Why Bush is going to win the election

[IIvan]

Could have attacked

Many Americans have become so engrossed with the reality TV craze that they have lost touch with reality. As I read Letters day after day, I find myself in shock that people can be so delusional.


To say that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to America is ignorance, plain and simple. He murdered thousands of his own people and didn't even blink and eye, and yet for some reason he would think twice about attacking us? I think not.


And the WMD? Iraq is a huge desert country. There are millions of places he could have buried them. Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean they're not there.


I honestly feel sorry for Democrats who have been seduced by John Kerry's web of lies. This is a man who when he protested the Vietnam War didn't have the courage to throw his own medals over the fence of the White House, so he threw those of his friends. The foreign leaders he mentioned who want him elected? I'm sure Osama bin Laden is one of them. He'd like nothing better than to see him elected so that America can become a soft target again.


If John Kerry was in office and America was attacked again, he'd blunder through it the same way Al Gore would have on 9-11. I'm stickin' with my boy George W. Bush, because he can see reality. I just wish the rest of America would wake up and see it, too. ----- -----, Pensacola


Link (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/041904/Opinion/ST003.shtml)

I saw this in my local paper this morning, and I was so annoyed that I thought about it all day, and finally posted it here. People who think like this are going to elect Bush in 04!

First- What threat did Saddam pose to America? To the best of my knowledge he has never attacked us in any way, and we have never been able to prove that he had any ties to Al Qaiada. He is not stupid- he would not have attacked America becasue he knew he would have lost.

WMD- I prefer to trust the fact that we HAVE NOT FOUND ANY WMDs in Iraq over the hope that we might find some still...even after weve been seaching for a year...

John Kerry's WEB OF LIES (TM) wtf is that? I have hardly heard a thing from the mans mouth, and he's not the one who lied to America and the UN about "Nucular weapons". Kerry has not used brief popular anguish to pass bills limiting our rights or begin a campaign against "evil" and "terror". What is one thin that Kerry has lied about? Osama would back Kerry? what does that matter? The foreign leaders who support Kerry are mostly the ones that are tired of seeing the US ****ing around in various parts of the world with questionable motives.

Finally- Im sure this guy really knows what Gore would have done on 9-11?


Anyone care to stick up for this letter?

[zimv20]

the only thing which can re-elect bush is fear. rove & company know this and look for them to up the fear factor as the election gets closer. expect a few adjustments of the terror threat level.

[G4scott]

Well, the article seems a bit harsh, but I've seen columns like this in my campus newspaper, except they're titled "why Bush is going to lose", they are extremely pro-kerry, and we get about two a week... They don't do much to help either side, except to inspire anger and irrational attacks.

Although I will say Kerry has been less than clear in almost every issue brought up... His claims of support by foreign leaders didn't help at all, and his vietnam and anti-war pasts don't exactly paint a pretty picture for a presidential candidate. He's a politician, and he'll do what politicians have to do to get elected.

As far as Saddam Hussein goes, he was a murdering ****head. That part is clear. WMD's or not, what's been done has been done. You can't elect someone else this November, and forget about Iraq. Is the world a safer place now that Saddam's out of power? I think so, and others will think the opposite, but each person is entitled to their own views. I compare Saddam to a beehive growing in your walls. You exterminate him now, and get stung once or twice, or you can wait until the hive gets out of control, and you're stung to death. We must stay in Iraq until a stable system of government has been established, and thugs aren't trying to take control of the country.

I have my own issues about John Kerry, as does this guy, apparently. He seems to have gotten tired of the conspiracy theories thrown out by the left, and sites like moveon, and people like Michael Moore. Of course, he chose a bad way to express his ideas. Sure, it'll get people's attention, but I really don't think it'll do much to help his cause among people who don't know which side they're going to vote for.

[IIvan]

It looks like the terrorists have bought themselves more trouble than they ever imagined...with the Bush propaganda machine...

OH WAIT!! Were not actually fighting terrorists! We're waging 100 billion dollar wars in oil rich desert countries while the Bin Laden family is allowed safe transport from our country...My bad

Man this administration has really put one over on many of our citizens... :(

[IIvan]

If we actually cared about getting rid of Saddam....don't you think we would have just killed him instead of spending billions and reducing parts of Iraq to rubble?

[SlyHunter]

Link (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/041904/Opinion/ST003.shtml)

First- What threat did Saddam pose to America? To the best of my knowledge he has never attacked us in any way, and we have never been able to prove that he had any ties to Al Qaiada. He is not stupid- he would not have attacked America becasue he knew he would have lost.

Anyone care to stick up for this letter?
Bush and the republicans keep skirting this issue, I think because if they spoke about it frankly they wouldn't actually gain any friends. Saddam needed us and our money to buy his oil, even if he could he would not have attacked America. He would however give money to those that attack America. He was a danger to Israel. I could and would take out Israel if he thought he didn't have to worry about the US. He could and would take out Kuwaitt if he didn't have to worry about the US. In Israels case they are our ally and they are our foot in the door in the middle east. Makes it easy to side on Israels side time and time again.

I can see a scenario where Saddam in the future gets nuclear missile technology fires a shot into the ocean and then does a blitzkrieg into Kuwait. The day after his war with Kuwait started he would then tell the US "if you interfere I will nuke Israel." Afterwords he would have no problem selling us his oil including the oil gained from Kuwaitt. But far afterwards he would then attack Israel and threaten nuclear war if we interfered. He would work on organizing the Middle East until they were under his control and use that to strong arm the world. Whether or not he could have pulled it off doesn't matter.

We had to take him out before he got nuclear technology for if we waited till afterwards he would've been too dangerous to takeout. He could've started a Genocide campaign to remove all Jews, Kurds, whatever and there would've been nothing we could do without risking hundreds of thousands of military lives as well as millions of civilians. Yes Israel probably has Nuclear weapons. But I doubt we would ever have to worry about going to war with Israel. N. Korea a different and much dangerous problem for they already have nuclear missiles and S. Korea would pay the price if we went in right now.

[Thanatoast]

[jefhatfield]

If we actually cared about getting rid of Saddam....don't you think we would have just killed him instead of spending billions and reducing parts of Iraq to rubble?

this is what the cia, delta force, and seal team 6 know what to do best

but rumsfeld the idiot makes the special ops community conventional and less specialized and not free to take decisive action

sure, he talks big with spec ops, but that's politics

[numediaman]

Bush is going to win the election because SlyHunter represents the average American more than does the average Mac user (liberal or conservative).

I just wish the "average American" would learn about spell check.

[Thomas Veil]

If we actually cared about getting rid of Saddam....don't you think we would have just killed him instead of spending billions and reducing parts of Iraq to rubble?
Well don't forget, it wasn't quite that easy. The guy was not often seen in public, and when he was, much of the time it was one of his impostors. Even before the war, he rarely slept in the same place two nights in a row.

It may have been about oil, but I also don't underestimate Bush's ability to simply blunder into a war with the wrong enemy. Bush wanted to get Saddam, and he manipulated the facts to suit his purposes.

As far as that original letter to the editor, yeah, that guy is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid and/or gullible people like that to get Bush re-elected, no doubt about it. Heck, look at all the stuff Bush has screwed up, and he's still running neck and neck with Kerry in the polls. What the hell does it take to get rid of a bad leader??

[SlyHunter]

If we actually cared about getting rid of Saddam....don't you think we would have just killed him instead of spending billions and reducing parts of Iraq to rubble?
I had this argument with my sister. Why could we not have sent in the ultra secret spy's so secret you have to have a security classification to even know the security classification to know of their existance. Why could we not have assassinated him.

You think the fallout from the UN countries from attacking Iraq was bad it would be much worse if anyone found out we used assassination in this case. There would be no guarantee who would replace him, no controls, no chance to build a friendlier government in Iraq. And theoretically many more civilians would be killed in the combat afterwards of all the folks who wanted to be in charge fighting each other.

[G4scott]

There is one simple reason why taking out Saddam in a special ops mission would've been a disaster. The power struggle afterwards, and the uprising of the terrorist community.

By attacking Saddam and his assets, we reduced the chances of terrorists sympathetic to Saddam to organize in Iraq and strike against the US.

Also, if we had just taken out Saddam, one of his evil sons, or someone else would've seized power, and that probably would've been a bloody struggle. Then we'd just have to deal with the problem again down the road, and Iraq would worse off then before. The Iraqi people have been brainwashed for years, and it's going to take years to undo the terror Saddam has done, physically and emotionally. The people of Iraq wouldn't revolt on their own, because they'd be afraid of the government murdering them and their families.

[IIvan]

You think the fallout from the UN countries from attacking Iraq was bad it would be much worse if anyone found out we used assassination in this case. There would be no guarantee who would replace him, no controls, no chance to build a friendlier government in Iraq. And theoretically many more civilians would be killed in the combat afterwards of all the folks who wanted to be in charge fighting each other.

You may be right- but we (Bush) were willing to alienate the UN and cause lots of casualties anyway...so why not save the lives and infrastructure, and give out scholarships with the money instead? We surely could have taken out most of his regime with only a fraction of the resources spent on this war.

[trebblekicked]

it...it boggles the mind. really it does.

just sad sad sad sad sad.

[mactastic]

The people of Iraq wouldn't revolt on their own, because they'd be afraid of the government murdering them and their families.

No, they'd be afraid because the last time we asked them to rise up, they did and we sat back and watched them get slaughtered. That's one reason for there to be a fundamental lack of trust among them now.

[Lyle]

Bush is going to win the election because SlyHunter represents the average American more than does the average Mac user (liberal or conservative).Obviously, it's still very hard to predict how things will go in this November's election, but this recent CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html) indicates that Bush's lead over Kerry continues to increase.

I just wish the "average American" would learn about spell check.Nice. If you can't counter the other side's argument, try a personal attack instead.

[numediaman]

Obviously, it's still very hard to predict how things will go in this November's election, but this recent CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html) indicates that Bush's lead over Kerry continues to increase.

Nice. If you can't counter the other side's argument, try a personal attack instead.

So encouraging someone (for the second time) to use spell check is a personal attack? I guess the other hundred some posts don't count as arguments either?

[jefhatfield]

There is one simple reason why taking out Saddam in a special ops mission would've been a disaster. The power struggle afterwards, and the uprising of the terrorist community.



actually the special ops community is far more deeper than shooting small arms with great stealth and accuracy

they bring in information which is then used to create positive relationships with the population and forward thinking decision making

many special ops people are working with iraq right now and if done in a quieter way, instead of with brute force and a major uniformed military presence ala george bush, maybe iraq would be further along in becoming a safe democratic state in the middle east

it's hard to work with a country after having blown them up and killed their citizens...we made enemies of many who before held no issue against the usa

might does not always make right

the main problem with iraq was saddam and his sons...bombing iraq with shock and awe was not the only answer to taking the dictator out...many innocents died needlessly...the press rarely goes into the cost of war with how it affects the civilians because long after the soldiers leave, it's the battered civilians who have to continue on with lost and injured loved ones

for a second, put yourself in the shoes of iraq...let's say you hate and fear george bush because he's unfair and brutal...but then let's say a country comes in and captures him but first bombs your country and capital and kills innocent civilians, most of who were against him...and then let's say that country brings in a major military force right into your neighborhood and arrests so called insurgents

now how would you feel about your occupiers...even if you hated your own brutal leader?

[Mike Teezie]

Obviously, it's still very hard to predict how things will go in this November's election, but this recent CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html) indicates that Bush's lead over Kerry continues to increase.

Nice. If you can't counter the other side's argument, try a personal attack instead.

UGH.

I can't even begin to describe how badly that scares me. Another 4 years of Bush?

Are people blind as to what is going on right now?

[Neserk]

the only thing which can re-elect bush is fear. rove & company know this and look for them to up the fear factor as the election gets closer. expect a few adjustments of the terror threat level.


Technically, he can't be re-elected. One has to be elected in the first place ;)

I'm thinking he'd only get elected if the elections were fixed, like when he was appointed.

I've noticed that "they" are expressing more concern about domestic terrorism :rolleyes: considering its source it is no surprise they are trying to scare everyone into voting for Bush *yawn*

[skunk]

Technically, he can't be re-elected. One has to be elected in the first place
For God's sake, keep your voice down! Next thing you know, he'll be running for a third term "because the first one didn't count". :eek: :eek:

[zimv20]

For God's sake, keep your voice down! Next thing you know, he'll be running for a third term "because the first one didn't count". :eek: :eek:
worthy of the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/), sir

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by zimv20
the only thing which can re-elect bush is fear. rove & company know this and look for them to up the fear factor as the election gets closer. expect a few adjustments of the terror threat level.

Technically, he can't be re-elected. One has to be elected in the first place ;)

I'm thinking he'd only get elected if the elections were fixed, like when he was appointed.

I've noticed that "they" are expressing more concern about domestic terrorism :rolleyes: considering its source it is no surprise they are trying to scare everyone into voting for Bush *yawn*
So using your logic it would be completly legal to vote Bush into office for Two more terms.

[SlyHunter]

Thru out the day I heard Kerry has agreed to hand out his military record. Later I hear Kerry only handed out part of his military record if you wish to see the rest show up at his campaign office and he'll let you look at it there. The Boston Globe sent a reporter and was told no they don't have records there go away. Later Kerry announces some records were stuck at the Pentagon and he will release them after they do and after reviewing them.



WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid questions about his military records, John Kerry's campaign on Tuesday provided certification of his medals from the Vietnam War, including three Purple Hearts for combat injuries.

Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said the campaign was in the process of compiling the rest of Kerry's naval record and planned to begin posting it on the Internet by day's end. Kerry said all his military records are available to the public during an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Meehan said the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee requested a copy of his record from the Navy last month and received roughly 150 pages last week. He said the campaign was in the process of scanning images of the documents Tuesday and they would be posted on Kerry's Web site.

The documents also included declassified reports that explain Kerry's wounds that led to his Purple Heart awards. They show Kerry had shrapnel wounds in his left thigh after his boat came under intense fire on Feb. 20, 1969, and he suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close to his boat on March 13, 1969.

The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a medic's written note dated Dec. 9, 1968.

"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty."

Documentation for the second two injuries show that Kerry was deemed to be in good condition and returned to active duty after treatment. But a third Purple Heart meant Kerry could be reassigned out of Vietnam, and a document dated March 17, 1969, said Kerry requested duty as a personal aid in Boston, New York or the Washington, D.C., area.

Meehan said although Kerry could have asked to stay in Vietnam, it was the Navy's decision to request that he be reassigned. Kerry left the country in early April 1969.

Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman accused Kerry's campaign of waffling on the release of his military records, saying the campaign's position on Tuesday to release the records in "due diligence" is contrary to Kerry's comments on "Meet the Press" that the records would be made public immediately.

