for illegal immigrants By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer | July 1, 2004 PITTSBURGH --Democrat John Kerry said he opposes state laws that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a position that puts him at odds with the Hispanic activists he is courting in the presidential race. Immigrant advocates have been pushing for the laws, saying they help undocumented workers get around safely. Licensed drivers know the rules of the road and can buy insurance, making streets safer for everyone, they say. Shortly after Kerry told the National Council of La Raza on Tuesday that he would make immigration reform a top priority to ease the path to citizenship for working immigrants, he took a tougher stance on the issue of driver's licenses in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo. "I think that driver's licenses are part of the legality of being here and if you've been here a period of time we may work something out as part of that immigration process, but I wouldn't give somebody who is automatically one year in here illegally all the rights and privileges of being here legally," Kerry said in the interview. "I think that's wrong. That defeats the purposes of the law," he said. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/07/01/kerry_no_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants?mode=PF --- ASSUMING that Kerry doesn't do another of his patented flip-flops on this, I have to admit that Kerry got this one right, especially when this would appear to be a non-politically-correct thing to do in an election year when pandering is the rule of the road. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 12-Jul-2004, 03:51 PM |
| Here we go! Sen. John Kerry's campaign proposals would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency, including an additional $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, and environmental and energy costs, according to a study of his budgetary recommendations. The study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which will be released later this week, finds that Mr. Kerry's budget proposals, which he says would slash the deficit in half over four years, would increase spending well beyond his estimates. "Despite Kerry's attempts to outflank Bush on the deficit issue and portray himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate, the data behind Kerry's rhetoric tell a different story," said Drew Johnson, the study's author. "Enactment of Kerry's 'revised' spending agenda in its entirety would still mean higher taxes, a larger national debt or likely both," he said. Using the Kerry campaign's data and budget estimates from independent sources such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost of each budget recommendation, the NTUF said the Massachusetts liberal's proposals would add $734.6 billion to the government's bills over five years. Since he announced his presidential candidacy, Mr. Kerry has made 70 policy proposals that would affect spending, five of which would reduce spending. "Overall, Senator Kerry proposes spending $770.6 billion over five years to fund his projects, while suggesting just $35.99 billion in budget cuts," the study says. "This leaves $734.62 billion unaccounted for and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt," the study said. "If John Kerry were indeed to 'pay for' every program he has proposed as a presidential candidate, as he promised in the April 7 speech at Georgetown, the average taxpayer in the U.S. would face an additional $2,206 in taxes in the first year of a Kerry presidency alone," the study says. Mr. Kerry's spending increase over a four-year term would total $621.76 billion, study figures show. "That translates to an average increased tax burden of $6,066 for every person paying federal taxes in America over Kerry's first term," it says. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm |
| Posted by: maisky 12-Jul-2004, 07:17 PM |
| At least Kerry won't "roll over" for every corporate interest in the world like cheney and his lackey george are doing. $200 billion pissed down a rat hole in Iraq would pay for ALL of Kerry's programs. Bush is braying about "handing over power" in Iraq while building 14 PERMANENT bases in Iraq is pure hypocracy. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 13-Jul-2004, 09:44 AM |
| Nevertheless, Bush cut taxes. Kerry will raise them. That's one of the choices you'll have in November: who gets to keep your own money. Establishing permanent bases? Geez, we did that in Europe and Japan after rebuilding their countries, and everything went fine. Iraq will need US support for years to keep Iran off their backs. Or is it your wish that Iraq falls to the next tyrant? The summer before Abraham Lincoln's re-election, he was waging a war that was deeply divisive in the North (even more so in the South!), but critical to the nation's future. The Democrats were running on a platform that did not call for the end of the war, but they did suggest that they would tone it down, make some changes and work to bring soldiers home. With a few strategic victories, moral in the North was raised and people rallied behind Lincoln, who personally thought he would not get re-elected, and he was re-elected by a couple million votes. We see a similar situation with Bush. He is waging a divisive war on terrorism that is critical to the country's future and the Democrats are running on a platform that calls for a change in the course in the war on terrorism. It'll be interesting to see if history repeats itself, or whether the country changes its bold direction and withdraws in on itself. To my mind, the war to depose Saddam is still justifiable, morally important, and will, if we stay the course, eventually be regarded as an important milestone in the war against terror. But at the same time, it seems to me that there's no denying that the actual case made by the Bush administration for war was built on false information. I do not believe that "Bush lied" no more than I believe that "Clinton [both of them] lied", or "Kerry lied", or "the UN lied", or a host of others that, in post-9/11 America, believed that Saddam was ready and willing to unleash WMD on America or sell them to those that would. I have documented before the names of those that, throughout the 1990's, believed that Saddam was both in possession of, and developing, WMD's. The bleating of "Bush lied" is entirely hypocritical. I'm glad we took down Saddam. I do believe that both the US and the world is a safer place with him gone. That's not to say that anyone is entirely safe; we still have a dozen mini-Saddams left in power, and I hope that the US has the guts to go after them as well. The Islamic jihad is just as evil, and maybe as powerful, as Stalin or Hitler in their early days, and we saw what appeasment and "police action" got us with those. --- According to the National Journal's ratings of "conservative or liberal", here's the Dem ticket (Liberal Ranking, and their Liberal score out of 100): 2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5) 2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) 2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) 2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) 1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2) Do you notice the pattern that both Kerry and Edwards have historically been moving more liberal with each passing year? Are we at the point where we want the US to be a Liberal country? Je veux être un libéral? |
| Posted by: maisky 13-Jul-2004, 01:31 PM |
| Here is the latest: A Georgia Republicant endorsing Kerry. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has tapped fellow Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia to introduce him during the crowning July 29 session of the Democratic National Convention, the campaign announced Tuesday. Two former presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and former Vice President Al Gore are scheduled to address the convention on July 26, its opening night. Cleland's introduction will highlight the theme of the convention -- "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World." Kerry's swift boat crewmates from his time in Vietnam and his children also will appear on Thursday. "Obviously we see the convention as a real opportunity to raise John Kerry's profile on the national stage," a Kerry campaign aide said. "The convention is one of the first times that many Americans will pay close attention to the candidate, and we see this as an opportunity to emphasize Kerry's bio and values, the ticket, and John Kerry's plan for America's future." Cleland's selection counters the Republican recruitment of Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia to speak at the GOP convention. Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, lost his Senate seat in 2002 to former Rep. Saxby Chambliss during a campaign that saw Chambliss run campaign ads against his opponent -- later pulled from broadcast -- featuring images of Osama bin Laden. Miller, a former Georgia governor, has endorsed President Bush. The Kerry campaign aide said the opening night of the convention -- July 26 -- would highlight the Kerry-Edwards plan for America's future, and Teresa Heinz Kerry would be the featured speaker on the following night, highlighting Kerry's "lifetime of strength and service." Then, on Wednesday, July 28, the aide said, Kerry's pick for vice president, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, will speak on the Kerry-Edwards security and defense plans. Kerry will address the convention on Thursday, after his crewmates, children and Cleland. Other speakers include Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio, Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Rep. Bob Menendez of New Jersey on Monday; Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Christie Vilsack, wife of Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, and Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona on Tuesday; Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore and Retired Marine Lt. Col. Steve Brozak of New Jersey on Wednesday. Elizabeth Edwards will introduce her husband on Wednesday. |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 13-Jul-2004, 04:10 PM | ||
The Democrats were running on a platform of SURRENDER. Gen. McClellan aka "Little Napoleon" and commander of the Army of the Potomac the same one that refused for several months to attack the Souther Army that was within 1 days march of DC, had the nomination. Also Lincoln won by 500,000 votes out of 4 million (half the ammount Bush lost by in the last election if you are looking at the popular vote). An interesting fact 11 southern states did not vote in that election. |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 13-Jul-2004, 04:19 PM | ||
A house of honor cannot be built on a field of lies, neither justice on false testimony, waging war on the fact that he was a murderous villan is warranted but you cannot bait and switch the cause for war. the administration went in there under the pretence of WMD's. |
| Posted by: maisky 13-Jul-2004, 08:08 PM |
| Let's face it. Bush Lied. In his defence, however, let's remember that he doesn't write his own speeches, he merely reads what his Masters give to him. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jul-2004, 12:16 PM |
| Hey, two at once ain't fair. birddog20002001: "A house of honor cannot be built on a field of lies, ... the administration went in there under the pretence of WMD's." maisky: "Bush Lied." Geez. ONCE AGAIN for those that have not been paying attention. Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq yet, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is claiming that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The story being floated now is that Saddam had no WMD's (or almost none) and that the Bush administration lied about the WMD threat. Well, if the Bush administration lied, there sure are a lot of Democrats who told the same lies since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. - "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 - He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 - "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 - "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 - "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 - "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 - "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 - "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 - "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Can either birddog or maisky tell me which of the above also lied about Saddam and his WMD's? Every ranking politico in the US government thought Saddam has WMD's, both before Bush took office as well as after. Even Surrender Monkey #1 Jacques Chirac had this to say on October 16, 2002: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." And this, from someone that is actually supposed to really know the facts: "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 Bush has been proven wrong: there appears to be no WMD's in Iraq (unless they're REALLY hidden well). Saddam had them, he kicked the Inspectors out, he was left alone for years to do whatever he wanted with his WMD program, and now they're suddenly absent. There is no evidence that he actually destroyed them. Where did they go? There is evidence appearing now that he moved them out of the country. Everyone else in the world thought he had them. But today you want to blame Bush. Monday-morning quaterbacking. Entirely hypocritical. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jul-2004, 12:37 PM | ||
Cleland? A Republicant? Geez. He had his 15-minutes of fame. He needs to quietly go away. Max Cleland was a liberal Democratic U.S. Senator from the state of Georgia, who served from 1997-2003. Georgia is a conservative state. When the voters found out that Max was more eager for the approval of the Democratic leadership than he was the approval of the people he represented, they turned him out. Nowhere was Max Cleland's loyalty to Tom Daschle and the Democratic Machine more apparent than in his participation in the Democratic attempts to stall the formation of a homeland security department until certain government employee union demands were met. In short, Max Cleland put the Democratic allegiance to government employee unions ahead of the security concerns of our country. The voters didn't like it, and they fired him. On "Hardball" one Monday night, Cleland (no longer an elected official, but the designated liberal-veteran mouthpiece) demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it." The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. Poor Cleland was forced to shut up once again, if only for a few weeks. Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." The problem is that Cleland already knows someone that did just that - Al Gore. Petty partisan whining. The good people of Georgia ? who do not need lectures on admiring military service ? gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator. Today Cleland is nothing more that a prostitute for Pimp Kerry. He can't return to Georgia, so he might as well stay in Washington. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Jul-2004, 01:43 PM |
| I THOUGHT this one would do a bloodpressure check on Brother Shamalama! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 14-Jul-2004, 01:45 PM |
| This election is, ultimately, going to some down to pro-war or anti-war. Every other issue will be moot. Sad, but true. John Kerry has finally spoken the words that make the November election an easy choice. On "60 Minutes" this past Sunday night, according to the official transcript released by CBS News, Kerry said: "I am against the ? the war." He tried to qualify them, to fudge them a bit, but no matter. The words are now out. He and John Edwards were reduced to headshaking on "60 Minutes" to explain why they were right to vote to authorize the Iraq war and why they are right to criticize George W. Bush's supposed "failure" to build international support for that war. If President Bush had had greater success in building international support for the war in Iraq, they said in unison on Sunday night, "we would have found out" that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of banned weapons. Try to follow the twisted logic here. Kerry and Edwards say, if we'd done better building a coalition (which simply means bringing in France and Germany, those stalwarts of Old Europe) to go to war with us, we would have somehow magically discerned that Saddam didn't have WMD and therefore we wouldn't have had to go to war at all. This is quite a novel argument. After all, the world's most implacable foe of the Iraq war, French President Jacques Chirac, actually did believe Saddam possessed WMD's. If he had evidence that Saddam was disarmed, wouldn't he have used that evidence to stop us from going to war? Of course he would have. So would German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. So would Russian President Vladimir Putin. But Putin, who opposed the war, actually thought that Saddam was preparing to stage terrorist attacks on the United States. So those who sought to prevent us from going to war with Saddam thought that (#1) he possessed WMD and (#2) he was actively pursuing terrorism against the United States. And yet, according to Kerry and Edwards, if those folks had decided to join us rather than try to stop us, they would have led us to the supposed truth about how little at risk we were from Saddam. Wow. |
| Posted by: maisky 14-Jul-2004, 03:50 PM |
| Bush would still have read the lies that were put in front of him by his puppet-masters. I am beginning to think that mabye he did NOT lie. That would imply he had SOME contact with reality. Maybe he is merely stupid and incompetent, instead. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 15-Jul-2004, 12:26 PM |
| maisky: I am beginning to think that mabye he did NOT lie. My mission here on Earth is completed. I may now return to Beta Aquilae. maisky: I THOUGHT this one would do a bloodpressure check on Brother Shamalama! Fortunately the ICU wing at Emory Hospital has an internet connection so that I can continue my windy diatribes no matter what condition Brother Maisky puts me in. --- Bush didn't lie. And he is no more stupid and incompetent that any major politico across several countries. Everyone "knew" Saddam had WMD's as far back as the end of Gulf War 1. And me? I think he had them until US tanks started rolling across Iraq. Today many have been dismantled, many have been shipped to other countries. If US tanks had not rolled he would still have them, and would either be using them or selling them - both unacceptable. And the international intelligence community botched this one. They were simply looking for evidence "after the fact". I believe the intelligence community, at least here in the US, has been continually gutted since the fall of the USSR, and they needed redemption; Saddam provided that. But it backfired on them. It will take many years, and many administrations, before we fully believe the CIA again. And that's a very dangerous situation. |