"Senator Kerry's record of nondisclosure and his flip-flop on this issue should concern voters," Mehlman said.

Meehan responded, "Senator Kerry's record on the military is one we are running on, not running from. We are happy to compare Senator Kerry's record of service to anybody in the Bush campaign who has or has not served."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040420/D822PFDO1.html

I heard surmised that the missing military records may include bad reports from his commanding officers.

Wierd none of this was reported in the Boston Globe or if it was I can't find it on their online web site.

[amnesiac1984]

So using your logic it would be completly legal to vote Bush into office for Two more terms.

yes, and that has already been pointed out two posts up, but it was a complete joke. I often wondered how supporters of Bush really live with themselves when they support a president who Cheated his way into power.

[pivo6]

yes, and that has already been pointed out two posts up, but it was a complete joke. I often wondered how supporters of Bush really live with themselves when they support a president who Cheated his way into power.

Simple. They truly believe that they are better than you or me, or anyone else for that matter. ;)

[IIvan]

So using your logic it would be completly legal to vote Bush into office for Two more terms.

So....do you have any real arguements, or are you just going to nip at technicalities? Saddam nuking Israel doesn't count- we never had any evidence of Nuclear weapons in Iraq after his reactor was bombed decades ago, and even that was no confirmed weapons source

oh yeah....some one mentioned Moveon.org- it does not throw out conspiracies- as a member I mostly get emails about fundraising and issues important to liberals. They are about the only large group countering the Bush media campaign- so of course their going to be made out as loonies

[Neserk]

yes, and that has already been pointed out two posts up, but it was a complete joke. I often wondered how supporters of Bush really live with themselves when they support a president who Cheated his way into power.

By my logic he should be in jail because he is a war criminal... so that would exclude him from being elected once...

[davecuse]

I honestly believe that the only reason we ever went into Iraq was pretty well summed up when Dubya made the statement about Saddam <paraphrase>that man tried to kill my dad</paraphrase>

It seems to me like he has wanted to do this for years, the 9/11 attacks were what enabled him to take the action that he has wanted to for years. Just look at the speechs he gave in the days leading up to the declaration of war on Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_archive.html in more than one speech he makes statements about us not letting this kind of tragedy happen again.

I'll give the administration credit for this, they definitely know how to play on the fears of America. But in the end, how much better off is the world? I don't think our current approach is by any means the best way to approach Iraq or Al-Quaeda. We've hand our hand in everything in the Middle East for years, I can't prove it but I'm sure there have been plenty of black ops missions. I mean why do you think they are so pissed at us, our country had a revolution over a tax on a beverage, can you imagine if anyone ever tried to pull something like that on us. We armed and trained these guys, then everything gets hazy, then they started attacking us. It only stands to reason that something pretty effed up happened in that hazy period.

War is not the answer, you cannot kill off an ideal. Al-Quaeda and it's followers are pissed at us for a reason, so why don't we right the wrong that we've done. Let them live their lives, maybe the rest of the world will stop hating us.

Just my $.02

[G4scott]

many special ops people are working with iraq right now and if done in a quieter way, instead of with brute force and a major uniformed military presence ala george bush, maybe iraq would be further along in becoming a safe democratic state in the middle east

it's hard to work with a country after having blown them up and killed their citizens...we made enemies of many who before held no issue against the usa

This is the thing about going in, and just taking out the leadership. They wouldn't be any further along in becoming a safe democratic state in the middle east, because we would still be cleaning up these "insurgents" who have seen an opportunity to try to take control of the country.

The reason that we have these enemies, who supposedly had no issue against the USA before, is because we stand in the way of them, and their complete control of Iraq. These are the thugs who would crawl out of the woodwork, and start civil war in Iraq so they could try to assume control over the Iraqi people.

Just look at this latest thug, who promised not to attack Spanish troops, and any other forces that promise to leave. He wants all coalition forces out of the way so he'll have a clear path to becoming the next dictator of Iraq. He just has to get his mob of followers to threaten everyone who challenges him, and we have the next Hussein, Hitler, or Castro. If you truly believe that these insurgents will settle down after any occupation troops leave, you are in for a big surprise. These people don't just want peace. They want power, for all the wrong reasons. They've seen the opportunity to become the next Saddam, and are trying to take it. Without considerable military forces to keep these would-be dictators and their followers under control, Iraq would be much worse off now than they were before.

Another interesting bit of information, is that our bombing did not throw Iraq back into the stone age. One soldier I talked to said that the amount of damage to the public utilities over there couldn't have possibly been done entirely by the US attacks. Things were deliberately sabotaged, most likely by the retreating government, in order to make the US look bad in their occupation.

And your scenario about another country coming in and invading the US like we did Iraq forgets one major difference. Here in the US, we are educated. I know that a force like the US military would be there to help, not destroy my people. Some of the things the Iraqi people were told (this is also coming from a soldier I spoke with), were things like "the sunglasses the US wears lets them see through your clothes." The sad thing is that these people believed it. They seem to oppose our occupation, because they were told to, and don't know better. While the majority of Iraqis are catching on, there are the extremists and thugs who want to see the US gone no matter what. They are the educated ones who know that they can manipulate their people into believing things that would hurt the US's reputation, and make the Iraqi people weary of US troops.

[Neserk]

I honestly believe that the only reason we ever went into Iraq was pretty well summed up when Dubya made the statement about Saddam <paraphrase>that man tried to kill my dad</paraphrase>



Apparently this is something only you and I remember... It is how I knew there were no WMD and how I knew Dubya was a big fat liar when he said there were last year!

[skunk]

This is the thing about going in, and just taking out the leadership. They wouldn't be any further along in becoming a safe democratic state in the middle east, because we would still be cleaning up these "insurgents" who have seen an opportunity to try to take control of the country.
As opposed to what is happening now??

The reason that we have these enemies, who supposedly had no issue against the USA before, is because we stand in the way of them, and their complete control of Iraq. These are the thugs who would crawl out of the woodwork, and start civil war in Iraq so they could try to assume control over the Iraqi people.
You could say exactly the same about the US. EXACTLY the same.

Just look at this latest thug, who promised not to attack Spanish troops, and any other forces that promise to leave.
Sigh. Aren't you confusing Iraqis with Al Qaida? Again?

He wants all coalition forces out of the way so he'll have a clear path to becoming the next dictator of Iraq. He just has to get his mob of followers to threaten everyone who challenges him, and we have the next Hussein, Hitler, or Castro. If you truly believe that these insurgents will settle down after any occupation troops leave, you are in for a big surprise. These people don't just want peace. They want power, for all the wrong reasons. They've seen the opportunity to become the next Saddam, and are trying to take it. Without considerable military forces to keep these would-be dictators and their followers under control, Iraq would be much worse off now than they were before.
Just which "would-be dictators" are you talking about? Iraq IS much worse off now.

Another interesting bit of information, is that our bombing did not throw Iraq back into the stone age. One soldier I talked to said that the amount of damage to the public utilities over there couldn't have possibly been done entirely by the US attacks. Things were deliberately sabotaged, most likely by the retreating government, in order to make the US look bad in their occupation.
Your "interesting (yawn) bit of information" is hearsay from one soldier? Persuasive documentation.

Here in the US, we are educated.
Oh really?

I know that a force like the US military would be there to help, not destroy my people.
How would you know that?

Some of the things the Iraqi people were told (this is also coming from a soldier I spoke with), were things like "the sunglasses the US wears lets them see through your clothes." The sad thing is that these people believed it. They seem to oppose our occupation, because they were told to, and don't know better. While the majority of Iraqis are catching on, there are the extremists and thugs who want to see the US gone no matter what. They are the educated ones who know that they can manipulate their people into believing things that would hurt the US's reputation, and make the Iraqi people weary of US troops.
They don't really need to manipulate anybody, do they? The people only have to see tanks, fighters and AC130 gunships used against built-up areas to know that the US army is doing the same things as Saddam.

[SlyHunter]

By my logic he should be in jail because he is a war criminal... so that would exclude him from being elected once...
Right so Bush is guilty until proven innocent but ignore Kerry's self admittance to committing war crimes.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by davecuse
I honestly believe that the only reason we ever went into Iraq was pretty well summed up when Dubya made the statement about Saddam <paraphrase>that man tried to kill my dad</paraphrase>


Apparently this is something only you and I remember... It is how I knew there were no WMD and how I knew Dubya was a big fat liar when he said there were last year!
So thats how you "knew" there were now wmd's in Iraq. How Bush was a liar. I guess France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Kerry, the UN were all liars too.

[davecuse]

So thats how you "knew" there were now wmd's in Iraq. How Bush was a liar. I guess France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Kerry, the UN were all liars too.

What is this supposed to mean?

Right so Bush is guilty until proven innocent but ignore Kerry's self admittance to committing war crimes

There is quite a large difference between doing one's duty during a war that you cannot stop, and starting a war as Commander in Chief.

Not only did he give us Iraq, but he took the biggest budget surplus in our nations history and turned it into the biggest deficit ever. In the words of those Guinness guys, BRILLIANT!!

[SlyHunter]

Stuff like this is why Bush should win the election.

On March 30, Senator John Kerry heard a rising complaint about high gasoline prices while campaigning in Wisconsin. Making a quick political calculation, he joined the chorus.

Kerry promptly blamed President Bush, chastising him for not dealing better with the Saudis to force lower prices for crude oil. Kerry then suggested Bush not restore the oil reserves Bill Clinton tapped into, when Clinton and Gore tried to control oil prices.

Kerry claimed he would somehow manage gasoline prices if elected President. And he certainly would; just not the same way our more gullible citizens imagine: Kerry would make gas prices soar, as he supports gas tax increases every chance he gets!

Nobody likes high gasoline prices unless they are a Liberal like John Kerry. His ilk consistently complains that gas prices in the U.S. are too LOW, encouraging people to drive more than environmentalists think they should.

For instance, they not only want to tell you how much you should pay for a gallon of gasoline, they also want to tell you what kind of car you can drive. They even want to tell you how fast you can drive the automobile they think you should own. Remember the nationwide, 55 mile-per-hour laws they passed? They tried to prevent you from ruining the earth by making you drive slower on the highway.

Liberals like Kerry are perpetually obnoxious busybodies, but put them in a position of power and they become downright dangerous. The last time a guy like Kerry occupied the White House, we ran out of gasoline. Remember the long gas lines of the late 1970s? I’ve got an idea: let’s not go back to those bad old days of Jimmy Carter!

But no sooner did Kerry make his silly, untrue claims about President Bush’s actions with regard to Saudi oil, than Bob Woodward released a book accusing President Bush of fashioning “secret” plans to lower oil prices before the November election. Forgetting his earlier attacks about President Bush not doing enough to lower gasoline prices, Kerry complained that President Bush ought not to try lowering gasoline prices because he would give the Saudis an influence in our national election!

Can someone please explain to Senator Kerry how President Bush’s effort to keep oil prices down actually protects everyone’s best interests (except Liberals, of course)? Could Kerry possibly understand that any positive news for our country will benefit President Bush politically?

We can’t stop the world until November so John Kerry can get an issue going for his floundering campaign. He’ll just have to try to keep up.

The seemingly hapless John Kerry cannot decide where he stands on yet another issue. First he wants higher prices, then flips-flops and says he does not want higher gasoline prices. He later decides he does want high prices – if a lower price benefits President Bush’s chances for re-election.

Kerry just wants the White House, and apparently he’ll say anything to get the job.

Saying anything is the same as saying nothing. Let me say something: This is shaping up to be a particularly boring presidential campaign, and should be an easy win for President Bush, given his competition.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20040421.shtml

[Thomas Veil]

<cartoon>

What are the parents from the Zits comic strip doing in a political cartoon? ;)

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/doublezits.jpg

[G4scott]

As opposed to what is happening now??

Yes, but without troops there, the Iraqi people would be helpless as these guys tried to grab power.


You could say exactly the same about the US. EXACTLY the same.

We are not there to take over for ourselves as these guys are. We're helping Iraq setup their own police force, and get their government started. These thugs would become the next dictators of Iraq. We are not there to do that. We are there to ensure that their government can get off the ground, and protect itself.


Sigh. Aren't you confusing Iraqis with Al Qaida? Again?

No, these are the thugs in Iraq. They may have ties to Al Qaida, but they are very much there to try to gain power. He claimed that his people would not engage in combat with Spanish troops because they had promised to withdraw their forces. Common sense would tell you that this guy does not want the government that we're helping set up to come into power, because it would make him just as equal as the every day Iraqi, and this guy obviously wants power. If there were no coalition forces in Iraq, then he could do that.

Just which "would-be dictators" are you talking about? Iraq IS much worse off now.

Oh, so it was a paradise under Saddam? If you can truly believe that, you've been taken hostage by the media. Today in Iraq, you can voice your opinions about the government, and not have to worry about disappearing overnight. More and more people are getting basic utilities by the day. They are beginning to rebuild a country that has been under the tyrannical rule of Saddam for years.


Your "interesting (yawn) bit of information" is hearsay from one soldier? Persuasive documentation.

Have you had the opportunity to talk to any US soldiers back from Iraq? Or are you afraid that they'll terrorize you like they supposedly do to the Iraqis?


Oh really?

We know more about foreign countries and their policies than the average Iraqi. Once again, they've been basically brainwashed by their government to think that the US is evil.


How would you know that?

Because I haven't been brainwashed by the government (or the media) into thinking all other countries are evil. Our military isn't in Iraq to kill everyone. We are there to protect the citizens from Iraq, and if it means taking out these thugs who continuously attack coalition forces, then that's what it means. These people don't just oppose the US being in Iraq for the sake of Iraqis. They don't want us there, because we stand in their way of controlling Iraq through oppression and fear.


They don't really need to manipulate anybody, do they? The people only have to see tanks, fighters and AC130 gunships used against built-up areas to know that the US army is doing the same things as Saddam.

The US is not putting people through plastic shredders, or torturing prisoners, or gassing the Iraqi people. The presence of our military doesn't mean that we are doing the same things as Saddam. I don't know where you get the idea that US forces are in Iraq to oppress the Iraqi people, because that idea is just absurd. Iraqis have more freedoms now than they did under Saddam. They can voice their opinion about the government, and not be taken prisoner. They don't have to follow everything the government says under fear of death. They are slowly but surely getting their basic human rights back that Saddam had taken from them for so many years. Our military is there to make sure that nobody else tries to take that away.

[Neserk]

So thats how you "knew" there were now wmd's in Iraq. How Bush was a liar. I guess France, Germany, Russia, Clinton, Kerry, the UN were all liars too.

Blah, blah, blah, blah... why is it when your false hero is shown for his true colors you run and start screaming "Clinton, France, Germany, blah, blah, blah?"