| Posted by: maisky 15-Jul-2004, 02:28 PM |
| Fully believe the CIA? Now THERE is an oxymoron!! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 16-Jul-2004, 08:36 AM |
 |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 16-Jul-2004, 08:23 PM | ||
Kerry must have splinters in his bum from the past 20 years of sitting on that fence! |
| Posted by: CelticRose 17-Jul-2004, 03:45 PM |
| Pretty funny, Roisin! |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Jul-2004, 03:58 PM |
| Here is a good one. |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Jul-2004, 04:06 PM |
| And another: |
| Posted by: CelticRose 17-Jul-2004, 04:18 PM |
| Oh those were hilarious, Maisky! I love political cartoons! Keep them coming! I love how they draw Bush's ears! |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 17-Jul-2004, 05:58 PM |
| That second cartoon Bush looked more like Prince Charles. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 17-Jul-2004, 06:26 PM | ||
Very, very true! Roisin! |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Jul-2004, 10:04 AM |
| Ok, |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Jul-2004, 10:06 AM |
| And another: |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Jul-2004, 10:07 AM | ||
This last one CAN'T be true.....If Cheney left, who would be president? |
| Posted by: CelticRose 18-Jul-2004, 12:43 PM |
| Those were cute! I love how they draw Bush's ears. They always make him look like Yoda! Tony Blair's ears were pretty cute too! I feel like I am seeing a race of elves from LOTR! |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 20-Jul-2004, 10:31 PM | ||
A response to the Tony Blair and G. Bush Tea Cartoon: I think you mean British Intellegence...Which by the way was true about S. Hussain trying to buy urainium (sp?) from an African country to create a Nuke. So Bushe's 16 words in the Presidental Address which everyone said he was lying about...was true according to British Intellegence which in the News three days ago bares out to be true after all. Go figure???? |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jul-2004, 05:21 AM |
| Except that an investigation of the British Intelligence (which used US Intellingence as it source) showed that it was NOT true, Ma'am. As near as I can tell from all the reports, the original allegation came from Georgies second cousin, twice removed, Maurice. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jul-2004, 05:27 AM |
| Ok, enough serious, time for another cartoon or 3. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jul-2004, 05:27 AM |
| and another |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jul-2004, 05:28 AM |
| And the best of the group: |
| Posted by: Shamalama 21-Jul-2004, 10:15 AM |
| That darn Brother Maisky is killing me here. I guess I better respond. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Jul-2004, 11:54 AM |
| VERY GOOD, Brother Shamalama! |
| Posted by: CelticRose 21-Jul-2004, 03:23 PM |
| I have to admit that I love Shamalama's the best! That was classic! Too funny! thanks! |
| Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 21-Jul-2004, 07:53 PM |
| Dick Cheney made me laugh the hardest...he looked like a freak. Thanks Shamalama for posting. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 22-Jul-2004, 10:16 AM |
| Thank you, kind people, for your responses. I appreciate them. Shamalama says: I honestly don't care as much WHO you vote for as much as I care that you DO in fact vote. Here's an interesting Kerry tidbit from the New York Post online edition by Dick Morris (a former adviser to President Clinton): July 21, 2004 -- JUST as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other. When Kerry chose Edwards, a charismatic future contender for the presidency, he knew he was investing in an opponent for Hillary when she goes for the top job herself. If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008; if he wins, she'll run in 2012. Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat. The split began in the fall of 2003, when Kerry was floundering in the face of the Howard Dean surge. The Clintons had bet on Kerry and even sent Chris Lehane (who had played a key role in their Lewinsky-impeachment defense) to be the Massachusetts senator's chief campaign consultant. But as Kerry faltered, the Clintons bailed out on his candidacy and pushed Gen. Wesley Clark into the race as their candidate. The former president was quoted in public as saying that his wife and Gen. Clark were the two most outstanding Democrats in the nation. Clinton loyalists like Bruce Lindsay and Harry Thomason took their cue and went to work for Clark (a fellow Arkansan). But the unkindest cut of all was when Lehane walked out of the Kerry campaign, attesting to the senator's lack of viability and joined up with Clark. In rushed Ted Kennedy to save the day, sending Mary Beth Cahill of his Senate staff to steer the faltering Kerry campaign. Kennedy's pivotal role was evident from his up-front and public position by his Massachusetts colleague's side on the night Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. As Kerry was all but clinching the nomination, who introduced him to the victory rally? Ted Kennedy. Throughout their administration, the Clintons cold-shouldered Kennedy ? realizing that the average American voter saw him as radioactively liberal. In the 1996 campaign, we went into overdrive to be sure that Kennedy would have no prime-time speaking role, even though he had usually had the spotlight to himself at past Democratic conclaves. As Bill Clinton veered to the center, he increasingly parted company with Ted Kennedy and became the senator's factional antagonist within the party. The gap was bridged somewhat in the impeachment fight, but has come back with a vengeance now that Kennedy is using Kerry as an alternative to the Clinton domination of the party. The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list ? even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill ? is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred. --- Wow. Is there really a Clinton-Kennedy fight going on in the Democratic Party? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 22-Jul-2004, 10:56 AM |
As a much more humorous item, here is a chess set with the current crop of Democrats as chesspieces. Notice who is featured as the Queen. Some would say that Hillary should be the King. |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Jul-2004, 11:52 AM |
| The chess set is cute! Here is one for you: |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Jul-2004, 12:01 PM |
| Here is one that slaps at BOTH sides: |
| Posted by: CelticRose 22-Jul-2004, 09:29 PM |
| Now you guys are really cracking me up! this is all way too funny! |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Jul-2004, 09:58 AM | ||
While we may have spirited debates about political ideology, we try not to lose our sense of humor in the process. We are all friends here. |
| Posted by: Kassia 25-Jul-2004, 05:28 PM |
| r when Clinton and Carter gave nuclear weapons to the North Koreans) . So I do have a dog in this fight. Yeah I guess I was one of the guys Kerry called a war criminal when testifying to Congress. Now says he didn't. I remember, if many don't or care not to. I remember that 1/3 of the squadrons that flew the A/C Bush did got called up. That's about the highest percentage of any kind of guard or reserve unit. I hear a lot about a phantom year. Mostly from people that have no clue. If you can explain adequately the differences between Calendar years, Fiscal Years, ANNIVERSARY Years, budget , flying hours availability and how you accrue points for SATISFACTORY years in the Guard or Reserve, and how drills at other than your home center were reported, then maybe you are in a position to comment, because if you understand how the system worked then you know that big gaps could happen especially with aviators. Can you clump points ? Yes, I know I did, my first satisfactory year was completed in 3 1/2 months at the end of my first reserve years. Wasn't easy but I was able to pull it off. Kerry shows abyssmally poor judgement. Picking anybody from the Clinton Administration in the National Security area without thorough vetting is questionable, just from a CYA standpoint, when you really don't know what the report will say. As a Senator on Oversight committees, he has to realize that the decisions to bomb the aspirin factory, not accept Bin Laden, and other decisions are going to be scrutinized. Kerry is claiming he will do things differently and be more aggressive, yet to take people from an administration that were tepid and overrly reliant on legalisms and the UN is to follow a road that leads to where we know we don't want to go. And Berger, I dunno, why didn't Berger tell him he had problems? Did he think they weren't going to find out? Or was it thought that it didn't matter. My gut feel there is that a senior Democrat saw that and blew the whistle. Heck, if the Republicans were going to spring the trap wait about a week and during the convention or just after when Berger is selected for a position then spring the trap. How would it look then, overshadow the convention or make it look like a bad pick after the convention. Poor people skills. Go with the UN and France and Germany? Well the UN drew the rules for the first Gulf War, Get Iraq out of Kuwait and stop. That was the UN guidance and approved mission. (I was there, I was in a place where I had WMMCS access, OPSUMS, INTSUMS, and I was heavily involved in logistics planning) And who cares what the French think? The same French that fought harder against us in WWII? that made covert deals with Saddam for nuclear power and other systems in contravention of the holy UNs resolutions, palyed games with the Oil for Food program. Yeah there's a country we want approval from. Oh and the Dutch, yeah we need their approval? the Belgians? Is he willing to get tough with the Chinese over the South China Sea oilfields? We've yet to see any firm stand on anything other than "I'll do it different and better" And that's just the National Security areas. You really want to hear me, ask me what I feel about paying more taxes. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jul-2004, 06:10 PM | ||
Yes, Maisky and it is all so appreciated....................says the Bush woman..........even though he has funny ears! Very interesting what you are saying Kassia. The more I hear Kerry the less impressed I become with him. I think Bush needs to go in there and finish his job he started...........hopefully he will. |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Jul-2004, 09:12 PM | ||
Fat chance! The Cheney/bush administration is over in January. You talk like you think Georgie is president. We ALL know that Cheney is in charge. |
| Posted by: CelticRose 25-Jul-2004, 10:59 PM |
| I have never seen hide nor hare of Cheney since this whole administration! are you trying to antogonize me? |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Jul-2004, 05:24 AM | ||
Nahhh! Sneak up on you maybe, but NOT antagonize you, beautiful lady! |
| Posted by: Swanny 26-Jul-2004, 06:05 AM | ||
Hey Maisky, are you perhaps a bit confused? I thought the Illuminati was in charge. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Jul-2004, 08:22 AM | ||||
You could be right, if the Illuminati are Oil executives and Saudi princes. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jul-2004, 09:52 AM | ||
(smiling) Wow, Lady Kassia. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! Here's some questions Kerry needs to answer: - If Kerry were president, would he be willing to use force? John Kerry opposed President Reagan's policy of providing military aid to the anti-Communist resistance in Central America. He opposed the first Gulf War. He voted against the $87 billion necessary to continue prosecuting the current war in Iraq (one of only 12 senators to do so). Is he really capable of being commander in chief in the world we find ourselves living in since 9/11? - If Kerry had been president the past four years, would Saddam still be in power? In October 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam. But now he suggests that President Bush "misled the nation into fighting" this war. Given what we now know, does Kerry believe going to war to remove Saddam was the right decision? Does he believe, as he seems to have indicated, that the war on terror is "really" about fighting al Qaeda, or does the war on terror include dealing with dictators with terror ties and weapons of mass destruction programs? Is Kerry willing to hold open, therefore, the possibility of the use of force to prevent the current Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons? - If Kerry were president, would we pull out of Iraq? Kerry says he would not cut and run in Iraq. But the single most famous statement of his political career remains his dramatic cry as a leader of the anti-Vietnam War movement in 1971: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" How will President Kerry ask young Americans to continue dying in a war he has denounced as one President Bush "wanted" to fight rather than one the United States needed to fight? - If Kerry were president, would marriage be redefined? Kerry opposes a constitutional amendment affirming in our basic law that marriage joins a man and a woman. Furthermore, he was one of only 14 Senate Democrats to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton in 1996, which sought legislatively to confine court decisions authorizing same-sex marriage in one state (such as Massachusetts) to that state. Wouldn't Kerry's judicial appointees tend to agree with the argument he made in 1996 that DOMA is unconstitutional? Doesn't a Kerry presidency guarantee that the courts will succeed in changing the meaning of marriage throughout the United States? I look forward to Sen. Kerry's acceptance speech on Thursday evening, as he seeks to answer these questions. Or dodge them. Or flip-flop once again. |
| Posted by: maisky 27-Jul-2004, 08:09 AM | ||
Do you mean Reagan providing illegal arms and aid to Drug runners? Why would ANYBODY support such an idiotic action? The CIA even aided drug transport as well as dealing with Iran for the arms. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 28-Jul-2004, 08:29 AM |
| Some early thoughts: Teresa Heinz Kerry gave a speech the other night at the Democratic Convention. She said, "John believes that we can, and we will, give every family and every child access to affordable health care, a good education, and the tools to become self-reliant." - We will give everyone access to affordable health care? Does she mean that my income is going to be used to subsidize the cost of health care for someone I don't even know? Or does she mean that doctors and hospitals are going to cut their usual costs by 90%? - We will give everyone access to a good education? As opposed to a bad education? And how is quality of education determined? And, again, does she mean that my income is going to be used to subsidize the cost of education for someone I don't even know? Or does she mean that teachers and universities are going to cut their usual costs by 90% (while improving the quality of education)? - We will give everyone access to the tools to become self-reliant? To be self-reliant would mean, I think, less intrusion by the federal government and more reliance on yourself. Meaning "I'm in charge of what happens in my life". But that doesn't square up with her first two points. Then she said, "Isn't it time we began working to give parents more opportunity to be with their children and to afford to have a family life?" More opportunity to be with their children? I would assume that she means I can spend less time at work in order to have more opportunity with my children. Is she saying that my employer is going to allow me to only spend 30 hours at work yet retain my full income? Geez, that sounds a bit like France. But if the 70,000 employees at my work suddenly drop to only working 30 hours per week while still taking home the same income, how is my company going to be profitable? Then she said, "He [John Kerry] earned his medals the old-fashioned way, by putting his life on the line for his country." Here we go again. I issue the same challenge I made months ago: name one other person that only spent four months 'in country' and yet was awarded three Purple Hearts. This whole "medals thing" is a scam. I'm not saying anything about his patriotism, just his magical ability to earn three Purple Hearts in only four months. Then she said, "With John Kerry as President, global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed." Wow. Now he sounds like Superman. Mere mortals don't have such abilities. Then she said, "With John Kerry as President, the alliances that bind the community of nations and that truly make our country and the world a safer place, will be strengthened once more." Alliances? Bush has 30 countries supporting him in the liberation of Iraq, among them the second most powerful (economic and military) country in the world - the UK. But we all know exactly what she means: France and Germany. What is it about these two countries that the liberals love so much? Teresa Heinz Kerry is quite the Democrat today. But back when she was married to Republican Sen. H. John Heinz III she said, "I know some couples who stay together only for politics. If Ted Kennedy holds on to that marriage (to ex-wife Joan) just for the Catholic vote, as some people say he does, then I think he's a perfect bastard." Wow. But today she's great buddies with 'ole Teddy. It would seem she flip-flops as much as her husband. |
| Posted by: maisky 28-Jul-2004, 10:35 AM |
| Back to Kerry's purple hearts again, huh? At least he wasn't a draft dodger and a deserter. The only times the coward Bush put his life on the line was when he was driving drunk. How many DUI's was that? |
| Posted by: gtrplr 28-Jul-2004, 11:18 AM | ||
Nobody mentioned Bill Clinton. Bush a coward? Are you talking about the same Bush that landed an airplane on an aircraft carrier? Yeah, takes a real coward to do that. |
| Posted by: maisky 28-Jul-2004, 01:54 PM | ||
Bush flew in an airplane to the carrier with a qualified, experienced pilot. What makes you think Georgie was in control during the landing? That flight was an expensive joy-ride. Georgie THEN proclaimed the end of the war in Bushnam. More US soldiers have died in combat there SINCE then than before. So, he is a hypocrite as well as a coward. The grandstanding on the carrier showed us once again that he is an idiot, as well. Thanks for reminding us of this incident. |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 28-Jul-2004, 02:15 PM | ||||
That was his second tour in vietnam. He had already completed a 12 month tour on ship and returned as a volunteer for the second tour.
That really doesn't strike me as the epitome of valor landing on a carrier. after mentioning DUI's how about being caught stealing Christmas trees and that little sinus problem he had, Oh yeah just like Clinton "I didn't inhale." The difference between Clinton and Bush is he only feels the pain of millionaires and Clinton's family didn't get him a Vietnam deferment he earned it with grades. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 28-Jul-2004, 02:38 PM |
| Again, this is from Drudge, so take it as you will. But this could be tasty. --- CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS KERRY CONVENTION FILM: WAR SCENES REENACTED **World Exclusive** A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam! The footage is at the center of a growing controversy in Boston. The official convention video introducing Kerry is directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Moll. MORE Moll was given hours of Kerry's homemade 8 millimeter film to incorporate into the convention short, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "Kerry carried a home movie camera to record his exploits for later viewing," charges a naval officer in the upcoming book UNFIT FOR COMMAND. "Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns." UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, will be unleashed next month by REGNERY. [It ranked #1,318 on the AMAZON hitparade Wednesday morning.] The films shot by Kerry's own Super 8 millimeter hand-held movie camera have the grainy quality of home movies. MORE The BOSTON GLOBE reported in 1996 that the Kerry home movies "reveal something indelible about the man who shot them - the tall, thin, handsome Naval officer seen striding through the reeds in flak jacket and helmet, holding aloft the captured B-40 rocket. The young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109." "John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely," says Thomas Vallely, a fellow veteran and one of Kerry's closest political advisers and friends. NEW YORK TIMES bestselling author Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his new book RECKLESS DISREGARD, details one of the claimed Kerry reenactments for film: "On February 28, 1969, now in charge of PCF 94, Kerry came under fire from an enemy location on the shore. The crew's gunner returned fire, hitting and wounding the lone gunman. Kerry directed the boat to charge the enemy position. Beaching his boat, Kerry jumped off, chased the wounded insurgent behind a thatched hutch, and killed him. Kerry and his crew returned within days, armed with a Super 8 video camera he had purchased at the post exchange at Cam Ranh Bay, and reenacted the skirmish on film." |
| Posted by: Shamalama 30-Jul-2004, 02:47 PM |
| "The Speech" John Kerry skipped past his role in the Vietnam protest movement that brought him to any prominence (other than marrying rich women) when he talked of his younger days fighting for his country and ignored that conflict when praising the American tradition of going to war only "because we have to." Kerry once famously called the Vietnam War "the biggest nothing in history," and says he is still proud of his anti-war activism when he came back. But in the text of his televised speech at the Democratic National Convention, he emphasized his war record and offered mere clues to his protesting past. A video introduction shown at the convention before the broadcast networks began carrying his speech included a clip of the young Kerry, in military garb, testifying to Congress against the war in 1971. And his speech made passing reference to his generation's marches for "civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women, and for peace." He declared, for example, that "we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans" and called that care "a right for all Americans." "A right for all Americans"? Is this Kerry or Hillary? Where is a copy of the Constitution when you need one? He believes everyone has a right to health care. Any idea how much that would cost? He didn't say, but some cost-of-government experts have said that government paid health care plan would cost one trillion dollars. Where is he going to get that money? The rich? Nope. Tt's going to come from the middle class. The reason is simple - you could confiscate 100% of the wealth from the evil rich and it wouldn't cover Kerry's spending dreams. On equipping the military, he said, "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service." But wasn't he the one that voted against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that included money for thousands of extra sets of body armor? Kerry emphasized throughout his speech his credentials as a Vietnam veteran. "I defended this country as a young man," he said. "We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra." There was no telling from his remarks that Kerry became a leading anti-war protester after his return from Vietnam. Testifying to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians, only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts. So, was he lying then, or is he lying now? He rhetorically asked, "What does it mean when 25 percent of the children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution? America can do better. And help is on the way." Yes, a study by Harlem Hospital Center last year found 25 percent of the children in a 24-block area of Harlem had the disease. But blaming all of that on air pollution as part of a case against the Bush administration is not supported by the study. Apart from genetic factors, the study found that the asthmatic children were about 50 percent more likely to live with a smoker. So we have pollen, dust, animal dander, and 2nd hand smoke found to be causing these ailments, but no mention of Bush and "his" air pollution. Kerry is playing fast and loose with the facts - he must have taken lessons from Michael Moore. He asked people to judge him by his record. How about judging him by his Senate voting record, the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. This supposedly patriotic Democrat voted for the nuclear freeze, to cut the intelligence budget and also voted against the $87 billion in funding for American troops. His record? Maybe we can judge him by his record of missing 29 out of 38 meetings of that intelligence committee he served on in the Senate. Maybe we can judge him on his record of 20 years in the U.S. Senate without a noteworthy legislative accomplishment. He wants people to judge judge him by his record? So what does he mention when he said that? His voting record? His lies about soldiers committing atrocities during Vietnam? Nope, he goes all the way back to his days as a prosecutor, then mentions only two votes in the Senate. This from a guy that says he deserves to be President of the United States? Look as his record. Compare it to Ted Kennedy. Putting Kerry into the Presidency would be much like putting Ted Kennedy into the Presidency. But yeah, I know - anybody but Bush. Then he accused President Bush of misleading us into war, which is a widely discredited charge. President Bush and Tony Blair have both been exonerated against any sort of misleading since they relied on the intelligence at the time. Oh, and you do know that Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, don't you? Does that make him a liar too? He was privy to the same intelligence as Bush. He used the dumb slogan "stronger at home and respected in the world." If you read between the lines, what he means is more government spending at home, and more appeasing and capitulating to Germany, France, and the UN. And also to anyone he thinks can beat him up. He had the nerve to bring up dependence on foreign oil. But he's also opposed to any drilling for oil here in the United States. How about promoting nuclear power, John? Too bad the liberals and the anti-capitalist environmentalists are the ones that have us dependent on foreign oil in the first place. But now, officially, you liberals have your "anybody but Bush". |
| Posted by: maisky 30-Jul-2004, 07:12 PM |
| That works. ANYBODY but Cheney/bush! Bush doesn't even make a good sock puppet. He screws up even the orders of Cheney! Bush (Georgie) is a complete screwup who has failed at EVERY job he has ever had. He has failed as president, even as a front man-president! Even Nader would be better. |
| Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 30-Jul-2004, 07:54 PM | ||
Maisky, I was with you until you had to make me gag with the reference to Nadir. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 30-Jul-2004, 08:16 PM | ||
How about a point/counterpoint monologue then Maisky of what you see as the screw ups of Bush, and how you would do differently. And before you immediately jump on the favorite liberal issue of the war in Iraq, remember that it was an action overwhelmingly approved by congress, using the same intelligence Bush had at the time as a guide. Remember that the incomparable John F'ing Kerry voted to go into Iraq, although he voted against funding for it. If you say Bush lied, then explain those lies and give some shred of evidence outside of your hate-filled ramblings. I'm looking for specifics here, not emotional drivel. Another point I would just love for you to expound on. WMD's not being found in Iraq. You tell me how long it takes to thoroughly search a land mass the size of this size (166859 sq miles) using resources involved in combat. Considering the amount of time that lapsed between G W's announcement that Iraq was part of an "axis of evil" until the time US forces began searching, explain how it is not possible that WMD's, or anything else could have not been removed to other locales. I'm not looking for reasoning as to the motives to move or not to move, just how you may explain the impossibility of such a move. |
| Posted by: maisky 31-Jul-2004, 10:19 AM | ||||
Congress was stampeded into the war through a combination of bad intelligence (they only saw what Cheney/bush chose to tell them) and rabble rousing. The war WAS a major blunder that has alienated virtually the entire world. The US has spent a total of $500 million dollars making US ports safe from terrorist attacks. This is what Bushnam costs in 4 days. We are p***ing the money and troop resources down a rat hole for NO purpose other than Georgie's ego. Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Shamrock sir, but I believe you are completely missguided in supporting this losing cause. But that IS your right! This expresses it nicely: |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 31-Jul-2004, 12:51 PM | ||
I agree someone here is misguided, but I'm not quite sure it's me. I was asking for specifics alright, but I was looking for irrefutable fact. You say congress was stampeded by bad intelligence. Tell me, has our system of checks and balances eroded to the point that the two highest public officers can manipulate information to that extent. And even if that were even slightly conceivable, wouldn't an even greater burden be put on congress, seeing how they had ample time and resources to "check up" on this supposed scandalous rearrangement of the facts. I believe that our system of government is only a shadow of that drafted and conceived by our founding fathers, but a great portion of it still works. The collusion you allege in light of something as serious as war, the elements of which including intelligence showing justification and passage by congress, is totally impossible to be accomplished by the president and vice president alone. Either the intelligence was truly faulty, thereby relieving our government as a whole from any guilt of wrong doing, or the white house and congress share equally in the responsibility. So now I ask you for specific facts. What exactly is the manipulation? In what possible way can you back up your claims that Bush/Cheney only told congress what they wanted them to know, or otherwise fabricated the intelligence? Now, after you answer these questions, ask yourself another. Why do you submit to such unfounded allegations? Why do you jump on the band wagon with those who will say anything, run with any of the tiniest of details, rearrange the truth, all in an effort to make GW look like anything less than the brave leader he has been. If you have facts, by all means share them. But don't go around spewing hate speech and making accusations you can't show one ounce of evidence for. That doesn't sound at all intelligent. If what you say about Bush were true, I'd be the first to denounce him, and without a doubt, he'd be before a Grand Jury answering for his actions, maybe even the World Court. He would have a cell next to Millosovich (sp?) where they could share war crimes stories. Maisky: I believe you are completely missguided in supporting this losing cause. I hope you are wrong here. I do not think we will lose anything more than alliance, which I've felt has occupied a place on the priority ladder too many notches higher than our own countrymen and women. |
| Posted by: maisky 31-Jul-2004, 02:07 PM |
| A cell next of Milosavitch? Now THERE is a good idea! My motivation here is simple, I am doing my best to get King George II out of office. I am limited to legal means, so I do what I can. I believe Mr. Bush to be a puppet for "outside interests". He has been a failure at EVERY job he has ever held. That includes his current position. It has taken decades to place the US in a leadership position in the world. It has taken George Bush JR. just over 3 years to destroy that. We are stuck in a quagmire in Bushnam, with our troops spread far too thin to do a proper job of protecting our country. We need a new administration. It just happens the John Kerry is the one to take the place of the current administration. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 31-Jul-2004, 05:52 PM |
| Alright, there is a place up in Kerry's home state, in the town of Foxboro, called Fitzy's. I believe you could find joy in the coincidental association there. Also, they have the most incredible prices on prepared Maine lobster. I ate there once, a big lobster, salad, baked potato, rolls, and two Killians for just over $14. You make the arrangements and pay for it all, and I'll be there to redirect you back to the original request to show me facts. |
| Posted by: maisky 31-Jul-2004, 06:21 PM | ||
That sounds like fun! I have encountered the fresh lobsters in Maine and New Hampshire. YUMMY! |
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Aug-2004, 10:36 AM |