I knew *BUSH* was *LYING* because *BUSH* wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass! BUSH IS A LIAR, BUSH IS A LIAR! :p

I knew Bush was lying because I knew Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq because I knew Bush's only reason for wanting to be President was so he could start a war. He is an idiot, a moron, an ass, a loser, a thief, a murderer. Should I go on? This person you are so intent on defending is the biggest loser in my life time. Probably the biggest loser to ever be in politics. LOSER!

Have I made myself clear?

[Neserk]

Stuff like this is why Bush should win the election.




There is not a reason on earth, in heaven, or in hell for why Bush should do anything except rot in jail.

[SlyHunter]

Blah, blah, blah, blah... why is it when your false hero is shown for his true colors you run and start screaming "Clinton, France, Germany, blah, blah, blah?"

I knew *BUSH* was *LYING* because *BUSH* wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass! BUSH IS A LIAR, BUSH IS A LIAR! :p

I knew Bush was lying because I knew Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq because I knew Bush's only reason for wanting to be President was so he could start a war. He is an idiot, a moron, an ass, a loser, a thief, a murderer. Should I go on? This person you are so intent on defending is the biggest loser in my life time. Probably the biggest loser to ever be in politics. LOSER!

Have I made myself clear?
Your made yourself clear that you think your psychic and can read his mind or are so set in your position no amount of logic or arguing will change your opinion. And I thought Democrats were the ones wo were suppose to be open minded.

[Neserk]

Your made yourself clear that you think your psychic and can read his mind or are so set in your position no amount of logic or arguing will change your opinion. And I thought Democrats were the ones wo were suppose to be open minded.

Logic?? That is what you call your posts? Logical arguing? LOL! You are either deceived (as you were a year ago) or you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it publically. Logic is not your strong suit.

You don't have to be psychic to be able to predict that someone will do in the future what they have done in the past. Bush is a liar, liar, liar, liar. He had done it in the past. IF he had any integrity whatsoever he wouldn't have changed from pro-choice to anti-abortion, he would have admitted to his drug use, he wouldn't have lied about when he became sober, he would have conceded the 2000 election to Gore. He wouldn't have been gunning for Iraq from before he was appointed president. THe list goes on. The man has no integrity. He has no moral values. He has no brains. Time to face the truth.

Oh, and I'm not a Democrat.

[Mike Teezie]

We know more about foreign countries and their policies than the average Iraqi. Once again, they've been basically brainwashed by their government to think that the US is evil.

Well, the CIVILIANS don't need much persuasion after getting shot to s*** by the coalition forces do they?

I love hearing supporters of the war excuses for the reason why - what is it - 8,000 - 10,000 civiilans are dead in Iraq.

Most people say, "Well, its war, people are going to die."

Or my personal favorite, "They shouldn't have caused 9/11"

Sigh.

[SlyHunter]

Ouch

WASHINGTON - Though John Kerry (news - web sites)'s wife is an heir to the H.J. Heinz Co. fortune, the food company and its executives are providing President Bush (news - web sites) with money and a campaign issue — jobs flowing overseas — in this year's election.

Members of the board of the Fortune 500 company and its corporate political action committee have donated thousands of dollars to Republicans in recent years, including contributions to the Bush campaign. The corporate PAC has given nothing to Kerry.

While Teresa Heinz Kerry gained much of her $500 million portfolio through her Heinz inheritance, she does not serve on the board and is not involved with the management of the company. Even her late husband, Sen. H. John Heinz III, R-Pa., did not serve on the board.

No Heinz family member has been employed by the company or served on its board since H.J. "Jack" Heinz II, its chairman, died in 1987.

Heinz Kerry, who heads the separate Heinz Family Foundation and the Howard Heinz Endowment, owns less than 4 percent of the company's stock. Major Heinz stockholders include the company's top executives, led by Chairman William R. Johnson, as well as beer magnate Peter Coors and former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver and pro football Hall of Famer Lynn Swann.

During the campaign, Kerry has criticized companies that move jobs overseas or shift their tax status abroad to avoid federal taxes, calling them "Benedict Arnold" businesses. He has faulted the Bush administration for embracing a tax policy that rewards them.

Republicans, in response, have pointed to the Kerrys' ties to Heinz, calling the four-term Massachusetts senator a hypocrite for slamming policies that have poured millions into his wife's bank account.

Stuck in what it fears is a food fight is the Heinz Co., which is trying desperately to keep the campaign out of its ketchup sales. In the last few months, the company — which gets about 5,000 phone calls a month — has fielded 800 calls from consumers with questions or complaints about the company's connections to Kerry, his wife and the campaign, said spokeswoman Debbie Foster.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_el_pr/heinz_politics_1&printer=1

[zimv20]

What are the parents from the Zits comic strip doing in a political cartoon? ;)

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/doublezits.jpg
awesome

[Neserk]

Right so Bush is guilty until proven innocent but ignore Kerry's self admittance to committing war crimes.


:rolleyes:

[Thanatoast]

For instance, they not only want to tell you how much you should pay for a gallon of gasoline, they also want to tell you what kind of car you can drive. They even want to tell you how fast you can drive the automobile they think you should own. Remember the nationwide, 55 mile-per-hour laws they passed? They tried to prevent you from ruining the earth by making you drive slower on the highway.

Liberals like Kerry are perpetually obnoxious busybodies, but put them in a position of power and they become downright dangerous. The last time a guy like Kerry occupied the White House, we ran out of gasoline. Remember the long gas lines of the late 1970s? I’ve got an idea: let’s not go back to those bad old days of Jimmy Carter!

Wow, that's the biggest load of purely incorrect ************/lies I've seen in a while. You apparently don't know this, but the 55 mph speed limit was passed in 1973 in order to save gasoline, supplies of which had recently been cut off by OPEC. Safety and the environment were secondary issues at best, assuming they were considered at all. This article is obviously high-quality.

The last time someone like Kerry (a centrist Democrat) occupied the White House was four years ago, and we had budget surpluses, 3 million more jobs, one less pointless war draining hundreds of billions a year, allies that didn't distrust us, and a President who not only reigned over the largest expansion of the economy in history and saw crime drop across his term, but managed to get a little on the side as well.

If this is the kind of crap you're reading, I'm don't think there can possibly be any basis for a well-informed disussion on the actual merits, or lack thereof, of Bush's re-election.

[skunk]

Stuff like this is why Bush should win the election.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20040421.shtml
Why post these links to partisan rants? We all know what they will say, and it's not very illuminating.

[zimv20]

Why post these links to partisan rants? We all know what they will say, and it's not very illuminating.
because they're "moderate"

[skunk]

Yes, but without troops there, the Iraqi people would be helpless as these guys tried to grab power.
Aren't they pretty helpless now?

We are not there to take over for ourselves as these guys are. We're helping Iraq setup their own police force, and get their government started. These thugs would become the next dictators of Iraq. We are not there to do that. We are there to ensure that their government can get off the ground, and protect itself.
Really? They HAD a police force and a government. And their government, nasty as it was, at least kept vital services running.


No, these are the thugs in Iraq. They may have ties to Al Qaida, but they are very much there to try to gain power. He claimed that his people would not engage in combat with Spanish troops because they had promised to withdraw their forces. Common sense would tell you that this guy does not want the government that we're helping set up to come into power, because it would make him just as equal as the every day Iraqi, and this guy obviously wants power. If there were no coalition forces in Iraq, then he could do that.
If your (administration's) case is so clear, why shut down his newspaper? Wouldn't it have been better to put the other side of the argument?

Oh, so it was a paradise under Saddam? If you can truly believe that, you've been taken hostage by the media. Today in Iraq, you can voice your opinions about the government, and not have to worry about disappearing overnight. More and more people are getting basic utilities by the day. They are beginning to rebuild a country that has been under the tyrannical rule of Saddam for years.
See above. Almost certainly more Iraqis have been killed annually since the Coalition of the Witless went in than under Saddam.


Have you had the opportunity to talk to any US soldiers back from Iraq? Or are you afraid that they'll terrorize you like they supposedly do to the Iraqis?
Why on earth would I talk to any US soldiers over here? There's no supposition involved: the very fact that your army thinks it's acceptable to deploy tanks, helicopters and AC130s over a city full of civilians puts them on a par with the Russians in Chechnya and the Israelis in Gaza. These are terror tactics, plain and simple. How would you react to your residential neighbourhood being strafed with 1,000 rounds a minute of heavy cannon fire? Shrug your shoulders and put off the shopping trip?


We know more about foreign countries and their policies than the average Iraqi. Once again, they've been basically brainwashed by their government to think that the US is evil.
A: I very much doubt it.
B: What government?


Because I haven't been brainwashed by the government (or the media) into thinking all other countries are evil. Our military isn't in Iraq to kill everyone. We are there to protect the citizens from Iraq, and if it means taking out these thugs who continuously attack coalition forces, then that's what it means.
I know: we'll kill them all, then they won't be afraid!

The US is not putting people through plastic shredders, or torturing prisoners, or gassing the Iraqi people. The presence of our military doesn't mean that we are doing the same things as Saddam. I don't know where you get the idea that US forces are in Iraq to oppress the Iraqi people, because that idea is just absurd. Iraqis have more freedoms now than they did under Saddam. They can voice their opinion about the government, and not be taken prisoner. They don't have to follow everything the government says under fear of death. They are slowly but surely getting their basic human rights back that Saddam had taken from them for so many years.
Hmmm. I'll have to take your word for that, shall I?

Our military is there to make sure that nobody else tries to take that away.
Right. That's the prerogative of your military, isn't it?

[SlyHunter]

Because I haven't been brainwashed by the government (or the media) into thinking all other countries are evil. Our military isn't in Iraq to kill everyone. We are there to protect the citizens from Iraq, and if it means taking out these thugs who continuously attack coalition forces, then that's what it means.


I know: we'll kill them all, then they won't be afraid!

Good idea Skunk lets kill all the thugs then the innocent civilians won't have to be afraid anymore. Oh wait thats what we are over there trying to do aint it.

I know you don't mean kill all the Iraqis.

[amnesiac1984]

Good idea Skunk lets kill all the thugs then the innocent civilians won't have to be afraid anymore. Oh wait thats what we are over there trying to do aint it.

I know you don't mean kill all the Iraqis.

Uh, yeah he did, and its called, dry british wit!

[mactastic]

Good idea Skunk lets kill all the thugs then the innocent civilians won't have to be afraid anymore. Oh wait thats what we are over there trying to do aint it.


The trick is going to be to kill the thugs without creating more thugs in the process, which is where we are failing right now.

[skunk]

Uh, yeah he did, and its called, dry british wit!
:rolleyes:

[IIvan]

Finally back on after a day of XP biting it :mad:

Slyhunter- these articles you keep posting are mostly a bunch of scare tactics about raising taxes and little controversies and crap that is not very convincing when compared to the facts of what Bush has done

Anti-Kerry: Liberals changed road laws in the 1970's! he will RAISE TAXES! Ketchup companies with family ties are backing Bush!!

Anti Bush: Lied repeatedly to the American people...DUI record, screwed with 2000 election results, alienates the world to us, will not answer direct questions, Lied about a war in which thousnds are dieing, and billions are spent...


Kerry is not the greatest guy ever, but we have to back him to have any hope of dethroning Bush

[amnesiac1984]

Finally back on after a day of XP biting it :mad:

Slyhunter- these articles you keep posting are mostly a bunch of scare tactics about raising taxes and little controversies and crap that is not very convincing when compared to the facts of what Bush has done

Anti-Kerry: Liberals changed road laws in the 1970's! he will RAISE TAXES! Ketchup companies with family ties are backing Bush!!

Anti Bush: Lied repeatedly to the American people...DUI record, screwed with 2000 election results, alienates the world to us, will not answer direct questions, Lied about a war in which thousnds are dieing, and billions are spent...


Kerry is not the greatest guy ever, but we have to back him to have any hope of dethroning Bush

you forgot OIL companies with family ties backing bush. I don't see us starting any wars over ketchup! :p

[ethernet76]

I can see a scenario where Saddam in the future gets nuclear missile technology fires a shot into the ocean and then does a blitzkrieg into Kuwait. The day after his war with Kuwait started he would then tell the US "if you interfere I will nuke Israel." Afterwords he would have no problem selling us his oil including the oil gained from Kuwaitt. But far afterwards he would then attack Israel and threaten nuclear war if we interfered. He would work on organizing the Middle East until they were under his control and use that to strong arm the world. Whether or not he could have pulled it off doesn't matter.

We had to take him out before he got nuclear technology for if we waited till afterwards he would've been too dangerous to takeout. He could've started a Genocide campaign to remove all Jews, Kurds, whatever and there would've been nothing we could do without risking hundreds of thousands of military lives as well as millions of civilians. Yes Israel probably has Nuclear weapons. But I doubt we would ever have to worry about going to war with Israel. N. Korea a different and much dangerous problem for they already have nuclear missiles and S. Korea would pay the price if we went in right now.

Saddam with nukes is purely laughable. Here's the problem. You need about 9.9 lbs of enriched uranium to make a device(Plutonium works too). Unfortunately for Saddam, it's not as easy as the TV makes it seem to get enriched uranium. Most enriched urainum comes from processed spent nuclear fuel rods. Seeing as how Iraq has no nuclear plants, this means it has to come from some other source. N. Korea isn't going to give any away, or sell it. Nor would Pakistan, India, or any other nation with nuclear power plants.

So this leaves Iraq with doing it the old fashioned way. Manhattan project style. The only problem is a project on that scale would easily be noticed, and traces of gases given off would be picked up pretty quickly.

So let's pretend that Iraq does have nukes, maybe they bought three or so from a sneaky russian who had them hiding in his pocket.

He isn't going to shoot one into the ocean. The proper tatic would be to shoot a dummy missle over Israel, not just saying, "Hey we can hit you," but, "We can hit you anywhere in your country."

By the way, Israel does have nukes.

Even then, there are clear answers to simple problems.

Iraq invades Kuwait. UN condems Iraq. This is where pre-emptive strikes from Israel, U.S., and other U.N./NATO nations come in. Hit anything that looks even remotely military related with cruise missles. Ready the anti-missle defense system (Patriot/Arrow), and hope you disabled them. This might even be where strategic nukes come in (nukes small in yield that are typically fired from an artilery piece, or are mounted on short range missles).

Lastly, genocide is not Saddam's motive. He unlike Hitler does not have a hate for a certain ethnicity. He instead is obsessed with power, and mantaining that power.