| The fervor to remove Bush from office is greater than anything I've seen in recent history. It borders on hysteria. BUT... Is it based on anything other than hysteria? Let's factually examine Brother Maisky's scathing statements. - "I believe Mr. Bush to be a puppet for "outside interests"" Kerry has received more campaign cash from lobbyists than any senator over the past 15 years. That's right - according to survey of federal records by The Washington Post, he is the Senate's No. 1 recipient of individual campaign contributions from lobbyists. The ACLU, the AFL-CIO, abortion backers, trial lawyers, MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, the NEA, all form part of Kerry's spending base. Without special interests Kerry would have few backers. - "He has been a failure at EVERY job he has ever held." Kerry has spent the last 20 years in the US Senate. But can anyone name a piece of legislation that he authored? Co-authored? Nope - he never did anything meaningful in 20 years. But he did a lot of voting - in fact the results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. And his running mate, John Edwards, was ranked #4. In fact if you go back through Kerry's historical votes you'll easily see that he has voted lock-and-step with the top liberals, like his mentor Ted Kennedy, 90% of the time, no matter if the rest of the country was liberal or not. He's not a representative of the people - he's a representative of the liberal ideal. That alone makes him a failure to his people. To vote Kerry into office would be much akin to voting Kennedy or Clinton into office. - "It has taken decades to place the US in a leadership position in the world. It has taken George Bush JR. just over 3 years to destroy that." Leadership? We know he means "angered the Islamic jihad, France, Germany, and the UN". Other that those four groups, he mustered 30 countries around the world to join the US in the liberation of Iraq. That took leadership. He faced the recession and beat it back before it could do real damage. That took leadership. But back to the aforementioned Axis of Weasels: is there anyone out there that really cares what the Islamic jihad, France, Germany, and the UN has to say anyway? "I?m an internationalist," Kerry told The [Harvard] Crimson in 1970. "I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." Kerry also said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity." Kerry?s 1970 remarks signaled the senator?s weakness on defense then. Since then Kerry has voted against nearly every modern-day weapon system. He tried to gut the CIA once but even Ted Kennedy wouldn't vote on Kerry's proposed legislation. Sure, Kerry may be a "different man" today - but are you willing to gamble on it? - "We are stuck in a quagmire in Bushnam, with our troops spread far too thin to do a proper job of protecting our country." I will agree that our troops are spread thin, but that's what happens in war - you send a lot of troops to the front. And this "quagmire" stuff - what does that mean? Will we ever completely leave Iraq? Probably not - 60 years later and we still have troops in Germany and France. The liberals want the US to cut-and-run, leaving Iraq in a vacuum so that it will implode, anarchy will reign, and the liberals can say, "Bush failed". Everyday Iraq becomes more and more stable and democratic (as much as that culture can), so the liberals cannot allow any military presence to guard and rebuild this flower in the desert. But as long as the military stays in country they can claim, "quagmire". That's how you can have it both ways. - "We need a new administration." No, you desire a new administration. I desire the same administration. There has been no proof of need. - "It just happens..." And that tells more than you realize. Very few liberals want Kerry as President - it's just that they detest Bush more. Kerry has very little the liberals want, except a Democratic name. Kerry has very little many Americans want - outside of the most liberal voting record for the last 20 years, money from every liberal organization in the US, and the threat of giving other countries and the UN power over US defense. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Aug-2004, 10:52 AM |
| Oh my. Here we go with another campaign theme for the Democrats. "We want an America that is fair". "Fair." Now there's a nice little word that resonates well with pretty much everyone! Everyone just loves fairness, don't they? Everyone wants to be fair, and everyone wants to vote for a candidate that's fair. Just what does Kerry mean by "fair" though? * Not Fair: Allowing someone to keep the money that they earn. * Fair: Taking money away from people who are earned a lot just because they're "lucky" and giving that money to people who just aren't that "lucky". * Not Fair: Allowing someone to take the money that they worked for and earned and to make their own decisions on how to invest that money for retirement. * Fair: Taking 14% of every person's paycheck and then telling them that they may get that money back with about a 1% return when they retire, if, that is, they live long enough to retire. * Not Fair: Allowing you to have that money back so that you can make up your own mind on where your child will go to school. * Fair: Seizing sizeable portions of your income to fund hideously bad government schools. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 02-Aug-2004, 10:54 AM | ||
| He's a "Man of the People" all right. From NewsMax.com
|
| Posted by: Shamalama 02-Aug-2004, 11:55 AM |
| Woo hoo, Brother Gtrplr: how about the "rest of the story"? DEM'S MARINE MISFIRE By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. ? John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant. Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary ? an Edwards family tradition ? when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions. The Marines ? two in uniform and two off-duty ? were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir." But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left. "He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]." A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm |
| Posted by: maisky 02-Aug-2004, 03:26 PM |
| Here is John Kerry's basic platform for his first term in office (starting in January): Affordable health care for everyone A strong and secure America that is both respected and respectful in the world Creating jobs at home and preventing them from being shipped overseas Independence from Middle East oil through investing in renewable energy Restoring credibility and honesty to the White House Offering real prescription drug coverage for seniors, and protecting Social Security benefits Fully funding our educational system, and sending more students to college every year Never sending our young men and women to war unless there is no other option Never misusing the Constitution for political purposes |
| Posted by: gtrplr 02-Aug-2004, 03:54 PM | ||
And who do you think is going to pay for all that? Santa Claus? He's all hat, no cattle. |
| Posted by: maisky 03-Aug-2004, 04:40 AM |
| Whether Kerry can deliver or not, we shall see. He has one overwhelming property that will win the election for him: He is not Bush. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 03-Aug-2004, 10:13 AM | ||
That's the key phrase. The 50% of Americans that currently pay tax will fund Kerry's vision for the 50% of Americans that don't pay tax. a.k.a. Income Re-distribution - the Socialist way. You do remember the "10 planks of of The Communist Manifesto", don't you? (the quotes are from Kerry, the numbers are from Karl Marx) - "Affordable health care for everyone" and "Offering real prescription drug coverage for seniors" - 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. - "Creating jobs at home and preventing them from being shipped overseas " - 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned/controlled by the state. - "Fully funding our educational system" - 10. Free education for all children in public schools. In Kerry's acceptance speech he was unwilling to articulate a serious policy agenda. He was unwilling to explain why his record qualifies him to be president. Should he in his speech have emphasized his public record? Kerry feels entitled to the presidency ("I'm not kidding. I was born in the West Wing"), but he has done remarkably little in two decades in the Senate to support a claim to it ("When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. And then I reached out across the aisle with John McCain to work to find the truth about our POWs and missing in action and to finally make peace in Vietnam"). That's it? 20 years and that's it? Should Kerry have taken a clear position on the Iraq war? Too risky. On the one hand, a plurality of the American people now say they oppose having gone to war to remove Saddam. On the other hand, Kerry doesn't want to be accused of favoring leaving Saddam in power. So he dodged the issue by suggesting that the current commander in chief "misled" us into war (a charge that has been disproven many times here at CelticRadio). Kerry also vowed "to get the job done" in Iraq without saying what the "job" is, and to "bring our troops home" without saying how or when or under what conditions he would, or would not, cut and run. As long as he pleases France, who cares? Should Kerry have used his speech to articulate a coherent foreign policy for moving forward? Too difficult. So he simply claimed to be ready to be commander in chief and gave a 45-minute speech so vague that it mentioned no actual countries other than Iraq and Vietnam - not Afghanistan, not Iran, not North Korea, not China. And let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of his commanding officers back in Vietnam publically claim him to be "unfit for command". Should Kerry have elaborated on his view that our nation's "time-honored tradition" is that "the United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to"? Yet he might then have had to explain not only why he voted for war in Iraq, but also why he supported our military efforts in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans - surely not instances where we "had" to fight to "protect against a threat." Kerry is simply anti-Bush and a liberal-clone, not a leader. Should Kerry have come clean that the Democrats remain, in their heart and soul, a pre-9/11 party? Kerry suggested as much when he said, "Let's not forget what we did in the 1990s ... We just need to believe in ourselves and we can do it again," and when he exhorted, "We need to make America once again a beacon in the world" - presumably meaning as it was around 1999. But as Kerry himself had to acknowledge, "the world tonight is very different from the world of four years ago." These Democrats just cannot leave their paradise of the Clinton years. Should Kerry have elaborated on his claim to yearn for the days right after September 11, 2001, when we were united to "meet the danger"? How could he? He could not even bring himself in his speech to praise the removal of the Taliban and the liberation of the people of Afghanistan. Ridding the world of the Taliban is not important to Kerry - making nice with the UN is. So Kerry made a reasonable political judgment when he chose to wrap himself in Old Glory on Thursday night. He wants to be an acceptable alternative should the American people choose to replace President Bush. Kerry is not Presidential material - he's merely an alternative - he's anybody but Bush. But that puts the ball back in Bush's court. It's not Kerry's election to win - it's Bush's election to lose. The Democratic nominee has shunned substance for patriotic atmospherics. He has failed to provide a real argument for himself, or against the incumbent president. And all this occured at the one moment Kerry was scripted to shine the most - the convention. As Brother Gtrplr said, "He's all hat, no cattle." |
| Posted by: maisky 03-Aug-2004, 04:10 PM |
| Here is a news flash that shows the GREAT concern the administration has for national security. From The Onion.com: WASHINGTON, DC?In the interest of national security, President Bush has been asked to stop posting entries on his three-month-old personal web log, acting CIA director John E. McLaughlin said Monday. Above: Bush adds an entry to his blog. According to McLaughlin, several recent entries on PrezGeorgeW. typepad.com have compromised military operations, while other posts may have seriously undercut the PR efforts of White House press secretary Scott McClellan. A July 24 posting read, "Just got back from a lunch with Colin and Adil Moussa (one of Prince Saud al-Faisal's guys). Colin wants the Saudis to send some troops to Najaf?so some of the soldiers are Arab, I guess. This Moussa guy sure wears a lot of jewelry. A golden chain, a golden ring with his initials or something, and some other sparkling stuff?kinda effeminate. Anyway, best of luck in Iraq, Iyad." McLaughlin, normally hesitant to express public disapproval of the president, said the blog was "ill-advised." "I would hate for the president to inadvertently put American soldiers at risk," McLaughlin said. "We work hard to maintain the integrity of state secrets. When we see the president posting details of troop movements, international counter-terrorism negotiations, and even the nuclear launch codes, as he did on Monday, we have to step up and say something." Bush said he could not understand McLaughlin's anger, characterizing his blog as a "personal thing written for friends and family or whoever" and therefore "none of the CIA's business." Nevertheless, U.S. Secret Service director W. Ralph Basham objected to the blog, as well. "He is compromising his safety and the safety of those in my department," Basham said, citing a post from last Thursday in which Bush revealed that he "had to go to some secret meeting with Norquist at some Marriot [sic] over in Virginia." "Someone could uncover some serious state secrets, if they took the time to wade through all of those photos he posted after he got that digital camera in June." Click here to view a larger or full version of this image. Above: The controversial Bush blog. On Saturday, Basham asked to pre-screen all blog activity before Bush posts it online. Bush rejected Basham's request and later that day wrote in his blog that "Some people who shall remain nameless apparently do not know there is such a thing as free speech in this country." Members of Bush's re-election team have urged the president to exercise caution with his blog, perhaps because of posts like the one dated July 8, 2004: "Another long day of speeches and fundraisers. Met with all these phony media company execs. Had to promise them some bill next term and shake a lot of stupid hands, but they did bring in two or three million or so. Whatever. Karl keeps a list. I got big laughs during my speech, so I'm happy." Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie said he spoke to Bush about the blog last month. "After he mentioned our Monday message-of-the-day in a Saturday post, we've really been pushing him to not talk about campaign strategy," Gillespie said. "He's not that involved in the planning anyway, so it shouldn't be too much to ask." "We're not trying to stifle the president's creativity," Gillespie added. "We think it's great he's taking an interest in writing." Bush maintained that he's doing nothing wrong. "I know so many people, but I'm way too busy to keep in touch with all of them," Bush said. "Whether I'm talking about our strategies in Gitmo or my dogs down in Crawford, the blog is an easy way to let everyone know what's been up with me. If I've just had a really good lunch at a new restaurant, or something funny happens in a briefing from the NSA, I want to let my friends and family know about it." McLaughlin said it's likely that Bush will eventually agree to submit his blog for review by the Secret Service. "Right now, the president insists it's his right to have it, as long as he doesn't work on it during White House work hours," McLaughlin said. "But I believe we'll be able to convince him, if we let him calm down. And even if we don't, frankly, I can't see the blog holding his interest for too long." |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 04-Aug-2004, 06:22 AM |
| Maisky, if the writers for MadTv find out you've been smuggling their material for upcoming shows and sharing them over the net, they're gonna be really pissed!!! Where did you get that crap anyway? That's funny. Onion.com? Now there is a news source that the greats like O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge should be looking to. At the very least, sounds like they could give the Inquirer a run. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 04-Aug-2004, 07:44 AM | ||
From theonion.com's FAQ. Brother Maisky, you should check your sources more closely. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 04-Aug-2004, 10:57 AM |
| This ought to get the fur flying. There is a book, scheduled to be released August 15, entitled: "Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/104-1549021-2631901 This book contains some pretty damning allegations. If they are true, then Kerry has some explaining to do. If it is false, then I hope that the publishers and authors spend some hard time in jail. What I want to know is, "how much of this is fact or fiction?" # Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire. # All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization. # A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star. # Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident. # Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter. # Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go, thus becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months. This book claims to have names and details. Kerry has been bragging for a year about his four months in Vietnam, and it's fair game. He's running on his Vietnam war experience front and center, and people have a right to ask questions. If all of his awards were the result of minor injuries or outright fabrications, shouldn't that figure into voter's decisions? If he'll lie to receive a Purple Heart, what else would he lie about? Imagine if these type of allegations were leveled against George Bush? We would never hear the end of it. As it is now, you can bet the media will ignore this, the Kerry campaign will call it an outright fabrication and people will accuse George Bush of masterminding the whole thing. We know for a fact that Lieutenant Kerry repeatedly lied about his fellow soldiers in Vietnam when he came back. By what standard to you believe him now? John Kerry's service in Vietnam lasted 4 months and 12 days, beginning in November 1968 when he reported to Cam Ranh Bay for a month of training. His abbreviated combat tour ended shortly after he requested a transfer out of Vietnam on March 17, 1969, citing Navy instruction 1300.39 permitting personnel with three Purple Hearts to request reassignment. Kerry was the only Swift sailor ever to leave Vietnam without completing the standard one-year tour of duty, other than those who were seriously wounded or killed. Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer. Kerry's Medals: 1st Purple Heart: December 2, 1968 2nd Purple Heart: February 20, 1969 Silver Star: February 28, 1969 Bronze Star / 3rd Purple Heart: March 13, 1969 Wow. He worked fast. 5 major medals in 101 days. Kerry supporters are currently comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton. The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas. OK, I really don't care WHO financed who, and WHO wrote these allegations, and IF this is "dirty laundry", and IF this is "foul play", etc. Are these allegations true or not? |
| Posted by: gtrplr 05-Aug-2004, 08:40 AM |
| Found at Iwon.com |
| Posted by: Shamalama 05-Aug-2004, 11:38 AM |
| And here's a link to the new TV ad by the swift boat veterans. I have no idea how long this link will remain active. http://www.swiftvets.com/anyquestions.mov Wow. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 05-Aug-2004, 12:47 PM |
| More on Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention: You invoke the "Commandment" (honor thy father and thy mother) to explain why you "will not cut" Social Security benefits. Does that include raising the retirement age, which Congress set at 65 in 1935, when the life expectancy of an American male was 62? That doesn't show a lot of honoring to grandpa. Regarding military action, your platform says "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." But the platform's preceding paragraph denounces President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." If unilateralism is wrong, are you not committed to some sort of "green light from abroad"? Will you wait for France to give you permission, or will you go it alone if necessary? You appear to want it both ways. Your platform says: "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk." But Iran's radical Islamist regime is undeterred by diplomatic hand-wringing about its acquisition of nuclear weapons, which may be imminent. Is pre-emptive military action against Iran feasible, or are its nuclear facilities too dispersed and hardened? What would you do other than accept Iran as a nuclear power? Will you wait for Germany's approval? Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian says, "We have reached an internal consensus that insists on Taiwan being an independent sovereign country." Beijing's military chief recently said Taiwan will be reunified with the mainland by 2020, the first reunification deadline ever set. On an island physically similar to Taiwan, Beijing recently simulated an invasion. Would you respond with force, unilaterally, if necessary, to defend Taiwan? Do you cave in to China and leave the Taiwanese to die? Do you wait for UN permission? The Clinton years were, you say, glorious because "we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed." Did not the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, followed by the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the East African embassies mean we were at war? How many young Americans were killed in those events when your party looked the other way? How many times will you look away - or look to others for the OK to defend Americans? Remember: you don't like President Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption." So let's wait until after Americans die, and after ehough of them die, before we do something - and then only after UN approval. You supported humanitarian military interventions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti. Would you intervene militarily to stop the accelerating genocide in Sudan? You say, "I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon's war in Vietnam." Huh? Nixon's war? Did it start after John Kennedy put U.S. combat troops there, and after Lyndon Johnson increased the number to 500,000? The abortion rights groups were distressed when you said that your faith teaches you what elementary biology teaches everyone: life begins at conception. But you say personhood does not. Fine. When does personhood start? What are its defining attributes? I missed that lesson in elementary biology. You oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. You say marriage law is traditionally a state responsibility. But so was abortion law for America's first 197 years, until 1973. What is the difference between marriage being a state issue and abortion being a federal issue? Does abortion need to be sent back to the states? Your platform says, "The price of gas is at an all-time high." But that's not true as measured in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, or as a portion of Americans' purchasing power. Do you have some other way of justifying the platform's claim? Were you mis-informed? Were you lying? You have often said that "there's too much money loose in the American political system." Now your campaign is awash with money. So are the 527 groups that are supporting your campaign (of course without even an ounce of "coordination" with it, because that would be a crime under the new campaign finance law). Do you advocate new laws to discourage the kind of people who are choosing to participate in politics through financial contributions on your behalf? Are you willing to return all those millions of "527" dollars back to MoveOn.org? Or did you only mean that "there's too much money loose" in the Republican campaign? Just wondering. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 05-Aug-2004, 01:20 PM | ||
I just heard on the news that Senator John McCain, a.k.a. Too Big a Sissy to admit he's a Lib Democrat, just denounced the ad by the Bush team, citing Bush for doing the same to him last election. He went on to say that none of these guys served with Kerry. Now how do you think he would know that. Certainly Kerry and his team have already anticipated something of this sort, seeing that he knows full well how others he served with aside from his "Band of Brudders" feel about him, and his "heroism". The news from the front lines should prove quite interesting over the next few days. |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 08-Aug-2004, 10:49 AM | ||||
I have to correct my own post. This ad was not by the Bush team, but rather a privately funded ad by the vets themselves. Makes it that much more relevant to me. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 09-Aug-2004, 08:47 AM |
| More from "Unfit for Command": Since the early 1970s, Kerry has spoken and written of how he was illegally ordered to enter Cambodia. Kerry mentioned it in the floor of the Senate in 1986 when he charged that President Reagan?s actions in Central America were leading the U.S. in another Vietnam. "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me." BUT... Kerry was never in Cambodia. Period. He was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia. Kerry was stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo. Coastal Division 13?s patrol areas extended to Sa Dec, about 55 miles from the Cambodian border. Tom Anderson, Commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of PBRs (small river patrol crafts) confirmed that there were no Swifts anywhere in the area and they would have been stopped had they appeared. All the living commanders in Kerry?s chain of command deny that Kerry was ever ordered to Cambodia. They indicate that Kerry would have been seriously disciplined or court-martialed had he gone there. At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry?s boat, Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner, deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. Since the very first day that John Kerry began his active quest for the presidency he has focused on one thing; his record of service in Vietnam. But, to many, his service in Vietnam may not be as Kerry explains it. If Kerry wants to present this evidence to the great voting jury out there, then the other side gets to present their evidence also. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are doing just that. They have a story to tell, and it seems a lot of people are interested. On the one hand the Kerry entourage may be right in their presentation of Kerry as a courageous war hero who's boldness in action led to three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star in just four amazing months. On the other hand, the charges set forth in the current Amazon.com bestseller "Unfit for Command" might be a more accurate portrait. John Kerry may indeed have been a manipulative schemer who's primary purpose in volunteering for duty in Vietnam was to build a war record on which to pursue a political career. Perhaps, as charged, Kerry did complain endlessly to his superiors when he felt that his assignment might be a bit too dangerous. Maybe he did manipulate the system to gain at least one, maybe two Purple Hearts from self-inflicted wounds. Here's a way that John Kerry can divert attention, the good and the bad, from his four months in Vietnam. He can cite some other accomplishments from his life that he believes would impress the voters. - He can tell us of the great and wonderful things he did as the Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. - He can regale us with some war stories from his days as a prosecutor. - He might even tell us how he managed to seduce two incredibly rich women into marriage. - He can tell us all of the great and wonderful things he accomplished in his 20 year Senate history. - He's campaigning on the theme of a "Stronger America." Perhaps he can explain how all of his votes against funding for intelligence gathering and against the very weapons systems we're using today to kill terrorists in the Middle East made America stronger. He's trying to become the President of the United States. Doesn't anyone want to know these answers? The media sure doesn't. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 11-Aug-2004, 08:44 AM |
| My, oh my. Someone is actually suggesting that Kerry has flip-flopped on his position on Iraq. First he was for the war, voting for it and making numerous public statements that he thought Saddam was a threat. It was only until he was running for president (and trying to steal away all of Dean's liberals) that he was opposed to the war. Now he says he is for the war, but just not the war the Bush administration is waging it. Whatever. Even John McCain (the in-the-closet Democrat) had this to say about the war: "It is a noble and just cause, and believe me: America, the world and Iraq is a better place for having been liberated." Here is a three-minute video of actual clips of Kerry's own statements, laid side-by-side, to show comparison. It's difficult to hide form your own videotaped words. And people want him to be their Commander In Chief? Real Player: rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC092004W.rm Windows Media: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv Quicktime: http://real.stream2you.com/rnc/080504v1.mov Originating website: http://kerryoniraq.com/ |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Aug-2004, 12:06 PM |
| Shamalama, Kerry need not try to hide from his own words. No, he and the Kerry campaign will pull another ridiculous Tasmanian Devil and spin out of it. Or at least give the appearance of having it behind them. What is the most striking is how the libs will swallow it like candy. Just wait and see. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 16-Aug-2004, 10:39 AM |
| The Litigious Mr. Edwards. The American Medical Association lists North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over. One of the most successful personal-injury lawyers in North Carolina history, Mr. Edwards won dozens of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals across the state that he now represents in the Senate. He won more than 50 cases with verdicts or settlements of $1 million or more, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, and 31 of those were medical-malpractice suits. During his 20 years of suing doctors and hospitals, he pioneered the art of blaming doctors for delivering babies with cerebral palsy. "The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care. "And all of this for the little people?" he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwards' argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. "How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?" One of his most noted victories was a $23 million settlement he got from a 1995 case ? his last before joining the Senate ? in which he sued the doctor, gynecological clinic, anesthesiologist and hospital involved in the birth of Bailey Griffin, who had cerebral palsy and other medical problems. Linking complications during childbirth to cerebral palsy became a specialty for Mr. Edwards. In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a joint study that cast serious doubt on whether events at childbirth cause cerebral palsy. The "vast majority" of cerebral palsy cases originate long before childbirth, according to the study. "Now, he would have a much harder time proving a lot of his cases," said Dr. Schmitt, who now practices at the University of Virginia Health System. Yes, Mr. Edwards was a Master of Voodoo Science, and he profited well from it. During his 20 years of suing doctors and hospitals, he pioneered the art of blaming psychiatrists for patients who commit suicide. In 1991, he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. It was the first successful medical-malpractice case in Mr. Edwards' home of Wake County. In 1995, as Mr. Edwards neared the pinnacle of his success, Lawyers Weekly reported on the state's 50 biggest settlements of the year. "Like last year, the medical malpractice category leads the new list, accounting for 16 cases ? or 32 percent ? three points better than last year," the magazine reported. "By and large, that upward trend had held since 1992, when only four [medical malpractice] cases made the survey." And Mr. Edwards was singled out. "Another reason for this year's [medical malpractice] jump was a strong showing by the Raleigh firm of Edwards & Kirby," it reported. "Partner John Edwards was lead counsel in eight of the 16 medical malpractice cases in the top 50." As a result of these and other cases, insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed ? putting some out of business and driving others away, especially from rural areas. And doctors who have lost cases to Mr. Edwards have been bankrupted. Patients, meanwhile, are left with rising health care costs and fewer ? if any ? doctors in their area. It is increasingly a nationwide problem, physicians say. Dr. VanDerVeer, the Charlotte neurosurgeon, recalled one recent night on duty when two patients arrived in an emergency room in Myrtle Beach, S.C., where the area's last neurosurgeons quit earlier this year. "No one in Myrtle Beach would accept responsibility for these patients," he said. And because it was raining, the helicopters were grounded, so the patients were loaded into ambulances and driven the four hours to Charlotte. Upon arrival, one patient had died, and the other learned that she merely had a minor concussion ? and a $6,000 bill for the ambulance ride. "That's just one little slice of life here," Dr. VanDerVeer said. "It's a direct result of the medical-malpractice situation that John Edwards fomented." Nice guy, ain't he? And you're planning to place him one heartbeat away from the Presidency? |