[ethernet76]

What are the parents from the Zits comic strip doing in a political cartoon? ;)

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/doublezits.jpg

They are both drawn by the same man. Jim Borgman from the Cincinnati Enquirer. http://borgman.enquirer.com

[amnesiac1984]

They are both drawn by the same man. Jim Borgman from the Cincinnati Enquirer. http://borgman.enquirer.com

this guy is brilliant!

[SlyHunter]

Suddenly, Kerry Can't Speak French

John Kerry used to speak French fluently.

The New Yorker reveals the plight of "Alain de Chalvron, the Washington bureau chief for France 2, the French equivalent of the BBC."

Despite the anger many Americans felt about France's appeasement during the war with Iraq, de Chalvron found some solace in John Kerry.

The magazine noted that Kerry "went to a Swiss boarding school, he has a cousin who ran for the French Presidency, and he supposedly wooed Teresa Heinz by impressing her with his fluent French."

During his primary campaign, he was noted for engaging French journalists in French.

"He was quite accessible in Iowa and New Hampshire," de Chalvron told the New Yorker.

"He understands French very well. His words are correct and sometimes even sophisticated. . ."

But that has all seemed to come to an end as Kerry has developed "linguistic amnesia."

De Chalvron recalls recently asking Kerry about Iraq. Kerry just stood there mute.

"He didn't answer. In front of the American journalists, he didn't want to take a question that was not in English," de Chalvron said.

Editor's note:

The REAL Story on John Kerry: A Special Investigation – Click Here

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/191825.shtml

[mactastic]

Hey Sly, have you ever heard Bush mangle Spanish? :D

[numediaman]

A quick comparison of Bush's & Kerry's commitment:

[Ugg]

What's the point of that article Sh? Did Kerry flat out refuse to speak French, did he just delay a little bit to gather his thoughts, was he not given enough time to answer? It would be nice to know the whole story and see a transcript of the interview before one casts judgement or is this just another rightwing journalist's attempt to destroy Kerry. I think the latter. By the way, do you speak a foreign language?

[numediaman]

Il est dangereux d'admettre au Français parlant ici. Parlez-vous français, SlyHunter? (Pardon mon Français de lycée.)

[SlyHunter]

Il est dangereux d'admettre au Français parlant ici. Parlez-vous français, SlyHunter? (Pardon mon Français de lycée.)
Ich nicht sprechen Francais.

But my translator kinda works
It is dangerous d'admettre with the here speaking French. Do You Speak French, SlyHunter? (Forgiveness my French of college.)

[skunk]

What's the point of that article Sh? Did Kerry flat out refuse to speak French, did he just delay a little bit to gather his thoughts, was he not given enough time to answer? It would be nice to know the whole story and see a transcript of the interview before one casts judgement or is this just another rightwing journalist's attempt to destroy Kerry. I think the latter. By the way, do you speak a foreign language?
On a question about Iraq, I would think twice about answering in French even though I am fluent. The nuances (french word) are all-important: one has to be VERY careful to use the right words.

[skunk]

Ich nicht sprechen Francais.

But my translator kinda works
It is dangerous d'admettre with the here speaking French. Do You Speak French, SlyHunter? (Forgiveness my French of college.)
Do yourself a favour, and get a new translator...

[skunk]

Il est dangereux d'admettre au Français parlant ici. Parlez-vous français, SlyHunter? (Pardon mon Français de lycée.)
Back to the lycée with you... ;)

[numediaman]

Four years of French and all I can say when in Paris is "parlez-vous anglais?" But thanks to Bush the next time I go I will also be forced to say "je suis Canadien!"

[Lyle]

Ich nicht sprechen Francais.

But my translator kinda works
It is dangerous d'admettre with the here speaking French. Do You Speak French, SlyHunter? (Forgiveness my French of college.)

So much for automated translation. ;)

I think numedian was going for this:

It's dangerous to admit to speaking French here. Do you speak French, SlyHunter? (Pardon my high school French.)

And if that's still not quite right, pardon my high school and college French. ;)

[Lyle]

On a question about Iraq, I would think twice about answering in French even though I am fluent. The nuances (french word) are all-important: one has to be VERY careful to use the right words.I agree. This sounds like a stunt, the reporter asking Kerry a question in French in front of American journalists (regardless of Kerry's purported French-speaking capability).

[SlyHunter]

The purpose for posting is to bring out a possible purpose for Kerry not speaking French having to do with the fact is that it is political suicide to relate yourself to the French right now. Even tho his cousin did run for President of France not too long ago.

[mactastic]

The purpose for posting...[snip to protect those not reading Sly]

Not sure what Kerry's cousin running for the presidency of France has to do with Kerry himself. Unless it's another swipe at him for 'looking French' or playing to our fears that if Kerry is elected we may as well hand over control of our country to the French. Is that what you're getting at?

Besides, Dubya's neice? (Jebs daughter?) was arrested for illegal drugs. Does that mean Dubya's a junkie too?

You claim it's political suicide to relate yourself to the French right now, but then you attempt to relate Kerry to the French.

[Ugg]

The purpose for posting is to bring out a possible purpose for Kerry not speaking French having to do with the fact is that it is political suicide to relate yourself to the French right now. Even tho his cousin did run for President of France not too long ago.

It's amazing to what lengths you will go to prove that Kerry is the devil incarnate. The story was obviously twisted to prove a point and why would someone as intelligent as Kerry be ashamed of speaking French? Anyone that believes speaking French or having French connections is political suicide is delusional. gw's pathetic attempts at Spanish certainly didn't help him in convincing Spain to stay in Iraq nor did they do anything to convince his buddy Vicente Fox to join in in the first place.

The fact that he does speak a foreign language and studied outside the US and travelled extensively makes him much more eligible as president than gw who never showed an interest in anything outside the borders of the US.

You've proven that your only mission here is to show that Kerry is unfit to be prez. Great, we all have our own opinions but why don't you contribute something substantial for once instead of quoting all these rabidly conservative right-wing rags? Intelligent discussion is always welcome here.

[IJ Reilly]

Who cares whether about whether Kerry does or doesn't speak French? I'd be happy to have a President with a command of English. It would make a nice change.

[SiliconAddict]

I've galvanized myself to the cold reality that in all likelihood Bush will win by a pathetically narrow margin. I'm going to do my best to see that he doesn't win here in MN (I'm taking the day off and carting people around to make sure they have a means to get to the polls.) but I have this "feeling".
At this point I'm trying to console myself that it's only 4 more years. How much more real damage can he do in 4 years. :( Don't answer that. I don't want to think about it. God help this country to survive 4 more with Bush at the helm flying us directly into the sun.

[zimv20]

How much more real damage can he do in 4 years.
he'll nuke something.

i'm not kidding.

[numediaman]

I was going to post this in the "Poll Thread" I created, but decided I better post something this partisan somewhere else:

Here's a little political quiz I saw today. I'll post the "answers" tomorrow -- though I bet one of you traitorous liberals can get the right answers before that. ;)

1. In the 2000 campaign, Dick Cheney claimed that he had been out in the private sector "creating jobs" at Halliburton, neglecting to mention that he’d actually laid off 10,000 employees. What else transpired on this lion of capitalism’s watch?

a) $70 million of illegal trade with Saddam.
b) $2.3 billion in tax-payer funded government contracts. Yea, free market!
c) $100 million in "aggressive accounting" fraudulent claims.
d) a, b, c and a $70 million personal golden parachute.


2. When Richard Clarke released his startling book "Against All Enemies," one fellow scribe announced, "I am troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their service as a government insider with access to our nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001." Was it:

a) Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War".
b) Colin Powell, author of " My American Journey".
c) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, author of "When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor".
d) Eric Carle, author of the imperialism how-to, "The Very Hungry Caterpillar".


3. Former Secretary of State James A. Baker and his law firm Baker-Botts have always supported big business and the Bush family. Besides specializing in White Collar Criminal Defense and representing Bush in the Florida No-Count, what other civic-minded chores has this Bush regular pursued? Did he:

a) Watch 9-11 occur from the Washington Ritz-Carlton with Bin Laden relatives.
b) Serve as Special Counsel to the Carlyle Group.
c) Defend the Saudi royal family against a lawsuit brought by the 9-11 families.
d) a, b and c.


4. Kim Chong-il owes at least some part of his nuclear arsenal to one profit-minded patriot who sold $200 million worth of nuclear reactors to North Korea in 1998. Was it:

a) Wacko Investor George Soros.
b) Gun Prophet Charlton Heston.
c) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
d) Plutonium-tongued Pundit Al Franken.


5. Unlike Martha Stewart, when George W. Bush sold off his failing stock in Harken Energy, it was with insider knowledge he gained while personally sitting in board meetings. When his father’s Security and Exchange Commission called off what seemed like cut-and-dried case, what was included in the investigator’s concluding remarks?

a) "Well, at least it ain’t Silverado."
b) "Male cheerleaders don’t do well in the big house."
c) "It’s not like he’s gonna sober up and steal the White House".
d) "The investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and ... must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated."


6. What prominent politico confused the hypocritical with the Hippocratic when pushing for legislation that would save his Medicare-cheating family business hundreds of millions of dollars in fines?

a) Mad Medico Howard Dean.
b) Socialized Medicine Obsessive Dennis Kucinich.
c) Senate Majority Leader Bill "Cat-killer" Frist.
d) Cuddly humanist and House Speaker Tom DeLay.


7. As the White House finalized its pre-emptive war on Iraq, Deputy Defense Secretary and pocket protector Rambo Paul Wolfowitz assured the nation that the war with Iraq would virtually pay for itself. By low-balling the cost of "Dubya’s Big Baghdad Adventure" at fifty billion, how badly did Deputy Dawgowitz miss the paper?

a) By chump change.
b) By sixty million and counting.
c) By sixty billion and counting.
d) Whoa! You mean in dollars?

[wwworry]

I know the answers to this one. I wonder if one of our Bush supporters could answer these questions.

This poll is biased against the letters a and b

[SlyHunter]

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, if you eliminated the entire Defense Department, you could balance the budget. If you eliminated Social Security, you could eliminate the deficit. If you eliminated Medicare, you could eliminate the deficit. If you kept Defense, Social Security and Medicare and eliminated all the rest of the government, you would still have a deficit. How can you possibly cut the deficit in half when you listed all the programs—health care, education—that you’re for? It doesn’t add up.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to something else you said about Social Security. This is how Glen Johnson of The Boston Globe reported it in August in your hometown paper. The headline: “Kerry Hints at Reform for Social Security. Declaring ‘I am blessed to be wealthy,’ Senator John F. Kerry said that, if elected president, he would consider some form of means-testing for rich Americans as part of a broader review of ideas to shore up the Social Security system. ...Another idea Kerry said he would consider is

raising the cut-off point after which people no longer pay into the system. Americans pay Social Security taxes only on the first $86,000 they earn in a year.”

SEN. KERRY: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: 6.2 percent. So if you raise that cap, say from $86,000 to $120,000, a husband and wife making $60,000 each, you’re going to raise their taxes up $2,000.

SEN. KERRY: No, I’m not. I’m not touching their tax. I wouldn’t touch theirs. That’s not what I said and let me...

MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to raise the cap above $86,000?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080246/

[SlyHunter]

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry will attend a rally for women's abortion rights in Washington, DC on Friday.

At the rally, Kerry will ask attendees to join him in the fight by getting involved in his campaign.

But the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal: Kerry claimed in an interview he was "opposed to abortion" and how its an issue "that should be left for the states to decide."

MORE

Kerry told the LOWELL SUN in October, 1972: "...It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong. It should be the very last thing if it has to be anything, and I say that not just because I'm opposed to abortion but because I think that's common sense."

http://drudgereport.com/rcka.htm
Kerry is for whatever it will take to get him elected. I do not call that Honor or integrity. He's right if he wins it'll be just like it was when Clinton was President.

[numediaman]

http://drudgereport.com/rcka.htm
Kerry is for whatever it will take to get him elected. I do not call that Honor or integrity. He's right if he wins it'll be just like it was when Clinton was President.

SlyHunter, you are kidding, right? What was your opinion of abortion in 1972? Tell us, we want to know!

[vwcruisn]

SlyHunter, you are kidding, right? What was your opinion of abortion in 1972? Tell us, we want to know!


the smear tactics are in full affect... the fact that they would dig this up from 1972 is pathetic if you ask me. Thats over 30 years ago. A lot has changed since 1972 dont ya think? Now if you want to talk about some RECENT "flip flopping" that actually has relevance.. all you need to do is look to your president.

[Neserk]

http://drudgereport.com/rcka.htm
Kerry is for whatever it will take to get him elected. I do not call that Honor or integrity. He's right if he wins it'll be just like it was when Clinton was President.

That is the best news I've heard all day. Kerry will be as good as Clinton! YAHOO! KERRY FOR PRES!

HOnor and integrity? You have no place to talk about honor or integrity after supporting President Liar. He is was suppose to restore integrity to the white house ROFLMAO!

[mactastic]

I'm guessing 'honor and integrity' to SlyHunter means having your daddy pull strings to get you out of any 'icky' service in an actual war.

[Neserk]

I'm guessing 'honor and integrity' to SlyHunter means having your daddy pull strings to get you out of any 'icky' service in an actual war.


IF that is the case then, hey, Bush definately restored integrity ;)

[wwworry]

Bush was partying in 1972. Would you say, SlyHunter, that since Bush obviously was a drunk in '72 and he is not a drunk now that Bush FLIP FLOPPED!!!

I guess that Drudge Report shows that as far back as 1972 Kerry was involved in the issues of the day.

And you can be opposed to abortion (as a method of birth control. Didn't he say that?) but be for a woman's right to choose.

At least Bush hasn't flip flopped about taking a lot of long vacations.

[mactastic]

I'm guessing since Dubya is a 'born again' that means he flip-flopped on Jesus too! :eek:

[zimv20]

And you can be opposed to abortion [...] but be for a woman's right to choose.

of course -- that's my position

[amnesiac1984]

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry will attend a rally for women's abortion rights in Washington, DC on Friday.

At the rally, Kerry will ask attendees to join him in the fight by getting involved in his campaign.

But the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal: Kerry claimed in an interview he was "opposed to abortion" and how its an issue "that should be left for the states to decide."

MORE

Kerry told the LOWELL SUN in October, 1972: "...It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong. It should be the very last thing if it has to be anything, and I say that not just because I'm opposed to abortion but because I think that's common sense."


To be honest, I don't really see how he has flip/flopped that much here anyway.

He says it should be the very last thing, so he's admitting that it should be allowed, but used responsibly. I share a similar opinion and in the face of it being outlawed I would go straight down to the womens rights rally and defend their rights.

How has he really flip/flopped? Just because he's defending the right for there to be an abortion, doesn't mean he condones any old soul having one if they feel like it!

Thats like saying people who support the death penalty believe we should kill people just for the hell of it!