| Posted by: maisky 16-Aug-2004, 10:52 AM |
| In 8 years, after Kerry's two terms, Edwards WILL be president. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 16-Aug-2004, 12:00 PM | ||
I think Comrade Klinton, er, I mean, Senator Clinton might argue with you about that one. I'd prefer Edwards over Clinton. If you dig the hole deep enough, you could put Kerry over Edwards over Clinton over Clinton |
| Posted by: Shamalama 16-Aug-2004, 01:57 PM |
| A recap of recent revelations (giving the liberals every possible chance to dispute): - Of the 23 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11, only one supports him for president. Two others are dead, and four want nothing to do with politics. The remaining 16 have declared him "Unfit for Command" - According to Kerry, his first taste of combat came on his first mission, on the night of Dec. 2, 1968. He was with two sailors in a Boston whaler on a night patrol. They saw sampans, presumably crewed by Viet Cong, unloading on a peninsula. They opened fire, and the Vietnamese ran for cover. In the "engagement," Kerry suffered a scratch on his arm from a piece of metal. Therefore a Purple Heart on his very first mission. - Lt. William Schachte, later an admiral, was the officer in charge of that boat (not Kerry). Shachte said the Vietnamese never fired on the boat, and the sailors who were with Schachte and Kerry said they couldn't remember any return fire. Kerry had fired an M-79 grenade launcher too close to the shore. It struck a rock, and a fragment of metal ricocheted and struck Kerry. Louis Letson, the doctor who treated Kerry (he put a Band-Aid on the Purple Heart cut) said the metal fragment looked like a piece from an M-79 grenade, not enemy fire (part of the Purple Heart requirement). The treatment report (much like most office visit reports) was signed by Letson's corpsman J.C. Carreon. - Kerry received his third purple heart (his Get-Out-Of-Vietnam ticket), and his bronze star, for an action on March 13, 1969. Kerry alleges he was wounded in the right buttock by the explosion of an underwater mine under an accompanying swift boat. Jim Rassmann, an Army Special Forces officer, was knocked off Kerry's boat by the mine explosion. Kerry was awarded the bronze star for coming back "under heavy fire" to fish Rassmann out of the water. Rassmann and the sailors on Kerry's boat support Kerry's story. - The sailors on the other swift boats say there was no enemy fire (again, part of the Purple Heart requirement). The force of the explosion disabled PCF-3, and threw several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. Kerry's boat went up river either "to look for the enemy" or to run away from an explosion (which could be the reason the sailors on Kerry's boat support Kerry's story). After it was apparent there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassmann who was only a few yards away from another boat which was also ready to pick Rassmann up. Kerry's wound had occurred not during the mine explosion, but earlier, when he tossed a concussion grenade into a pile of rice, according to Larry Thurlow, an officer who was with Kerry at the time. Rassmann said Kerry was injured in the mine explosion. But Kerry said his injury came was "a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions." Again, no enemy fire - no Purple Heart, right? - The Kerry campaign so far has responded to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not by refuting their accusations, but by attacking their motives and their character, as has many in the major media. - Kerry could clear up much of the confusion if he would just authorize the release of all his military records. His failure to do so suggests there may be something he doesn't want Americans to know, as the major media claimed against Bush and his service records. - In 1986, on the floor of the United States Senate, Kerry said: "I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory, which is seared -- seared -- in me." - That memory is seared? The Khmer Rouge shooting at Kerry in 1968? In fact on Christmas, 1968, Kerry wasn't in Cambodia but was instead 55 miles away at Sa Dec, South Vietnam. Period. - For the last 20 years Kerry has been a legislative non-entity, yet he wants to be President - Before that, he was accusing his brave band of brothers of mutilation, rape and torture, yet he wants to be Commander-in-Chief - He spent his early life at Swiss finishing school and his later life living off his wife's inheritance from her first husband, yet he now knows how best to spend the money of the "working class". - Imagine if Dick Cheney campaigned for the Presidency on the basis of his short time at Halliburton, and a majority of the Halliburton board and 80 percent of the stockholders declared he was unfit for office. Imagine if the major media were just as "fair and balanced". |
| Posted by: maisky 17-Aug-2004, 10:24 AM |
| The fact remains that Kerry served in Vietnam and that both Bush and Cheney are draft dodgers and cowards. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 17-Aug-2004, 12:03 PM |
| Kerry scammed Vietnam, and scammed the rest of the brave souls that served and died there. He abused and played the system, while others sacrificed and died because they didn't have rich parents like Kerry. And yet Kerry claims he's a man for the people. You can't claim that Bush bought his way out if you can't recognize the Purple Hearts that Kerry stole while he scammed his way out. And I can't believe you catagorize the National Guard as "draft dodgers and cowards". Bush did serve in the National Guard whether you like it or not. To claim that he was a coward for "just serving stateside in the Guard" is a strong slap in the face to thousands that did the same thing. Is the entire National Guard a bunch of cowards? Or is Bush the only one? And, if so, how is he any different from the other thousands that served in the National Guard? And I can't think of a worse coward than someone who faked their injuries to get out of harm's way. A true soldier would consider a scratch to be a normal day - Kerry called them Purple Hearts, ranking himself against those that gave real sacrifices. Soldiers with no legs are equal to Kerry and his band-aid scratches? Now there's a slap in the face. Cheney didn't (I haven't discovered why not) serve. Clinton didn't (used college in another country to dodge his service) serve. The difference is that neither you nor the major media used the words "draft dodgers and cowards" during Clinton's 8 years. Why not? The media was quick to demand an investigation into Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Where are the demands for investigations into Kerry's war record? The winner of this election is going to command our armed forces as we fight Islamic terrorism over the next four years. Don't we want to know if John Kerry is at least being honest about the wars he's already fought? The fact remains that no one is able to dispute anything the Swift Boat Veterans are claiming. Why? John O'Neill, one of the authors of "Unfit For Command", doesn't timidly suggest that Kerry might have lied occasionally or exaggerated in Vietnam and afterward during his antiwar crusade. Rather he paints an unmistakable picture of Kerry as a ruthless, self-promoting egomaniac who systematically placed his own interests above his fellow soldiers and who was obsessively involved in building his resume at all costs during the entirety of his short tour in Vietnam. You can certainly say that John O'Neill and the some 250 Swiftees supporting his position are lying. Or you can say that John Kerry was lying about Vietnam and continues to today. But you cannot honestly say that both groups may be telling the truth - someone is lying. In one case, O'Neill charges Kerry with taking credit for the heroics actually performed by members of another Swift Boat. Neither Kerry nor his defenders have even attempted to refute the great majority of the factual assertions in the book. No one has been willing to engage in a debate with Mr. O'Neill. Why not? And Chris Matthews, though he allowed O'Neill to speak between interruptions, couldn't seem to get past his perception that Kerry had to be a hero because the Navy, as an institution, bestowed multiple awards on him. But if Chris had read the book, he would have understood that one of its premises is that Kerry often circumvented those who had actual knowledge of events and duped his superiors into giving him honors by falsifying reports and presumably recommending himself for these awards when his superiors refused to do so. And this is the guy you want to be President? Kerry could clear much of this up by releasing all his medical and military records, but so far he has been quite selective with their release. We need to know, for example, if he filed false reports, such as claiming that certain self-inflicted wounds were a result of enemy fire. But what's even more damning to John Kerry's credibility is his unsubstantiated defamation of his fellow servicemen in his opportunistic Senate testimony and elsewhere upon his return from Vietnam. Kerry not only indicts his fellow soldiers as war criminals, but the entire command structure of the U.S. military as directing these types of activities. Yet Kerry has never been able to produce specific names and dates of those who committed these actions, nor any real proof of systematic, much less top-down orchestrated atrocities. Kerry has never apologized for these slanders - never. And he wants to be Commander-In-Chief? And you would vote him into that position? If just one tenth of what the Swiftees assert is true, we should shudder at the prospect of a Kerry presidency. Where is the media? |
| Posted by: gtrplr 17-Aug-2004, 12:25 PM |
| Found at the http://997wtn.com/p_stevegill.cfm website: Twas the night before Christmas and we were afloat Somewhere in Cambodia in our little boat. While the river was lightened by rockets red glare No one but the President knew we were there. The crew was all nestled deep down in their bunks, While the Spook and I watched the sampans and junks. Our mission was secret, so secret in fact, No one else would remember it when we got back. When out on the water there arose such a clatter I leaped down from the bridge to see what was the matter. The incoming friendly was starting to flash And I knew that the ARVN's were having a bash. The snap of friendly fire on the warm tropic air Convinced me for sure no one knew we were there, On a clandestine mission so secret it's true That I'm still convinced only Tricky Dick knew. While I huddled for safety in the tub on the bow, I thought of a title, "Apocalypse Now." To give to the films I was I making each day To show all the voters when I made my big play. As I sat there sweating in my lucky flight jacket, Spook said, "Merry Christmas!" and tossed me a packet. And what to my wondering eyes did appear, But a new lucky cap, which I still have right here. I keep it tucked here, in this leather brief case, Just sharing with the press its secretive place As I regale them again with my senate refrain, That Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain. Don't bother to quibble with history my friend, By pointing out Johnson was President then. Don't listen to Swiftees who try to explain, For I tell you that night is seared into my brain. Down Hibbard, down Lonsdale, and you too O'Neill, So you don't remember? Well it's something I feel. I don't need all you Swiftvets to support my campaign, Cause Christmas in Cambodia is seared into my brain, Into my brain, into my brain, into my brain... Russ Vaughn 2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division Vietnam 65-66 |
| Posted by: Shamalama 18-Aug-2004, 03:03 PM | ||
Senator John Kerry, Congressional Record, March 27, 1986. - He is either in Cambodia, or somewhere very near. - He is either exchanging fire with the Khmer Rouge -- which would make it no earlier than 1972. - Or it's 1968, and he is being shot at by drunken South Vietnamese soldiers celebrating Christmas Eve (a fine old Buddhist holiday). - He was there inadvertently, without orders. - Or he was on special assignment dropping CIA agents and SEALs behind enemy lines. Last week, the Kerry campaign released a statement asserting that: "During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border, and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien." Kerry's campaign spokesman said, last week, that Kerry was somewhere on the Mekong River, which separates Cambodia from Vietnam. But the Mekong does not separate those two countries; it crosses perpendicular to their border. Oops. Then it was announced in the London Daily Telegraph by Douglas Brinkley, Kerry's biographer and confidante, that Kerry was mistaken about being in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, but "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February, 1969, on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, Mr. Brinkley told the newspaper, and he had not included these secret missions in his biography of John Kerry. "He was a ferry master, a drop off guy, but it was dangerous as hell." - Did John Kerry's mission ever exist? - Was is a firefight, or a covert, secret mission? - Did he go into Cambodia, or up the Mekong, or cross a border, or what? - Was it known only to the CIA and God -- or not even to them? He's not even in office yet and already he becomming a Clinton. The Swift Boat Veterans are just the beginning on the Truth About Kerry. This is becomming fun. |
| Posted by: maisky 18-Aug-2004, 03:26 PM |
| The "swift boat veterans" are a phantom group. The whole add is a lie. The other members of kerry's crew supported HIS story. Even McCain is outraged by the "swift boat" add. And Cheney and Bush are STILL draft dodgers and cowards. The only thing I have trouble understanding is: how can ANYBODY still believe in Bush? |
| Posted by: gtrplr 18-Aug-2004, 04:27 PM | ||
Not sure I understood that one. Let's see if I've got this right. Bush is a liar. Kerry is a liar. Bush wants to take more of my freedom. Kerry wants to take more of my money. Bush has gotten us into an war we can't win. Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. Bush and Kerry both want my vote. What to do, what to do. (gtrplr pauses, musing for a few moments, then snaps his fingers) I know! I'LL VOTE FOR MICHAEL BADNARIK! Isn't choice a wonderful thing? |
| Posted by: maisky 19-Aug-2004, 05:34 AM |
| Choice is indeed a wonderful thing. THAT we can all agree on. |
| Posted by: birddog20002001 19-Aug-2004, 05:47 AM | ||||
Here you go.