[SlyHunter]

Charles Krauthammer, who in a 1993 Time magazine essay decried "The Greatest Cold War Myth of All," first identified this pernicious tendency toward historical revisionism. Despite its recent denials, during the last 20 years of the Cold War, the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of the argument and it was only after the Berlin Wall came down that most Democrats claimed to have been Cold Warriors all along.

Obviously, there were countless honorable exceptions from the liberal anti-Communist senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, to Georgia's Sen. Sam Nunn to the 1980s version of Al Gore. But, in the broad scope of things, the liberals learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam. John Kerry, who left for war presumably thinking the exact opposite of Bill Clinton, returned even more of a dove than Clinton, believing the U.S. military to be a bunch of war criminals and that American troops should only be dispersed under United Nations supervision.

For the next 30 years, Kerry was a tenacious dove on national security. In 1982, in his race for lieutenant governor, Kerry came out in favor of the nuclear freeze - not that anyone cared much then. But, two years later, when Kerry moved to the United States Senate, he kept to his principles battling Sam Nunn and Ronald Reagan over everything from arms control to "Reagan's illegal war in Central America" to missile defense. He called the war in Grenada a "bully's show of force." And, in 1991, he opposed the use of force in Iraq because it would constitute a violation of "the theory of deterrence" - even Saddam was not theoretically in Kuwait.

But just as millions of Americans were flat-out wrong about the urgency and necessity of fighting the Cold War, today there are millions of good and decent Americans who do not want to look the current enemy in the eye. They cling to polysyllabic professors who find clever ways to say the same dumb things over and over again. They look to America-detesting Europeans, mistaking cynicism for sagacity. And they look to politicians like John Kerry who proudly shift their opinions based upon the most convenient way of avoiding tough decisions, calling their zigs "nuance" and their zags "sophistication," promising to "stay the course" only if it's plotted as a U-turn.

It's far from clear why George W. Bush's poll numbers have been rising while he's facing the worst barrage of criticism of his "war presidency," but I can't help but think that it's partly because he calls himself a war president at a time when Americans realize they need one. John Kerry may be qualified in all sorts of ways, but it's clear that, since he returned from Vietnam, the one thing he hasn't prepared for is to be "war president."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040423.shtml

[IIvan]

Im too young to really answer to the Cold War, but how were we "flat out wrong" ? I seem to remember hearing that in the end, the Soviets really didn't want a nuclear war any more than we did...We just had to have an enemy to fight, and they were easy, being non religious and non capitalist and equal in military strength.

Millions of Americans dont want to start a war in a country with no links to Al Qaida- some of us realize that Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"...

ever notice how Bush hasn't even mentioned OBL's name in about 2 years?

[SlyHunter]

Im too young to really answer to the Cold War, but how were we "flat out wrong" ? I seem to remember hearing that in the end, the Soviets really didn't want a nuclear war any more than we did...We just had to have an enemy to fight, and they were easy, being non religious and non capitalist and equal in military strength.

Millions of Americans dont want to start a war in a country with no links to Al Qaida- some of us realize that Iraq had nothing to do with the "War on Terror"...

ever notice how Bush hasn't even mentioned OBL's name in about 2 years?
Saddam had a Al-Qaida training center in his country which we have destroyed.
Saddam was sending checks to relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers worth 10 times their yearly salary as rewards for them having a relative who was a suicide bomber.

See we, who are for this war, keep saying he had links to terrorism, you, who are against this war, keep saying he had no links to Al-Qaida. Well there are more terrorist groups than Al-Qaida. He provided sanctuary for some, medical care for others. Now where are they at? In Syria probably with the WMD's.

[skunk]

Saddam had a Al-Qaida training center in his country which we have destroyed.
Wrong. It was Ansar al-Islam, and it was outside the area controlled by Saddam.

Saddam was sending checks to relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers worth 10 times their yearly salary as rewards for them having a relative who was a suicide bomber.
That's called solidarity, nothing more.

See we, who are for this war, keep saying he had links to terrorism, you, who are against this war, keep saying he had no links to Al-Qaida. Well there are more terrorist groups than Al-Qaida. He provided sanctuary for some, medical care for others. Now where are they at? In Syria probably with the WMD's.
Have you the slightest shred of evidence to back this up?

[Sayhey]

skunk,

SlyHunter is already on record as stating that he is in favor of US troops invading any country that gives money to the relatives of the suicide bombers in Israel. When it was pointed out to him this would mean most of the middle east, his only problem was the feasibility of accomplishing that task.

Sorry, to say you are arguing with a countryman of mine who has no use for such nuanced ideas as international law and common sense. It would be almost funny, except he is also an almost perfect transmitter of disinformation. There is no filter of reasoned judgment in the process of what he reads and what he posts. That there are those who feed people like SlyHunter this garbage and they might actually be taken seriously is truly the scariest thought.

[zimv20]

the wash times reports (http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040416-105402-2628r.htm) that insight magazine (http://www.insightmag.com/), owned by the same moonie-controlled company that owns the wash times, is laying off 17 staffers.

i'm starting to wonder is slyhunter is among them.

[skunk]

i'm starting to wonder is slyhunter is among them.
SlyJobHunter you mean? :rolleyes:

[SlyHunter]

KERRY RESPONDS ON 'GMA'
Mon Apr 26 2004 09:04:52 ET

ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA'S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He's in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: i'm glad to be with you. i really am.

GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the ""los angeles times,"" have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.

KERRY: no, i don't.

GIBSON: can you explain?

KERRY: absolutely. that's absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were -- i don't know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the ""boston globe,"" everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon -- threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they th rew back their 14's. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have -- i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and 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.

GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later -

KERRY: no, you didn't see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that's not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -

GIBSON: someone else's medals, correct in?

KERRY: after -- excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never --

GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military --

KERRY: this is a phony -- charlie, this is a phony controversy.

GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 --

KERRY: no . we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.

GIBSON: senator, i don't want -- i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.

KERRY: no.

GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn't throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.

KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.

GIBSON: senator --

KERRY: i'm not going to stand for it. i'm in the going to stand for it.

GIBSON: i-understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not --

KERRY: i know politics is behind this.

GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn't throw the medals away 13 years later.

KERRY: that's the most -- with all due respect, that's the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the ""boston globe"" got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was -- you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the withar, took a position, and it wasn't popular, and it was polarizing. i didn't have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in floment of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i'm the one -- if hi something to hide, i'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i'm proud of it.

GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to ""the washington post,"" it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the ""boston globe,"" i didn't bring my own medals to throw because i didn't have time to go home and get them. which one was it?

KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us -- we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn't have my medals. it is very simple . what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can't go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or no t to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i'm not going to get attack order something i did that's a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i'm proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there's no distinction between the two.

GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i'm glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?

[SlyHunter]

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a speech Monday in Minnesota, President Bush urged Congress to slap a permanent ban on taxes consumers pay for high-speed Internet hookups called broadband. He also touted proposals to make electronic medical records the norm and move hydrogen fuel technology from the lab to the showroom.
...
Bush announced that the Energy Department has selected partners for more than $350 million in new research projects to remove roadblocks to developing hydrogen fuel technology. The projects will address the problem of storing hydrogen on vehicles; increasing consumers' knowledge about hydrogen energy and making hydrogen fuel cells that are both durable and affordable.

Bush also set a goal for most Americans to have electronic health records within 10 years. Paper ones, he says, can lead to errors, inefficiencies and poor communication among doctors and nurses. To help reach the goal, the president is creating a national health information technology coordinator, a sub-Cabinet-level position.

On broadband, the name for the high-speed Internet connections over phone, cable and satellites, Bush said users should not be taxed, and that the government should encourage competition among providers.

Bush has already signed into a law a two-year extension of the Internet Access Tax moratorium, which expired last fall. Now, he's calling on Congress to pass legislation that would extend the moratorium to broadband and make it permanent.

As Kerry visited West Virginia on Monday, Bush's campaign ran full-page ads in two Wheeling newspapers, listing the top 10 questions the GOP believes voters should ask Kerry. Bush's campaign also rolled out television ads accusing Kerry of opposing weapons such as Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Patriot missiles, B-2 stealth bombers and F-18 fighter jet. The ads will run nationally on cable networks, and versions also are tailored to nine states.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040426/D826I6PG0.html

[wwworry]

Bush hydrogen initiative is perfect:

1. Big contracts for friendly doners
2. Shows he cares about the environment without actually doing anything but - see above
3. Does nothing to improve anything now

spend spend spend on photo-op legislation

[wwworry]

electronic health records

in one centralized database that with the right kind of lobbying can be sold to the highest bidder

more Total Information Awareness Darpa crap

[IIvan]

Is there any viable way to get Hydrogen in mass at the moment? I believe that almost all of it is currently derived from FOSSIL FUELS anyway, negating half of its purpose

[zimv20]

Is there any viable way to get Hydrogen in mass at the moment? I believe that almost all of it is currently derived from FOSSIL FUELS anyway, negating half of its purpose
yep.

there's promise in certain kinds of fuel cells, but any kind of affordable system is years off.

[SlyHunter]

Also Kerry lacks Gravitoss :p

[mactastic]

Also Kerry lacks Gravitoss :p

Funny you should mention gravitas. Is this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/timep.tea.tm/) your idea of what substance and weightiness, or a serious or dignified manner is?

The last time he dined with the Queen — in 1992 at his father's White House, wearing cowboy boots emblazoned with GOD SAVE THE QUEEN — he asked if she had any black sheep in her family. "Don't answer that!" his mother Barbara interjected, trying to avoid embarrassment.

[IJ Reilly]

"Gravitoss" -- isn't that a game they play on the Enterprise?

[SlyHunter]

Funny you should mention gravitas. Is this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/timep.tea.tm/) your idea of what substance and weightiness, or a serious or dignified manner is?
Isn't that the word that all the left wing media shows were spreading around about Bush during the last election? Made it real easy to spot the liberal bias right up front, being that every channel that I now consider left wing liberal bias'd news magically came up with the same word for Bush as if they were conspiring to ensure that Gore won.

[davecuse]

Funny you should mention gravitas. Is this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/timep.tea.tm/) your idea of what substance and weightiness, or a serious or dignified manner is?

Is this guy really our president? It really boggle's me how someone could even consider pulling a Republican lever in November. Dubya has absolutely no concept of reality, the last four years have been all smoke and mirrors. I mean he declared an end to the war almost a year ago and now we need more troops? On top of that he brings into question Kerry's military record, when the real question is where was George when he was supposed to be flying planes, why doesn't anyone know?

The thing that scares me most about Dubya is that if he does get re-elected he's not going to have to worry about saving face, there won't be another election for him to win. If we keep on the track that we are now, I could easily foresee a draft being enacted, and this is one war that I personally (being 23) do not have any interest in becoming a casualty of. You cannot beat terrorists with brute force, you have to undermine their reasons. Getting Osama Bin Laden won't magically end the war on terror, it will just bring forward 1000 more just like him. The only way to end radical islam is to remove the radicals reasons for fighting.

[skunk]

The only way to end radical islam is to remove the radicals reasons for fighting.
Apart from the missing apostrophe, I agree entirely. :)

[mactastic]

...as if they were conspiring to ensure that Gore won.

You got any proof of that? Or are you pulling that out of your posterior?

[davecuse]

Apart from the missing apostrophe, I agree entirely. :)

i dont do punctuation :cool:

[IJ Reilly]

i dont do punctuation :cool:

Hey, that's relatively okay -- some people don't do the English language.

[davecuse]

Hey, that's relatively okay -- some people don't do the English language.

some people also believe the trash that Dubya's campaign spews in their fair and balanced advertisements.

[SlyHunter]

(CNSNews.com) - 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, told CNSNews.com . 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. http://www.swiftvets.com/

"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.

"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," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

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.

"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.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200405/SPE20040503a.html

[IIvan]

Wow... thats a pretty ****ty thing to do, to have people he served with sign a petition against him. Some of these guys never even had any direct contact with Kerry!

FOr a moment though...lets look at Bush's war record. Did he receive any medals at all? NO Did he see combat? NO Did he spend years in Vietnam? NO Are we even sure that he served his full time and complied with the rules? NO

Also while wer'e smearing...which of our candidates has a DUI on their record??

[numediaman]

Sly keeps posting the same crap. This is the same John O'Neill that has made a living out of serving Nixon and now Bush is smearing John Kerry.

As Salon reported . . .

The GOP's not-so-impartial hit man
Desperate to denigrate John Kerry's war record, Republicans have trotted out a "nonpartisan" Navy Vietnam vet -- who was a protege of Nixon dirty trickster Charles Colson and whose law firm is closely tied to the Bush White House.

But you know, anyone can sling mud. How about Sly answering these questions about his military hero, George W., care of the Kerry web site?

1. Bush Has Said He Used No Special Treatment To Get Into The Guard. How Does He Explain The Fact That He Jumped Ahead Of 150 Applicants Despite Low Pilot Aptitude Scores?

2. Col. Albert Lloyd Said A Report >From Alabama To Ellington Should Have Been Filed. Where Is That Report?

3. Why Did Bush Miss His Medical Exam In 1972?

4. Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush’s Absence From The Exam?

5. Why Did Bush Specifically Request To NOT Be Sent Overseas For Duty?

6. Why Does The White House Say Bush Was On Base When Bush’s Superiors Had Filed A Report Saying He Was Gone For A Whole Year?

7. Why Is The Pentagon Under Orders To Not Discuss Bush’s Record With Reporters?

8. Where Are Bush’s Flight Logs?

9. Why Hasn’t Bush Himself Demonstrated That He Showed Up For Service in Alabama?

[SlyHunter]

Wow... thats a pretty ****ty thing to do, to have people he served with sign a petition against him. Some of these guys never even had any direct contact with Kerry!

FOr a moment though...lets look at Bush's war record. Did he receive any medals at all? NO Did he see combat? NO Did he spend years in Vietnam? NO Are we even sure that he served his full time and complied with the rules? NO

Also while wer'e smearing...which of our candidates has a DUI on their record??
You don't need a war record to be president of the united states.
If you are going to flaunt your war record as part of your election campaign then that war record will be gone thru with a fine tooth comb.

Kerry stated that we shouldn't hold Clintons lack of war record against him, a true draft dodger thus the same should hold true for Bush.

If Bush hadn't full filled his duty he wouldn't of been honorably discharged.

[SlyHunter]

Sly keeps posting the same crap. This is the same John O'Neill that has made a living out of serving Nixon and now Bush is smearing John Kerry.

As Salon reported . . .

The GOP's not-so-impartial hit man
Desperate to denigrate John Kerry's war record, Republicans have trotted out a "nonpartisan" Navy Vietnam vet -- who was a protege of Nixon dirty trickster Charles Colson and whose law firm is closely tied to the Bush White House.

But you know, anyone can sling mud. How about Sly answering these questions about his military hero, George W., care of the Kerry web site?

1. Bush Has Said He Used No Special Treatment To Get Into The Guard. How Does He Explain The Fact That He Jumped Ahead Of 150 Applicants Despite Low Pilot Aptitude Scores?

2. Col. Albert Lloyd Said A Report >From Alabama To Ellington Should Have Been Filed. Where Is That Report?

3. Why Did Bush Miss His Medical Exam In 1972?

4. Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush’s Absence From The Exam?

5. Why Did Bush Specifically Request To NOT Be Sent Overseas For Duty?

6. Why Does The White House Say Bush Was On Base When Bush’s Superiors Had Filed A Report Saying He Was Gone For A Whole Year?

7. Why Is The Pentagon Under Orders To Not Discuss Bush’s Record With Reporters?

8. Where Are Bush’s Flight Logs?

9. Why Hasn’t Bush Himself Demonstrated That He Showed Up For Service in Alabama?
Why should you care? You didn't when Clinton ran for President.

[Stelliform]

I think the bottom line is that Bush is going to win, because that would be the best thing for the Clintons.

If Kerry wins, Hillary has to wait 8 more years, and then follow Kerry (A much harder thing if he does a crappy job, or if he does a good job he will have a VP most likely running then, so make that 12 years of waiting.), or if Kerry Loses, Hillary can bash the Republicans based on the groundwork she is laying now. (like she is hoping we will be attacked again so she can say I told you so.)

The Clintons will do everything they can to remove momentum from the Kerry campaign. (like release a book in June or something ;)) If they really cared about Kerry winning, and what was best for the democratic party, they would be making it all about Kerry, but they are not, so you have to assume that they have ulterior motives.

[trebblekicked]

Why should you care? You didn't when Clinton ran for President.

not to speak for him, but i'm pretty sure it's because clinton never ran a smear campaign about bush I or dole's military records. take a step back and it makes perfect sense.

is there really any point in countering what you say, though? i honestly want to know because it seems like a lot of people are wasting their time pointing stuff out to you (links, questions, answers) and you're like a kid sitting in the corner, singing to yourself with your fingers in your ears. if you don't want to consider the fact that you might be wrong, then i'll stop reading what you write. just let me know one way or the other.

thanks.

[SlyHunter]

not to speak for him, but i'm pretty sure it's because clinton never ran a smear campaign about bush I or dole's military records. take a step back and it makes perfect sense.

is there really any point in countering what you say, though? i honestly want to know because it seems like a lot of people are wasting their time pointing stuff out to you (links, questions, answers) and you're like a kid sitting in the corner, singing to yourself with your fingers in your ears. if you don't want to consider the fact that you might be wrong, then i'll stop reading what you write. just let me know one way or the other.

thanks.
You might want to consider the fact that you might be wrong.
Kerry's war record is only an issue because Kerry made it one.
It started when he threw his medals over the fence, then it was someone elses medals, now it was his ribbons or was it somebody elses ribbons. Then I heard it was a right wing conspiracy trying to establish he threw his medals over the fence. It started when he uses the fact that he was in Vietnam as a defense to his political record instead of simply defending his political record. It started when in front of congress he stated "yes I committed war crimes." Kerry made his war record an issue.

People say he spent 2 terms in vietnam. 2 terms is not 4 months. He puts the fact that Cheney doesn't have a war record in some of his statements, that in turn puts his actual war record up for inspection. Those who want to complain about Bush being AWOl or Deserter didn't help much when the only evidence was that maybe he was Abscent With Leave. My own father got his church to claim he was irreplacable (he worked for them) and got out of the draft. Lots of people did so. Maybe Bush used influence to get the NG instead of going to Vietnam? So what. Bush isn't the one running on his war record.

[zimv20]

if you don't want to consider the fact that you might be wrong, then i'll stop reading what you write. just let me know one way or the other.

you've answered your own question

[Dont Hurt Me]

you cant ignore god and you cant ignore wrong from right, love god with all thy heart and your neighbor as thyself. do this the world is yours. do anything else and you are going to come up short. it is written. it doesnt matter what the Clintons do, its gods show and we are but pawns if even that. debating pointless debate doesnt change this. the fact is this is gods show and we are but players.

[trebblekicked]

You might want to consider the fact that you might be wrong.
Kerry's war record is only an issue because Kerry made it one....LA LA LA LA LA LA DUM DEE DEE DA DA

thanks. you tried really hard not to, but you answered my question anyway. don't worry. i won't question you anymore.

zimv-
i know. i sometimes wonder if he is actually a javascript that scans a post and then replies, pulling links and quotes from a database of conservative weblogs and "news" sites.

[IIvan]

If I remember correctly, Bush is the one who made such a big deal out of Kerry's war records. There was a big flap, then they were released, and showed no faults. Now Kerry's opponents have gotten together a bunch of other people to try to smear his record- with no actual evidence!

Those who want to complain about Bush being AWOl or Deserter didn't help much when the only evidence was that maybe he was Abscent With Leave.
Hmmm...Absent without A Leave...NOT AWOL. :confused: :rolleyes:

btw- wtf is up with you and the medals? A controversy over nothing!

[SlyHunter]

If I remember correctly, Bush is the one who made such a big deal out of Kerry's war records. There was a big flap, then they were released, and showed no faults. Now Kerry's opponents have gotten together a bunch of other people to try to smear his record- with no actual evidence!


Hmmm...Absent without A Leave...NOT AWOL. :confused: :rolleyes:

btw- wtf is up with you and the medals? A controversy over nothing!
Thats With not Without.
Talking about no evidence you have no evidence it was without leave.

And the controversy pertains to Kerry's honesty.

[IIvan]

Sorry bout that. I read it wrong. Still though- read your posts about the medals and see if any of it is of any importance

[Thanatoast]

okay, about the medals, i don't know about you guys but i really don't care any more. the issue has been beaten to death by kerry, bush, rove, the media, and many posters on these boards. they both told the truth, they both lied, i don't care. what i *do* care about is what bush has done within the last 4 years, not what he did 30 frickin' years ago. the entire controversy has been stirred up in order to distract from the real issues: iraq, terrorism, civil liberties, taxes, economy. we're here debating about medals vs. ribbons, and bush is still ****ing up **** in dc. it's time to move on.

[wwworry]

Thats With not Without.
Talking about no evidence you have no evidence it was without leave.

And the controversy pertains to Kerry's honesty.

Speaking of honesty, what about the part where Bush lied during the state of the union address and then tried to pass it off as "just 16 words"?

what about the lie when Bush said "the vast majority of tax cuts will go to middle class tax payers"

what about his administration illegally revealing the identity of a CIA operative?

Bush lies all the time about life and death issues and you are in a flap about whether Kerry said medals or ribbons??! Bush is a drunk driver. Bush avoided combat. Bush misled the American people about a war. Bush changes science reports to please his friends in industry. The Bush administration fires people who tell the truth.

Bush is the liar.

[SlyHunter]

Speaking of honesty, what about the part where Bush lied during the state of the union address and then tried to pass it off as "just 16 words"?

bush reported what was reported to him. He stated things like "British Intelligence has discovered..." These Aren't Bush's lies.

what about the lie when Bush said "the vast majority of tax cuts will go to middle class tax payers"

I don't remember this statement. However assuming he did say it, its all relative. Democrats say Rich people don't pay their fair share even tho the top 1% pay like 40% of the taxes but only receive 17% of the income. Thats a lie I don't hear you complaining about the Democrats making. I think when Bush stated "majority of tax cuts" he was relating it in a percentage of their personal income and not as a whole dollar figure. Thus this also was not a lie.

what about his administration illegally revealing the identity of a CIA operative?

If this is true, doesn't make it Bush's fault simply his responsibility. No chief is in 100% control of everything everybody under him does. Calling her a CIA operative is a little deception on your part or those who also state it for she never was an operative she was simply an employee who worked internally. I forgot the exact name of her job but data input or something like that. Also her husband previously announced that his wife was in the CIA on his web site. I can't post a link because he was smart enough to remove it when people started posting about it.

Irregardless if/when they find out who did it that individual would be punished. Wanting to punish the entire Bush administration for something one of his people did is equal to wanting to nuke Palestinians for something Hamas did. But unlike Palestine I'm sure Bush will police his own.

Bush lies all the time about life and death issues and you are in a flap about whether Kerry said medals or ribbons??! Bush is a drunk driver. Bush avoided combat. Bush misled the American people about a war. Bush changes science reports to please his friends in industry. The Bush administration fires people who tell the truth.

Bush is the liar.
uhuh.
Kerry lied about his medals if he came clean about it up front it would not be a major issue it would've died a long time ago.
Kerry will pretend to be whoever he has to be in order to get elected. That fact by itself means I won't vote for him.

[numediaman]

What does it say for a Republican administration when even George Will is against you?

Time for Bush to See The Realities of Iraq

By George F. Will
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page A25

Oh? Who?

Appearing Friday in the Rose Garden with Canada's prime minister, President Bush was answering a reporter's question about Canada's role in Iraq when suddenly he swerved into this extraneous thought:

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern."

What does such careless talk say about the mind of this administration? Note that the clearly implied antecedent of the pronoun "ours" is "Americans." So the president seemed to be saying that white is, and brown is not, the color of Americans' skin. He does not mean that. But that is the sort of swamp one wanders into when trying to deflect doubts about policy by caricaturing and discrediting the doubters.

Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later said the president meant only that "there are some in the world that think that some people can't be free" or "can't live in freedom." The president meant that "some Middle Eastern countries -- that the people in those Middle Eastern countries cannot be free."

Perhaps that, which is problematic enough, is what the president meant. But what he suggested was: Some persons -- perhaps many persons; no names being named, the smear remained tantalizingly vague -- doubt his nation-building project because they are racists.

That is one way to respond to questions about the wisdom of thinking America can transform the entire Middle East by constructing a liberal democracy in Iraq. But if any Americans want to be governed by politicians who short-circuit complex discussions by recklessly imputing racism to those who differ with them, such Americans do not usually turn to the Republican choice in our two-party system.

This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64323-2004May3.html

[davecuse]

Bush's entire ad campaign is a smoke screen in my mind. Diverting the public's attention from the real issues, and making something out of nothing. His latest ad is the worst, everytime I hear about how Kerry voted against the troops I want to puke. Does Bush forget how these guys got there in the first place, and who forgot to put together that little thing called an exit strategy? If he gets a crack at 4 more years, I can only imagine what type of trouble he has the capacity to get us into. What's next the crusades?

[IIvan]

What's next the crusades?

who else was in the "AXIS OF EVIL" (TM)

[SlyHunter]

Bush's entire ad campaign is a smoke screen in my mind. Diverting the public's attention from the real issues, and making something out of nothing. His latest ad is the worst, everytime I hear about how Kerry voted against the troops I want to puke. Does Bush forget how these guys got there in the first place, and who forgot to put together that little thing called an exit strategy? If he gets a crack at 4 more years, I can only imagine what type of trouble he has the capacity to get us into. What's next the crusades?
Which one of Kerry's speech writers wrote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."


On Hannity radio show he brought up a neat point. Kerry in front of one group of people stated he owned SUV's and named like 3 different models of them. Then on earth day he is quoted as saying "I don't own a SUV my family does." Kerry tried to be on everyside of every issue so he doesn't alienate any voter instead of simply siding on the side he actually believes in.

[Thanatoast]

Which one of Kerry's speech writers wrote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."


On Hannity radio show he brought up a neat point. Kerry in front of one group of people stated he owned SUV's and named like 3 different models of them. Then on earth day he is quoted as saying "I don't own a SUV my family does." Kerry tried to be on everyside of every issue so he doesn't alienate any voter instead of simply siding on the side he actually believes in.Better to be on both sides of the issue rather than the wrong side, as Bush so often is. :D :p :)

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Which one of Kerry's speech writers wrote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."


On Hannity radio show he brought up a neat point. Kerry in front of one group of people stated he owned SUV's and named like 3 different models of them. Then on earth day he is quoted as saying "I don't own a SUV my family does." Kerry tried to be on everyside of every issue so he doesn't alienate any voter instead of simply siding on the side he actually believes in.

Better to be on both sides of the issue rather than the wrong side, as Bush so often is. :D :p :)
Thats my key point from the beginning even tho we disagree about Bush being on the wrong side of every issue (some he is). The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is you actually know where the Republicans stand. Thats why the Democrats need to clean up their party and actually stand for something other than "lets go beat the republicans."

[Thanatoast]

Thats my key point from the beginning even tho we disagree about Bush being on the wrong side of every issue (some he is). The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is you actually know where the Republicans stand. Thats why the Democrats need to clean up their party and actually stand for something other than "lets go beat the republicans."Actually, I agree with you on this. The Democrats have turned into the party of Republicans-lite, and they keep losing support, so they keep becoming more like the Republicans. We already have a Republican party, so there's no point in trying to copy them. The Democrats should move back to their late 19th century populist roots, and away from their current centrism. One conservative party is enough.

[SlyHunter]

Actually, I agree with you on this. The Democrats have turned into the party of Republicans-lite, and they keep losing support, so they keep becoming more like the Republicans. We already have a Republican party, so there's no point in trying to copy them. The Democrats should move back to their late 19th century populist roots, and away from their current centrism. One conservative party is enough.
And the only way they'll have a reason to do this is if they lose really really big. Only that way will they go thru the motions they need to getting rid of the deadwood and bringing integrity back into the party. Then maybe I'll vote for one.

[numediaman]

And the only way they'll have a reason to do this is if they lose really really big. Only that way will they go thru the motions they need to getting rid of the deadwood and bringing integrity back into the party. Then maybe I'll vote for one.

This is for you, Sly:

Kerry 47% Bush 43%

Wednesday May 05, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry with 47% of the vote and* President George W. Bush with 43%.

Kerry has now held a three-point edge for three straight days. Neither candidate has held a three-point advantage for four consecutive days since Kerry emerged as the Democratic frontrunner.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

[davecuse]

Kerry 47% Bush 43%

It's good to know that people are finally starting to come to their senses!

[Thanatoast]

It's good to know that people are finally starting to come to their senses!It's a long way till November, and Rove has already proven he's a master at influencing the electorate. It won't take much good news for him to turn this into a victory for the Republicans, especially with Kerry's team being as clueless as they are. They're *still* talking about frickin' Vietnam. Way to let Rove define the debate, boys.