|
| Posted by: maisky 19-Aug-2004, 06:54 AM |
| What! A Republicant lying?!! Hard to believe, isn't it.. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 19-Aug-2004, 10:55 AM |
| Two points here: - Thurlow was interviewed last night and steadfastly maintains that there was no enemy fire. He said he is not the author of the write-up about that particular action, and that the person who did write it up may have relied upon Kerry's version. - What about all the other claims that the Swift Boat Vets have made? Is the media checking on any of them? |
| Posted by: Shamalama 19-Aug-2004, 10:58 AM |
| More Kerry flip-flops: A few days ago President Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas. Bush said that troops would be withdrawn from both Europe and South Korea. Kerry, of course, being the expert that he is on defense matters and fighting in actual wars and carrying actual guns and all that, had to oppose the President's plans. He said, "Why are we withdrawing (he actually said 'withdrawring') unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time," at a VFW convention yesterday (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5745916/). But what about August 1, 2004, when Kerry said, "I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps." (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/02/kerry_edwards_defend_their_agenda/) He says what he thinks the media wants to hear. Just like Clinton. |
| Posted by: maisky 19-Aug-2004, 03:36 PM | ||
Let's face it, Brother S. The whole "Swift Boat Vets" thing is a pack of lies. This has been well documented. Give it up. The only thing they have accomplished is to make BUSH look bad. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-Aug-2004, 08:42 AM | ||
Now that's exactly what I said about all this awhile back: is any of this true? So let's examine nothing but facts. No pack of lies. - John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. - There are 13 former swift boaters that are saying Kerry told the truth about his experiences in Vietnam. - There are 254 former swift boaters that are saying Kerry lied about his experiences in Vietnam. - Kerry says he's fit to serve as Commander-In-Chief. - Every single officer Kerry served under in Vietnam is on record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. - Kerry says all his medals are earned. - At least one doctor that was actually there says at least one Purple Heart was unearned, and that two other sailors actually at the "hostile fire" incident can testify against Kerry being awarded a Purple Heart for a 'rose thorn scratch insufficient to justify a Purple Heart'. This particular Purple Heart was initially denied by Division Commander Grant Hibbard. The Purple Heart was finally awarded three months later by an officer that had no personal information about the incident and no connection to Kerry?s naval unit. Kerry could clear a lot of this up by releasing his medical records, which we refuses to do, yet demanded that Bush do. - Kerry says he came under enemy fire. - Other sailors that were at the scene dispute Kerry's claims of enemy fire. - Kerry says all his medals are earned. - The Kerry website contains the documents Kerry received with his Bronze Star. Page one bears the letterhead of Admiral Zumwalt, who was Chief of Naval Operations from 1 Jul 1970 - July 1974. Page two bears the letterhead of the US Secretary of the Navy, and is signed by John Lehman, who was Secretary from 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. But the times of service of Zumwalt and Lehman do not overlap. Why the discrepancy? Even Kerry won't explain this one. What were the circumstances that led the Secretary of the Navy to essentially rewrite a routine Bronze Star citation from 16 years earlier? - Kerry can be defined as a war criminal according to his own sworn testimony. Wouldn't that disqualify him from serving as Commander-In-Chief? - Kerry said he went into Cambodia. - Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry, and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, can't ever remember going inside Cambodia with Kerry. - Kerry says all his medals are earned. - The Kerry website contains the documents Kerry received with his Silver Star. Page one bears the letterhead of Admiral John Hyland, who was Commander In Chief of the US Pacific Fleet in 28 February 1969. Page two bears the letterhead of the US Secretary of the Navy, and is signed by John Lehman, who was Secretary from 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. But the times of service of Hyland and Lehman do not overlap. Why the discrepancy? Even Kerry won't explain this one. What were the circumstances that led the Secretary of the Navy to essentially rewrite a routine Silver Star citation from 16 years earlier? - Kerry said he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 being shot at while in Cambodia. - Admiral Roy Hoffmann, Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam during 1968, said that Kerry did not go into Cambodia. You have to admit that receiving five major medals in four months is an unusual and suspicious feat. Your "well documented" phrase could either refer to 'Unfit For Command' or Kerry's statements. Now can someone tell me which of the above statements are lies? |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Aug-2004, 09:19 AM |
| Your long posts aside, Brother S, the documented evidence, not Repuplicant stooges lying, points to honorable service for Kerry, after volunteering to serve, volunteering for Vietnam, and Volunteering for river service. Bush and Cheney are STILL draft dodgers and cowards. Bush is STILL a deserter. Cheney and Bush are gung-ho for war, as long as it is SOMEBODY ELSE's kids doing the fighting and dying. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 20-Aug-2004, 01:22 PM |
| Ohhhhh, nice. Kerry's documented evidence in "Tour Of Duty" vs. the 250 SwiftVet's documented evidence in "Unfit For Command" Repuplicant stooges or Vietnam veterans Repuplicant stooges lying vs. Socialist comrade lying honorable service for Kerry or dishonorable service for Kerry volunteering to serve vs. scamming the system deserter or National Guard veteran coward or Clinton-like gung-ho for war vs. appeaser of terrorists SOMEBODY ELSE's kids? Didn't FDR use SOMEBODY ELSE's kids during WW2? http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/082004op_antrim And this one ought to be fun: Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells Salon.com, "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them", calls swiftvets "front organization for Bush", calls on a publisher to "withdraw book". http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?ReleaseID=34978 What's so funny about all of this is that no one, including the media, has mentioned how MoveOn.org is a front organization for Kerry, how 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was released with great fanfare even though it has proven falsehoods, and that "Christmas-in-Cambodia Kerry" ought to withdraw his book due to factual distortions. Judicial Watch has filed a formal complaint and request for investigation with the Inspector General regarding final disposition of awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry. "...the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts awarded to Senator Kerry during the period 2 December 1968 to 17 March 1969 appear to be based upon Senator Kerry?s false official statements, distortions of fact and subornation. The evidence and testimony compiled in Exhibit 2 may oblige the Secretary of the Navy to revoke Senator Kerry?s awards." "Dishonorable and possibly unlawful actions by Senator Kerry during the early 1970s ? actions that manifestly benefited a foreign power with which the U.S. was at war ? are so grievously damaging to the dignity, honor and traditions of the U.S. Navy and the American republic that the Secretary of the Navy may be compelled to revoke Senator Kerry?s awards." http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kerryawards.htm A Presidential candidate accused of dishonorable and possibly unlawful actions as well as making false official statements, distortions of fact, and subornation. Wow. |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Aug-2004, 08:11 PM |
| (CNN) -- The Kerry presidential campaign filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election Commission, alleging that ads from an anti-Kerry veterans' group are inaccurate and "illegally coordinated" with Republicans and the Bush-Cheney campaign. The complaint -- filed against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- states that "... there is overwhelming evidence that SBVT is coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney campaign." A spokesman for the group, composed of Vietnam veterans who served on swift boats, said it had no response to the complaint. Members have previously denied coordinating with the Bush campaign. A spokesman for the Bush campaign dismissed the complaint as "frivolous and false," but said it welcomed a broader look at the so-called 527 groups, tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities. Congress banned the use of unregulated "soft money" by political parties and certain political groups in 2002, but that law did not address activity by 527s, named for a section of the federal tax code. "The Bush campaign filed FEC complaints [in early May] requesting an investigation of the coordination between the Kerry campaign and the Media Fund and ACT [America Coming Together]," campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin told CNN, naming two left-leaning 527s. In its complaint, the RNC named the Kerry campaign, 28 groups and at least two large donors. The RNC charged that the groups violated campaign finance reform law by illegally raising what is known as "soft money." The complaint said the 527 groups were coordinating advertising efforts with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party. (Full story) The Kerry campaign has denied any collusion with those groups. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Friday that President Bush "has been the recipient of 527 ads which are terrible, and in my view very, very inappropriate." McCain charged that all 527 ads are illegal. Previously he has asked both Kerry and Bush to condemn the critical ads. Campaign officials with Kerry in Florida said the complaint notes a New York Times report of "a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures, and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove." The complaint cites "journalistic research discrediting" the group's allegations and states that a member of the group's steering committee "admitted" on television that the group's intent was to defeat Kerry. Kerry's complaint came as the veterans group released a new ad Friday that takes issue with comments Kerry made after he returned from Vietnam. The ad is part of a $600,000 buy, funded primarily by Republican contributors from Texas, according to federal records. "This Republican front group for Bush is out of credibility after being caught in lie after lie day after day," Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade said. The group has no direct connection to the Bush campaign, and group members said they have acted independently of the president's re-election effort. Selected comments The latest ad selects quotes from Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry says, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn." The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group member refers to the statements as "accusations" Kerry made against Vietnam veterans. An official transcript shows Kerry was referring to a meeting in Detroit, Michigan, that was part of what was called the Winter Soldier investigation. He told the Senate committee that veterans had testified to war crimes and relived the "absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do." Kerry has said he regrets some of the comments but stands by his protests. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth recently released another ad accusing Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, a charge Kerry and some veterans dispute.(Full story) A new survey of more than 2,200 people suggests the ad about Kerry's service medals reached a wide audience. Of all people polled, 59 percent believed Kerry earned his medals, while 21 percent believed he did not. Responses fell largely along party lines, with more than 75 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents stating Kerry earned his medals, and 61 percent of Republicans stating he did not. The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey was conducted between August 9 and Monday. |
| Posted by: maisky 20-Aug-2004, 08:13 PM |
| My only remaining question is: how can ANYBODY support Cheney/bush? |
| Posted by: MacErca 20-Aug-2004, 09:21 PM |
| No actually your question should be how can anybody support a person who confessed to committing war crimes, like Hanoi John did. |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Aug-2004, 07:13 AM | ||
Bush is a war criminal for his illegal invasion of Iraq. He has committed the SAME crimes for which Milosovitch is being tried. |
| Posted by: MacErca 21-Aug-2004, 09:38 AM |
| So you say President Bush is a weevil, and I say that Mr. Kerry is a weevil, so in actuality we have to decide between ..... "The lesser of two weevils" Pa dump, bump, |
| Posted by: maisky 21-Aug-2004, 04:19 PM | ||
Good one! |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 21-Aug-2004, 08:13 PM | ||
Dear Brother Maisky, when you make such sweeping statements be prepared to back them up with factual evidence. Opinion is one thing, but to accuse the president of war crimes without enough evidence to convict a shoplifter makes you look irrational, ill-informed, and to be parroting what you hear your favorite liberal celebrities spewing on the entertainment talk shows. Let's hear it. Where's your proof? If what you are accusing Bush of is actually true, why haven't charges been filed? Hey, we dragged the last president into court over a BJ, so why isn't Bush being brought onto the carpet for "crimes" worthy of comparison to those of Millosovich? And as for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, aside from the fact that Bush has asked they cease their activities and denounced them for their actions, why do you suppose with all the power and investigative prowess the democrat party has, have they not yet been able to disprove their claims, or to otherwise kill their credibility? Back to you. |
| Posted by: maisky 22-Aug-2004, 09:08 AM |
| From CNN, 8/22: William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, writes in Sunday's editions: "Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened [in 1969] were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us." Like Kerry, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade and skipper of one of the three boats ambushed twice while on patrol February 28, 1969. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat decoration, for his aggressive response to the ambushes. Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions in the same clash, and writes that criticism of Kerry " impugns others who are not in the public eye." He says, "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there." The "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" are interested in ANYTHING but truth. They are lying. The ONE person with them who WAS present during the battle lied. His own written account of the battle supports Kerry. These people are a bunch of Fascists. Bush has refused to deny what they say or to tell them to stop. At this point, these jerks are just making BUSH look bad. |
| Posted by: maisky 23-Aug-2004, 01:56 PM |
| Here is what McCain says on the matter. Click on "play video". http://www.johnkerry.com/oldtricks |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Aug-2004, 09:18 AM |
| Oh that's real surprising - a McCain video on Kerry's website. This is a lesson in hypocracy. 1:) Here's Kerry during an April 26, 2004 appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" complaining about a report questioning which medals he threw away during a 1971 anti-war demonstration: "This comes from a president and a Republican party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it." But can anyone give a Bush quote saying something against Kerry's service record? 2:) The DNC started the entire "Bush was AWOL" claim, and no one demanded proof of the claim. But now the major media as well as the Kerry campaign is demanding proof from the swift boat vets. 3:) The major media, and some people here, demanded that Bush prove his innocence of the AWOL claim. But the major media, and the same people here, will not demand that Kerry prove his innocence of the Vietnam scam claim. 4:) The swift boat vets that are against Kerry are said to be liars, but the swift boat vets that are for Kerry are said to be truthful. 5:) Kerry has filed a grievance claiming collusion between Bush and the vets. Kerry has said that no such collusion exists between Kerry and MoveOn.org. 6:) The Bush campaign have gone on record time and again saying they want all 527 groups to halt their assaults on all candidates. The Kerry campaign has never gone on record against the 527 groups. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Aug-2004, 09:52 AM |
| This month the Kerry Campaign abandoned one claim that John Kerry had made for years about his Vietnam War service and put another into question. The claim that has been dropped: that Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmastime in 1968. In a 1979 review of the movie Apocalypse Now in the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 5 miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our Vietnamese allies." In a 1986 speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. . . . I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me." In a 1992 interview with States News Service, Kerry claimed, "On Christmas Eve of 1968, I was on a gunboat in a firefight that wasn't supposed to be taking place." That year he also told the Associated Press, "Everybody was over there [in Cambodia]. Nobody thought twice about it." These are vivid statements full of colorful detail - South Vietnamese soldiers shooting off guns to celebrate Christmas. Historian Douglas Brinkley's bestselling Tour of Duty, based partly on Kerry's wartime journals, places Kerry on Christmas 1968 in Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia. The Kerry camp has provided no documentation of Kerry's missions to Cambodia; Meehan says that's not surprising because the missions were secret. Perhaps. But none of Kerry's boat mates, most of whom support him, corroborate his story, and the one boat mate who opposes him flatly denies it. Character counts. A more unsettling possibility is that he consciously leapt the bounds of truth to make his experience seem more spectacular or to score political points. Those are not the sort of things most people want in a president. Will Kerry's evidently untrue statements about Christmas in Cambodia raise doubts about his as-yet-uncorroborated stories about later Cambodian missions? Will they undermine his credibility and bolster the charges of his swift boat critics? Battlefield memories inevitably and understandably differ. But character counts in presidents, and some of Kerry's statements over the years - not all, but some - count against his character. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040830/opinion/30barone.htm Also, there is a rumor that the Kerry campaign will soon publically say that Kerry's first Purple Heart was, in fact, awarded for an unintentional, self-inflicted wound, not requiring medical attention, during a time of absolutely no enemy fire. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Aug-2004, 11:20 AM |