[Dont Hurt Me]

After 112 billion and now wanting 25 more billion all i can say to Dubya is where is Bin Laden? Republicans are spinning everything they can even trying to make Kerrys medals an issue when it has nothing to do with George's very poor 4 years. He has gotten the world to hate us, lied to us about Iraq and the WMDs that daddy and rumsfield gave to Saddam. so we will now have 137 billion of our money blown and what do we have to show for it?
The so called uniter has become the great divider.
Look for lots of spin and more lies to come from this administration before its all over.

137 billion dollars could have given us perhaps Warp Drive, a great space program and a million other things but i guess we will have to settle for the bill and over 700 Americans and Allies dead bodies. way to go George :rolleyes:

[SlyHunter]

Kerry's war record suffers from self-inflicted wounds
From Roland Watson and Tim Reid in Washington

THE Vietnam war record of John Kerry, which had been regarded as a potent weapon in the presidential election campaign, is in danger of causing the Democratic challenger self-inflicted wounds.

Mr Kerry has been forced on to the back foot as he tries to iron out a series of inconsistencies, claims about his combat wounds and the fate of his medals when he became an anti-war protester.

Democratic strategists had believed that Mr Kerry’s wartime heroism would neutralise or even supercede Mr Bush’s standing as a wartime leader, yet recent polls show that Mr Kerry is losing ground even as America’s problems in Iraq have worsened.

Yesterday a decades-old controversy returned to dog him, when a 1971 television interview was revived, casting doubt on his version of events at one of the anti-war movement’s seminal moments.

At the height of the protests against the war, Mr Kerry joined veterans who threw their medals into a rubbish bin on the steps of the Capitol in Washington. Mr Kerry was seen throwing a handful of medals and ribbons.

In recent years Mr Kerry has explained that while he threw away the ribbons of his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, he kept his medals. The ones that he discarded belonged to two other soldiers who asked him to discard them because they could not attend the protest. Mr Kerry insists that he never suggested that he had discarded his own medals. “I never ever implied that I did it,” he said last week.

However, in a 1971 interview with WRC-TV, a Washington television station, Mr Kerry was asked if he threw away his own medals. “Well, and above that, (I) gave back the others.” The emergence of the interview prompted Mr Kerry to appear on breakfast television programmes yesterday and, instead of promoting a three-day bus tour through key states to promote jobs, he explained his conduct 30 years ago. “I threw my ribbons. I didn’t have my medals. It is very simple,” he said, dismissing the “phony controversy”.


Mr Kerry’s medical records, released last week, showed that he still had shrapnel buried in his left thigh, sustained in a separate gun battle, but the impact was lost because Mr Kerry had said that all his records were public several days before they were posted on the internet, causing a delay that suggested that he might have something to hide.

Mr Kerry has also retracted part of his famous 1971 testimony to the Senate, in which he said that US troops were routinely committing war crimes. His comments, which still infuriate some veterans, were inappropriate and a “little bit excessive”, he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1089716,00.html

I heard on the radio today that crew men with him during one of those purple heart occasions stated that Kerry fired a Mortar into a pile of rocks and received shrapnel damage from it and thus that purple heart was self inflicted. The doctor who handled the damage said the wound which was suppose to be from a bullet fragment was more consistent to that of a mortar fragment and the damage wasn't worth medical care. He pulled it out with a pair of tweazers using no pain killers or surgery. I am keeping my eye out for when they post this item on the internet to paste and copy.

[mactastic]

yet recent polls show that Mr Kerry is losing ground even as America’s problems in Iraq have worsened.

Um... did you see the poll results numediaman posted just for you today?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its pretty sad that the republican spin commitee has you talking about stuff that has 0 to do with todays problems.war from 30 years ago when we have a war now, no national healthcare,deficit out of control,faultering space program,and all we get is vietnam talk from the dodgers. sad that the only one who went to fight for his country gets false accusations from the ones who were hiding. Bush/Cheney & the White collar crowd. I dont remember george or cheney getting a silver star but im sure they will spin that into Kerry made it out of a silver dollar he found.

Why dont George run on his record?
Because he cant so he will run on lies,misdirection and more spin. something that George and the gang are masters at. I dont elect a president on lies misdirection and spin.

[SlyHunter]

Its pretty sad that the republican spin commitee has you talking about stuff that has 0 to do with todays problems.war from 30 years ago when we have a war now, no national healthcare,deficit out of control,faultering space program,and all we get is vietnam talk from the dodgers. sad that the only one who went to fight for his country gets false accusations from the ones who were hiding. Bush/Cheney & the White collar crowd. I dont remember george or cheney getting a silver star but im sure they will spin that into Kerry made it out of a silver dollar he found.

Why dont George run on his record?
Because he cant so he will run on lies,misdirection and more spin. something that George and the gang are masters at. I dont elect a president on lies misdirection and spin.
correction Kerry has me talking about it because kerry goes around saying "well I was in Vietnam" like its suppose to mean something, which it don't if he's full of crap and has no honor like playing the games previously reported over and over about it. Kerry is the one who states when someone starts talking about his voting record replies "well they don't have the right to talk about my patrotism after all they never spent time in vietnam"

Its not the right thats throwing it out there, its Kerry himself. Its not the right that said "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Talk about consistancy.

Since you don't elect a president on lies misdirection and spin then don't vote for Kerry.

[mactastic]

So the only arguments you've got are 'Kerry hides behind his war record' (which I have yet to see you provide convincing proof of); and throwing around the 'I voted for it before I voted against it' line.

And claiming Kerry has no honor? How dare you insult a veteran who fought for our country? Did you not feel revulsion at those who denigrated Tillman's service? Well Sly, you are in the same company. You are insulting a decorated veteran regardless of his party affiliation you owe him a debt. His sacrifice allows you to say the things you do. :mad:

[Dont Hurt Me]

Mactastic I agree but this is what the spin masters at GOP headqtrs want. They want this election to be anything but the president record this past 4 bad years. They are not going to talk issues because if they do they will be fired.

[SlyHunter]

So the only arguments you've got are 'Kerry hides behind his war record' (which I have yet to see you provide convincing proof of); and throwing around the 'I voted for it before I voted against it' line.

And claiming Kerry has no honor? How dare you insult a veteran who fought for our country? Did you not feel revulsion at those who denigrated Tillman's service? Well Sly, you are in the same company. You are insulting a decorated veteran regardless of his party affiliation you owe him a debt. His sacrifice allows you to say the things you do. :mad:
His honor was not made and finalized in the 4 months he spent in Vietnam. Allot of honorable and dishonorable people served in vietnam. The fact that he did so does not exonerate him of everything he did afterwards.

There are lots of reasons for voting against him at this site http://www.flipflopper.com/ most having to do with the fact that he is on every side of an issue there is no honor in that. Going to one group and claiming your for one thing and another group and claiming your for the exact opposite is dishonorable I don't care how long you spent in Vietnam.

Honor would've been him saying up front "yes I threw things (the truth of what he thrown) over the fence. I was caught up with the furor of the event and have matured since then." not try to cover it up by coming up a story that must be a lie because he's come up with three different versions. Four if you count the right wing conspiracy made it up version.

Kerry isn't honest with the people who vote for him how can he be trusted by anyone else.

Flipflopper.com is nothing but issues. How can you talk issues with someone when nomatter which side he takes he voted for that side too. Because he voted for and against apparently everything.

[mactastic]

Going to one group and claiming your for one thing and another group and claiming your for the exact opposite is dishonorable I don't care how long you spent in Vietnam.

So if Bush were to flip-flop on an issue would you proclaim him dishonorable, or is that vitriol only reserved for Democrats? :eek:

ie, I voted against the Department of Homeland Security before I voted for it...
I voted against the creation of an independant 9-11 commission before I voted for it.
I voted for States Rights in the decision about gay marriage before I voted against it...
Shall I continue?

Kerry isn't honest with the people who vote for him how can he be trusted by anyone else.

If Bush isn't honest with the people who vote for him, how can he be trusted by anyone else?

[SlyHunter]

So if Bush were to flip-flop on an issue would you proclaim him dishonorable, or is that vitriol only reserved for Democrats? :eek:

ie, I voted against the Department of Homeland Security before I voted for it...



If Bush isn't honest with the people who vote for him, how can he be trusted by anyone else?
There is a difference between changing your mind because you learned new facts, are hit with new things like air planes destroying buildings for example. No problem chanign your mind because you matured or thought things out further. That isn't what Kerry does. He checks the polls and changes his mind as often as the polls in fact he says one thing in front of a group of people and then the total opposite in front of a different group of people. Not because he changed his mind but because he wants their vote. He is willing to lie cheat and steal to get the presidency and thus he will not get my vote. I don't care if Bush was the worst president ever Kerry who lies to get your vote will never get mine.

Proof he does things are in little things like telling a group of car manufactures that he owns suv's and telling a group of environmentalists that he doesn't. That is proof he's willing to lie to win.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Lets talk honesty, where are those WMDS that we were told were in Iraq? Bush & Rumsfield said they knew where they were? we went to war over WMDs. where are they? who is honest? how do you just not show up for military duty? George did it but i dont think i could have ever gotten away with that one. :D its who you know.

[ThomasJefferson]

I heard on the radio today that crew men with him during one of those purple heart occasions stated that Kerry fired a Mortar into a pile of rocks and received shrapnel damage from it and thus that purple heart was self inflicted. The doctor who handled the damage said the wound which was suppose to be from a bullet fragment was more consistent to that of a mortar fragment and the damage wasn't worth medical care. He pulled it out with a pair of tweazers using no pain killers or surgery. I am keeping my eye out for when they post this item on the internet to paste and copy.

Well, I imagine firing a mortar round while in the thick of a battle could be a highly stressful situation and may result in an occasional oopsie.

Of course, since W never fired any mortar rounds, never made it to the same continent as the enemy (though he did prevent Ho Chi Minh from invading Texas) and has no shrapnel wounds, he would not be able to tell us about his experience on the subject.

[SlyHunter]

Lets talk honesty, where are those WMDS they we were told were in Iraq? Bush & Rumsfield said they knew where they were? we went to war over WMDs. where are they? who is honest? how do you just not show up for military duty? George did it but i dont think i could have ever gotten away with that one. :D its who you know.
I could've swore Bush said British Intelligence said they knew where it is. Also we saw those mobile laboratories that turned out later maybe aren't full of biologicals. We knew where they were not our fault we don't have the capability to detect actual biologicals from orbit.

We went to war because Saddam didn't abide by his surrender agreement. Because Saddam after having showed us his wmd's in 1991 went and hide them, gave them to someone else or destroyed them without keeping proof. His agreement was that he would provide proof that he destroyed them not destroye them and then hide the evidence. I don't think he destroyed them I think he hide them or gave them to someone else. Am I a liar because I didn't find them?

I think Bush lied about Osama Bin Laden. I mean where is he we havn't found him maybe he doesn't really exist. Maybe Bush lied to get us able to attack afghaniastan. Not very good logic is it.

[SlyHunter]

Well, I imagine firing a mortar round while in the thick of a battle could be a highly stressful situation and may result in an occasional oopsie.

Of course, since W never fired any mortar rounds, never made it to the same continent as the enemy (though he did prevent Ho Chi Minh from invading Texas) and has no shrapnel wounds, he would not be able to tell us about his experience on the subject.
witnesses said they weren't in the thick of battle.
Nobody said you had to have a war record to be president even a draft dodger like Clinton can be president. And if the Democrats have their way a liar who will lie to get your vote like Kerry.

[mactastic]

There is a difference between changing your mind because you learned new facts, are hit with new things like air planes destroying buildings for example. No problem chanign your mind because you matured or thought things out further. That isn't what Kerry does. He checks the polls and changes his mind as often as the polls in fact he says one thing in front of a group of people and then the total opposite in front of a different group of people. Not because he changed his mind but because he wants their vote. He is willing to lie cheat and steal to get the presidency and thus he will not get my vote. I don't care if Bush was the worst president ever Kerry who lies to get your vote will never get mine.

I don't care if Kerry never gets your vote. But stop this moral-high-ground crap about changing your mind being a flip-flop when Kerry does it and a mark of honor when Bush does it.

Bush changed his mind about the 9-11 commission because of new information? Puleeze! He was getting hammered in the polls so he gave in! Do you really think he WANTS to hear a commission report that might be damaging to him right before an election?

Bush flip flopped because of the polls over the Dept of Homeland Security. He was getting hammered over it, so he gave in.

I'm not trying to say Kerry has been consistent over time, but neither has Bush. And you need to admit that and get on to discussing real issues, not character assasination. Oh wait, if you talk issues your guy will get clobbered....

[blackfox]

macstatic is exactly right, is anyone so hopelessly naive as to think that modern-day politicians (regardless of party) do not all engage in the same type of tactics? In an age of spin and soundbites, every candidate follows the same playbook for campaigning...Why? Because those are the current rules of the game...do I like this? - NO. Do I accept this as fact? - Yes. Candidates of all stripes pay attention to polls, and as far as Kerry goes, his campaign thus far has been pretty subdued and reactive...and is spending alot of time dealing with the diversionary tactics of Bush and Co. It may be true that Kerry is trying to cater to the populace to get elected in November, but so is Bush...and they have both flip-flopped to get there. If you can remember all the way back to the 2000 campaign, do you remember Bush's Platform? Has much of it happened? The only thing Bush has been somewhat consistent on is the War effort, and it appears that that is a poor choice in itself...I am not necessarily a fan of consistency...for example, the movie Gigli was consistently crap...which still results in it being...crap.

[Neserk]

witnesses said they weren't in the thick of battle.
Nobody said you had to have a war record to be president even a draft dodger like Clinton can be president.


Don't you mean "Even a draft dodger like Bush?" Because last I checked he is the one in the whitehouse.


And if the Democrats have their way a liar who will lie to get your vote like Kerry.

Better a lying Kerry than a lying Bush!

[zimv20]

from what i can gather, for over a week sly's been posting nothing more than jingoistic pro-bush cheerleading and repeating the rove party line. i'm a little curious as to why anyone feels a need to respond to him.

[davecuse]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As far as I'm concerned the only reason we are in Iraq right now is because Hussein took a shot at Dubya's daddy. Our President is a poor loser, he cannot take defeat and does not drop a grudge easily (I'll look for the Time article where his friends have said this). The whole ploy that there were WMD's and all the references to 9-11 during his war speeches were all a smoke screen to accomplish his ultimate goal. Revenge.

Since when is a "Pre-emptive Strike" acceptable? Osama is the one who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11th, yet where is he? Doesn't it occur to anyone else that just maybe us going into Iraq is exactly the reason why people like Osama Bin Laden have come to exist???

[skunk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As far as I'm concerned the only reason we are in Iraq right now is because Hussein took a shot at Dubya's daddy. Our President is a poor loser, he cannot take defeat and does not drop a grudge easily (I'll look for the Time article where his friends have said this). The whole ploy that there were WMD's and all the references to 9-11 during his war speeches were all a smoke screen to accomplish his ultimate goal. Revenge.