| And what about the "confessed war criminal" claim about Kerry? Yep, Kerry said he committed atrocities. In April 18, 1971, on Meet The Press, Kerry said, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down." John Kerry did one of four things in 1971: 1. He committed and admitted to the court martialable offenses of failure to obey a general order and/or dereliction of duty 2. He committed and admitted to the court martialable offense of misprision of a serious offense (that is: he knew about it and did not report it) 3. He lied for personal, political gain when he said that he had both witnessed and participated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity 4. He committed treason by attempting to create a political climate favorable to our enemies by making statements about the legality of actions he claims to both have witnessed and participated in when he knew those actions to have been lawful. Kerry?s testimony ? much of which was later discredited ? was used to demoralize American POW?s, according to many former POW?s - including Senator John McCain. During Vietnam, he established himself as one who will risk his life for his country. Kerry?s patriotism then was not to be questioned. However, his subsequent testimony before the Senate may be a reason to question his patriotism - since much of what Kerry said was communist propaganda. Even if you give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, and say he thought he was being patriotic, then you have to wonder why someone who admitted to committing war crimes was never prosecuted. Is it not ironic that the moralistic, pacifists of the Democratic Party nominated a self-confessed war criminal? Is it not ironic tha the ones who screamed the loadest about Abu Graab are the ones supporting the self confessed war criminal for president? Here a freebie I'll throw in just because I like everyone here: There was once an election for the office of President of the United States. - One candidate was criticized for his inept military service. - The other candidate was a decorated and wounded war hero. - One was called a scourge and a misfortune. - The other was called a genius. - One was called dull. - The other was called charming. But this wasn't about Bush and Kerry. It was about George Washington and Benedict Arnold. |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Aug-2004, 06:44 AM | ||
This was a distorted misquote. It left off the part at the beginning where he stated that these things were done by others. You should know better than to listen to Bush's fascist minions. Now it turns out that a second Bush staffer has been linked to "coordinating" the hate adds and spreading lies. This is a standard Bush ploy, spreading lies and using hate and fear tactics. Some of you folks will believe ANYTHING Georgie says! |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Aug-2004, 10:25 AM |
| I found another good web site: www.tostupidtobepresident.com Top 11 things that prove Dick Cheney is not a coward. - 08/18/04 11. Cheney relentlessly pursued four educational deferments even while dropping out of college multiple times. 10. Courage under fire: "earned" expectant father deferment with child born exactly nine months and two days after that deferment was instituted. 9. During Picture Day on the Senate floor, Cheney told Patrick Leahy to, "go @#$%! himself" with only a 51-48 Republican majority. 8. Has had sex with Lynne Cheney. At least twice. 7. The "other priorities" Cheney cited on his military deferment applications included: slaying dragons, tracking the wolfman and keeping Dracula out of Wyoming. 6. Sure, he only hunts birds, but what would prevent a wounded duck from charging? 5. When Satan calls, Dick Cheney doesn't just let the machine get it. 4. Cheney has the fortitude to say no to corporate contributors when their demands are not in the public interest. He just chooses not to. 3. Have you ever eaten a baby? It's not a delicacy for the squeamish. 2. His heart is purple. 1. Getting five deferments isn't cowardly. Ask John Ashcroft about his seven deferments. |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Aug-2004, 10:26 AM |
| from the same source: Top 10 military officials to condemn the "gutter" politics of the Bush/Cheney campaign. - 08/12/04 10. Admiral William J. Crowe (United States Navy, Retired) 9. Admiral Stansfield Turner (United States Navy, Retired) 8. General Wesley K. Clark (United States Army, Retired) 7. General Merrill "Tony" A. McPeak (United States Air Force, Retired) 6. General Joseph Hoar (United States Marine Corps, Retired) 5. General Johnnie E. Wilson (United States Army, Retired) 4. Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (United States Navy, Retired) 3. Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (United States Army, Retired) 2. Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick (United States Army, Retired) 1. Lieutenant General Edward D. Baca |
| Posted by: SCShamrock 25-Aug-2004, 05:09 PM | ||
Brother Maisky, you have dodged the question I posed. I asked you for proof that Bush is a war criminal. I understand that you don't have any, but I would appreciate it if you would kindly admit to being wrong. Opinion is one thing, and the sharing of them is in the spirit of conversation. However, your accusation of Bush as a war criminal goes far beyond that of opinion. I would very much like for you to provide the evidence to support this allegation. If you can do so, I will personally start a campaign here in my state of South Carolina to have Bush brought up on charges, and to have him impeached post-haste. As far as your quote that I am using here, tell me good sir, how can Bush deny the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth if he wasn't there either. He has called on them publicly to stop thier ads (he's only the presiden, he can't tell them to stop), but to accuse them of spreading lies or smearing a man's war record ufairly, well I guess he would have to have been there to know these facts huh? Funny how you say the SBVFT are lying because they weren't there, yet expect the President to deny their claims when he wasn't there either. |
| Posted by: maisky 25-Aug-2004, 06:09 PM |
| Proof of Bush's crimes? An illegal invasion of a foreign country. Genocide in that country. These are the same neat acts Milosovitch is being tried for. Bush and the Swift Boat Jerks would be believable, except this is far from being the first time he (and his daddy) have used these tactics. Besides, Georgie HAS NOT asked his fascist minions to stop their activities. The SECOND of his staffers has been found to have direct ties to them. Cheney/bush are coordinating their antics.I am sorry, and rather embarrased for America, that our president is a criminal and an idiot. The only bright side is that it won't last past January. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 10:22 AM | ||
| This is actually beginning to be quite funny. I count three time Brother Maisky has used the term "fascist" in his last six posts. According to Merriam-Webster fascist means: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" - The "exalts nation" comes from Bush not getting France's permission to liberate Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Nevermind that both Kerry and Edwards have publically stated that they would have liked to to the very same thing.
- "Centralized autocratic government"? You've got to be kidding me here. It is the dream of all liberals to expand as far as possible the reach of the federal government into individual lives. That's pure hypocracy there. - The "dictatorial leader" phrase is so well-worn it's comical. Both sides claim the other wants to be 'supreme leader of the universe'. As long as there are elections, and as long as people vote, the US will never have a dictatorial leader. That's just silly. - "economic regimentation" For those that went to government schools, the term 'regimentation' means 'to organize rigidly especially for the sake of regulation or control'. The Democrats are the undispited kings of regulation and control. They want law after law over this and that. And as far as the economy goes, Bush has done pretty well pulling this country out of an inherited recession to one of very nice growth across most sectors. - "social regimentation" Again, you're kidding me here, right? Social control? Isn't it the Democrats that want law after law saying what a person can and cannot do, and that the Liberal's Moral Code is the one that all Americans should abide by? And don't forget about labor unions - they're a prime element of Socialism (says Marx), they're 'organized rigidly for the sake of control', and they're Kerry's friends. - "forcible suppression of opposition" Ahh, the best for last. We've now got a handful of Americans that are trying to tell their story and the Kerry campaign is doing everything they can to silence them. I think it's great we live in a country where 260 average guys can go out and put their point of view out there before the public and influence a major presidential race. But not Kerry. Either Kerry or the swiftees are lying - let the public decide, not the federal government. This is coming very close to state-based censorship. But since that's a hallmark of Socialism I can see why Kerry likes it. Later I'll discuss the term 'minion'. It's funny too. "An illegal invasion". Yeah, but only because a Republican is in office. And that France told us not to do it. Ten years ago the leaders of the Democratic party were asking Clinton to do something about Saddam, but he was too busy in the closet doing something else. Now everything is "illegal". And "illegal" by who's standards? Yours? The UN's? The US Constitution? Show us the documentation that says Bush's actions were illegal. "Genocide". Oh, that's nice. 'The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group'. That's the same phrase used against the Nazi's during the 1940's. The only group that has been destroyed is Saddam's regime - I can't believe you want him back so badly. "Cheney/bush are coordinating their antics." And attorney Joe Sandler works for both the DNC and Moveon.org. Come on liberals, publically bash Sandler and Kerry ... unless you're hypocrites. When the Democrats do it, it's fine. When the Republicans do it, it's evil. Oh, by the way: in neither case is a law or rule being violated, so what in the hades is your problem with all if it? "Swift Boat Jerks"? Really? 260 former sailors, and you call them 'jerks', 'facists', and 'minions' for telling their side of a story, a story that Kerry may have lied about? You will actually accept the story of a career politician over 260 'regular guys'? Tell me, Brother, which one of us here at CelticRadio knows the truth? Do YOU know the truth? And you call me naive? |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Aug-2004, 10:59 AM | ||
260 "regular guys" who weren't present at the battles in question versus the people who WERE present. The people there were in a position to KNOW what happened. The ONE person in the "swift boat jerks" who claimed to be there, filed a report after the incident that supported Kerry. Who is lying? Bush's storm troopers, of course. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 26-Aug-2004, 11:12 AM |
| The Bush campaign had never questioned or challenged Kerry's military record in Vietnam. The Kerry campaign, on the other hand, had heavily questioned Bush's record of service in the Texas Air National Guard. See: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html Now you Kerry folks go find a similar page from the Bush campaign site. Your candidate sure has a lot of class. "I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign," Kerry said in 1992 when defending Bill Clinton who dodged the draft. Vietnam is an issue that is his and his alone. Any criticism or investigation of his record concerning same should be taboo. But the gloves come off against his competition. Hypocrite. |
| Posted by: maisky 26-Aug-2004, 11:17 AM |
| Bush isn't BRAVE enough to fight his own battles. Whether it is sending other peoples children off to war or hiding behind (and directing) a mis-directed veterans group, Cheney and Bush are cowards. You, sir are merely misinformed and misguided. Your wife must not beat you often enough. Keep trying, though, this is FUN. |
| Posted by: gtrplr 26-Aug-2004, 12:56 PM |
| Shamalama, you and I suffer from the same malady. We believe logic will work on a liberal because it works on us. I've come to understand that logic on a liberal is like water on a duck's back. It just rolls off. Don't let that stop you from posting, though. I enjoy them, and I'm sure there's a few other conservatives around here that also get enlightenment and entertainment from them. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 27-Aug-2004, 12:02 AM | ||
Yeah, regular guys (without the satire quotes) that I'll concede weren't in Kerry's boat. But there are many guys in boats that were 20 yards away that deny Kerry's claims. Does being 20 years away equate to not being present at the battles? I didn't realize that the battlefields were that small in Vietnam. Kerry's entire chain of command at that time have publically stated that, in their opinion, Kerry is unfit to be Commander-In-Chief. If all my bosses at work claimed that I was unfit for a promotion I can assure that there would be no promotion for me. Why is it different for Kerry? --- Much is being said of "Bush directing a mis-directed veterans group" and Bush's "fascist minions". There is concern that people in the Bush camp are involved with the Swiftees. So let's set the record straight about who in the Kerry camp in involved with who. - Former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan founded Thunder Road Group, a consulting firm representing America Coming Together, The Media Fund and America Votes. - Harold Ickes is a member of DNC's Executive Committee and head of The Media Fund and Chief Of Staff to America Coming Together. - MoveOn.org's Zack Exley joined the Kerry campaign as Director Of Online Communications And Organizing. - Bob Bauer of Perkins Coie is legal counsel to both the Kerry campaign and America Coming Together. - Joe Sandler is general counsel to the DNC while serving as Legal Counsel to 527s MoveOn.org and Moving America Forward. - Erik Smith is the Media Fund's Executive Director and worked with Steve Elmendorf, Kerry's Deputy Campaign Manager, on Dick Gephardt's Presidential Campaign. - Minyon Moore, a Kerry Campaign Consultant, serves on the Executive Committee of America Coming Together. - Media Fund ad consultant Bill Knapp has been hired by the Kerry campaign. - Former ACT employee Rodney Shelton has been hired as Kerry's Arkansas State Director. - Kerry's New Mexico Caucus Director, Geri Prado, is leading ACT's GOTV effort in that state. So let's not hear anymore of this tripe about Bush controlling the Swiftees, unless you enjoy the taste of hypocracy. |
| Posted by: MDF3530 27-Aug-2004, 12:07 AM |
| All I can say about the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" is this: Somewhere in Hell, Karl Rove's mentor Lee Atwater is smiling. |
| Posted by: Shamalama 27-Aug-2004, 01:10 AM |
| Yeah, Lee Atwater and Karl Marx have this gentlemen's bet on which one of their boys are going to win this year. But I just ran across this little tidbit. Much has been said on this very message board about Bush being a "coward" and "deserter" for choosing National Guard service. "During the Vietnam War," said former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, "many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me -- could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, 'Send me.' When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire -- to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight -- John Kerry said, 'Send me.'" Wow. What a guy. Except Clinton's words are not true (big surprise, huh?). It seems that Kerry tried to be, in Brother Maisky's words, a "coward" and "deserter" too. John Kerry has often implied that he volunteered for the military right after college. But Kerry petitioned his draft board for a student deferment. At Yale, Kerry's antiwar political views were well known. He used his commencement address in 1966 to criticize the foreign policy of President Lyndon Johnson, especially with regard to Vietnam. When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris (France - big surprise again, huh?), the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy. The top choice was the Navy Reserves where the duty commitment was shorter and a larger proportion of the period could be served stateside on inactive duty. But didn't someone here say that Cheney's student deferment made him a coward and a deserter? Kerry tried his best to be a coward and deserter too. He just didn't get as lucky. Kerry said that Cheney and Rove "went out of their way to avoid" service during the Vietnam War. "I?m tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats and other peoples' commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said at a rally on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. Hypocrite. John Kerry's service record indicates that on February 18, 1966, he enlisted in the United States Naval Reserves, status 'inactive,' not in the U.S. Navy. He only got pulled into the U.S. Navy, and then pulled into Vietnam - it wasn't his choice to do so. "They [the Republicans] want you to believe that John Kerry, who put the uniform of his country on voluntarily, who felt an obligation to go to Vietnam when so many others didn't, who stood up and fought for our country, they want you to believe that somehow I'm not strong for the defense of our nation," Kerry said during a fundraiser in Cleveland. Oops John. A student deferment does not equal "an obligation to go". A student deferment does not equal "put the uniform of his country on voluntarily". Kerry was inches away from being drafted when he "volunteered", and when he did he chose the lightest duty he cound find. Liar. Brother Maisky, if Kerry had received his deferment, would you also label him a draft dodger? Just wondering. Kerry's enlistment: United States Naval Reserves, status 'inactive' Bush's enlistment: Texas Air National Guard, status 'active' |