Since when is a "Pre-emptive Strike" acceptable? Osama is the one who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11th, yet where is he? Doesn't it occur to anyone else that just maybe us going into Iraq is exactly the reason why people like Osama Bin Laden have come to exist???
Well, duh! :rolleyes: :D

[numediaman]

from what i can gather, for over a week sly's been posting nothing more than jingoistic pro-bush cheerleading and repeating the rove party line. i'm a little curious as to why anyone feels a need to respond to him.

I totally agree. I get caught responding to his stuff because it so outrageous. But it is counterproductive. Why waste energy on someone way to the right of . . . well, I won't go there.

[SlyHunter]

I totally agree. I get caught responding to his stuff because it so outrageous. But it is counterproductive. Why waste energy on someone way to the right of . . . well, I won't go there.
You think anyone who torture prisoners belong in jail. So do I.
John Kerry admitted in front of congress he tortured vietnamese.
John Kerry admitted in front of congress he committed war crimes.

Thus he doesn't have the right to condemn others who do the same. At least not until he's served some time for his own crimes.

[Sayhey]

I totally agree. I get caught responding to his stuff because it so outrageous. But it is counterproductive. Why waste energy on someone way to the right of . . . well, I won't go there.

I highly recommend the "ignore list." Slyhunter got me to use it for only the second time in the year I've been posting here. Lowers the blood pressure significantly.

[trebblekicked]

from what i can gather, for over a week sly's been posting nothing more than jingoistic pro-bush cheerleading and repeating the rove party line. i'm a little curious as to why anyone feels a need to respond to him.

it's the liberal nature. just trying to help the least among us. ;)

[pseudobrit]

it's the liberal nature. just trying to help the least among us. ;)

Even when they talk the most?

[SlyHunter]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America's employment outlook brightened on Thursday after the government said jobless claims dropped last week to their lowest since 2000, bolstering expectations for strong numbers in the April jobs report.

U.S. Treasury bond yields hit a two-year high on the unexpectedly rosy number and the dollar climbed 1 percent against the yen as markets bet heavily the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates this summer as the economy warms.

The picture of a better jobs climate was also backed by an unexpected increase in unit labor costs in the first quarter, alongside respectable productivity growth of 3.5 percent.

First-time claims for state unemployment benefits shrank 25,000 to 315,000 in the week ended May 1, the Labor Department said. It was the third straight week of declines.

Wall Street analysts had forecast a slight fall in claims to 335,000 from a revised 340,000 the previous week.

Grant Wilson, vice president of foreign exchange at Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, said the jobless numbers were a good omen on the eve of the April employment report.

"We weren't expecting anything as (good) as this. It bodes well for the unemployment number tomorrow," Wilson said.

April non-farm payrolls are set for release at 8:30 a.m. EDT (1230 GMT) on Friday and are forecast to show creation of 173,000 new jobs. That would be a marked moderation from March, when 308,000 were added, but still evidence that labor conditions are tightening.

Last week's jobless claims data will make no difference to the April report, which was drawn from a survey in the middle of last month. But the upbeat tone chimed with a broad sense that the outlook was bright.

WAGE PRESSURES?

"The abundance of risks to our forecast of an employment gain of 150,000 for April is to the upside," Bank of America economist Gary Bigg warned clients in a note.

In Thursday's data, in addition to lower initial claims the four-week moving average of insurance filings, which smooths weekly fluctuations to provide a better picture of trends, retreated by 3,750 to 343,250.

Also, the number of unemployed on the benefit rolls after claiming an initial week of aid dropped 69,000 to 2.935 million in the week ended April 24, the latest for which figures are available. This was the lowest since June 2001, in the middle of the recession, when 2.933 million people were drawing unemployment insurance.

The drop points in a positive direction for the jobs market since the number had been indicating that while layoffs had slowed, firms were not rushing to hire new workers and had been utilizing greater productivity to meet rising demand.

Labor said productivity rose again in the first quarter, increasing at a 3.5 percent annual rate, as expected. But unit labor costs turned 0.5 percent higher, defying market forecasts for costs to be flat.

"The rise in unit labor costs is not worrying, but it is the least good performance in a year, and the chances are that the next few quarters will see bigger increases," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, New York.

Powerful productivity growth has helped companies keep a lid on compensation costs but the pick-up in employment had been expected to signal the end of this cycle, and the Fed likely will take note of the uptick in costs.

The central bank is expected to hike interest rates for the first time in four years in the months ahead. However, after a regular meeting on Tuesday at which it left rates at a 1958-low of 1 percent, it announced it would be "measured" in removing policy accommodation.


http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|05-06-2004::14:05|reuters.html

For those who think the economy isn't going up. Why do you think Greenspan keeps threatening to raise the interest rates? Everytime he does that the stock prices drop and that for sure aint good for the economy. Be best to keep quiet and do it when it needs to be done without spending so much time threatening to do it. Unless that was the purpose of it?
[edit] fixed url link.

[davecuse]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|05-06-2004::14:05|reuters.html

For those who think the economy isn't going up. Why do you think Greenspan keeps threatening to raise the interest rates? Everytime he does that the stock prices drop and that for sure aint good for the economy. Be best to keep quiet and do it when it needs to be done without spending so much time threatening to do it. Unless that was the purpose of it?

I was surprised to read today that unemployment rates are the lowest since 2001, it certainly sounds promising. I think that the NYSE right now is more or less waiting out the storm, to see what will happen in November. There have been a ton of glowing reports from companies in the last quarter but the market hasn't responded at all. Hopefully a change in leadership will drive stock prices up, and minimize the uncertainty of war.

After I read that I also read that headline that Bush now has plans to spread propoganda in Cuba in order to expedite getting Castro out. Why? Why don't we just do our own thing for once?

[SlyHunter]

After I read that I also read that headline that Bush now has plans to spread propoganda in Cuba in order to expedite getting Castro out. Why? Why don't we just do our own thing for once?
Because some dips are out to save the world :(

[numediaman]

I was surprised to read today that unemployment rates are the lowest since 2001, it certainly sounds promising. I think that the NYSE right now is more or less waiting out the storm, to see what will happen in November. There have been a ton of glowing reports from companies in the last quarter but the market hasn't responded at all. Hopefully a change in leadership will drive stock prices up, and minimize the uncertainty of war.

If you judge the employment picture based on the "unemployment rate" you would get a false picture of the economy. For one thing, the current rate of 5.7% is actually pretty good. So why do a majority of people now think Bush is doing a poor job with the economy?

Latest Gallop Poll:
Overall, 41% of Americans approve and 56% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy -- the worst reading Gallup has measured in this Bush administration. In a late March 2004 poll, Gallup measured approval at 42%, identical to an Oct. 6-8, 2003, rating.

The reason is for these numbers are 1) the total number of unemployed is high; and 2) the jobs growth rate has been terrible.

1) Total unemployed: the number now stands at 8.4 million -- very high, and in direct contradiction to the "enemployment rate". Why? The unemployment rate does not take into consideration the following people: long term unemployed, part-time employed (in other words, if you once worked full time, but now work part time you are considered fully employed) and finally, discouraged workers.

2) Job growth: this chart says it all. While the jobs numbers have looked better, and I fully expect Friday's report to look good, the total job growth under this president is, well, historic.

[SlyHunter]

If you judge the employment picture based on the "unemployment rate" you would get a false picture of the economy. For one thing, the current rate of 5.7% is actually pretty good. So why do a majority of people now think Bush is doing a poor job with the economy?

Latest Gallop Poll:
Overall, 41% of Americans approve and 56% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy -- the worst reading Gallup has measured in this Bush administration. In a late March 2004 poll, Gallup measured approval at 42%, identical to an Oct. 6-8, 2003, rating.

The reason is for these numbers are 1) the total number of unemployed is high; and 2) the jobs growth rate has been terrible.

1) Total unemployed: the number now stands at 8.4 million -- very high, and in direct contradiction to the "enemployment rate". Why? The unemployment rate does not take into consideration the following people: long term unemployed, part-time employed (in other words, if you once worked full time, but now work part time you are considered fully employed) and finally, discouraged workers.

2) Job growth: this chart says it all. While the jobs numbers have looked better, and I fully expect Friday's report to look good, the total job growth under this president is, well, historic.
Same crap they said back in 1981.
Then why is it Greenspan is so worried about inflation.

[evil]

Because some dips are out to save the world :(


yes it is obvious, castro has ruined the world since he came to power.

bush please save it.

[Voltron]

I doubt very much the republicans will use this in their advertising however it may have cost Kerry some votes.

UNEMPLOYED? THE POODLE ISN'T YOUR FRIEND

The Senate voted today on a bill to extend unemployment benefits. The bill failed. It failed by one vote. John Kerry was that one vote ... but he wasn't there to vote. He was on the campaign trail.


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html [this addy is only good for today after that you need to check his archives for 5/12/04]

[Neserk]

I think you are missing the bigger picture. If it were not for Bush there would be no need... oh, and I thought economy was fine and everyone was working now...

[Voltron]

I think you are missing the bigger picture. If it were not for Bush there would be no need... oh, and I thought economy was fine and everyone was working now...
We could have the best economy in the world and still there would be people on unemployment. It is too easy sometimes to not look for work and simply sit at home and collect 3/4 of your old income tax free and wait till it runs out before bothering to look for work.

Economy is improving. There are jobs out there 10 bucks and up (plus the minimum wage crap) that are going unfilled right now. For Florida that is good money for someone without a college degree. Wages are going up and because of that stock is going down :( And Greenspan will probably raise interest rates next month to try to hold inflation down which in turn has already hurt the economy slightly.

[Voltron]

ASHINGTON — You can hardly blame the Democrats if they seem a bit confused. After all, as the situation in Iraq has worsened over the past six weeks and national polls have shown a steep decline in President Bush's job-approval ratings (some, including the latest CBS/New York Times survey, have him registering well below the 50 percent mark), John Kerry can't seem to pull ahead of the president the national horse-race polls.

Last week's Gallup, Fox News and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys — all taken well after the revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib — continued to show registered voters split about evenly between the president and the senator. New surveys by CNN/USA Today/Gallup and by my colleagues at the Pew Center did show the senator gaining a small lead, but that edge disappeared in the Gallup poll when the sampling was narrowed from registered voters to "likely" voters, and in the Pew poll when respondents were asked to also consider the candidacy of Ralph Nader.

Understandably, many Democrats have begun to despair — if Mr. Kerry can't gain ground when the president is in trouble, when can he? His defenders suggest that the evenly divided, highly polarized electorate is so dug in that neither candidate can break away. Others attribute Mr. Kerry's lack of progress to the multimillion-dollar Bush advertising blitz in swing states.


Lots more to this story at this site believe it or not NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12KOHU.html


The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger

Don't be thrown by this "opinion" I'm sure he's not psychic.

oh and this guy is deffinitely left-wing tilted. Not because of his story but the words he uses to describe the various factions and the voters.

Should the voters' disillusionment with the current President Bush continue, they will evaluate John Kerry and decide whether he is worth a chance. But, as in the past, the focus at this stage is on the man in the White House — and given the events in Iraq, it is unlikely to come off him any time soon. Mr. Kerry's lack of progress should not, for now, be cause for concern to Democrats. Public opinion about Mr. Bush is the far more important barometer — and if it remains low, Mr. Kerry will have a chance to make his case.

Disillusion voters uh yeah right he aint left leaning at all.

[mactastic]

Hey Sly, you do know the difference between opinion and news don't you? Cause you pulled this from the opinion page. I hope you're not using this as more 'evidence' of the liberal media?

'Cause if you are I can find you a story from the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal and then complain about it's authors obvious right-leaning stance.

[skunk]

Disillusion voters uh yeah right he aint left leaning at all.
The voters do seem to be losing their illusions about Bush, the War on Terror, the bringing of "Western Values" to the Iraqis and plenty more. I would call this "disillusionment".

[Thanatoast]

I would say that Kerry's not showing well because he's not very inspiring. He's a compromise candidate.

The more amazing story, I think, is that 47% still support Bush despite his rampant evilness.

On a related note, the percentage of people who disapprove of Bush's performance has gone up by 13 points since January. These are mostly independents who are basing their opinions on events, not ideology.

One thing I've heard is that while Kerry is pro-satus quo in Iraq, most Democrats are turning away from that position, and that Kerry may have to pull one of his famous "flip-flops". One I'm sure most of his support base would be perfectly okay with. :)

[IJ Reilly]

I would say that Kerry's not showing well because he's not very inspiring. He's a compromise candidate.

I think Kerry isn't even running yet. Remember the primaries? Everyone was counting him out, until he started winning. He's a veteran politician -- he knows that a presidential campaign is a marathon, not a sprint.

[blackfox]

I would say that Kerry's not showing well because he's not very inspiring. He's a compromise candidate.

The more amazing story, I think, is that 47% still support Bush despite his rampant evilness.

On a related note, the percentage of people who disapprove of Bush's performance has gone up by 13 points since January. These are mostly independents who are basing their opinions on events, not ideology.

One thing I've heard is that while Kerry is pro-satus quo in Iraq, most Democrats are turning away from that position, and that Kerry may have to pull one of his famous "flip-flops". One I'm sure most of his support base would be perfectly okay with. :)
I read an op-ed article in the NYT to do with Kerry/Bush support and why Kerry hasn't pulled ahead of Bush, despite Bush's continuing bungling...First, it states that polls are misleading, depending on the question(s) asked (obviously), but more importantly, that the voters spend there time first and foremost concentrating on the incumbant, to see if he is worth replacing (no snickering) and only after that decision to they turn to the challenger to see if he is worth the risk. They cited the numbers for the Carter/Reagan election and the Bush Sr/Clinton election and the poll numbers were neck-and-neck with advantages for the incumbant, until the final weeks...and we know how they turned out. With the Iraq situation, the torture pictures and the beheading, the Nation has good reason to be fixated on Bush, and we will probably not see Kerry making an impression until after the Debates begin, or at least until after the DNC...this is going to be an exciting election, there is alot on the line...

[Voltron]

Hey Sly, you do know the difference between opinion and news don't you? Cause you pulled this from the opinion page. I hope you're not using this as more 'evidence' of the liberal media?

'Cause if you are I can find you a story from the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal and then complain about it's authors obvious right-leaning stance.
Actually thats not the original reason I posted it. It was more of an after thought.

[Voltron]

I admit if this is how he wins the election its not good for our country.

DENVER — Catholics (search) who vote for politicians in favor of abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage may not receive Communion until they recant and repent in the confessional, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Colorado Springs said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119947,00.html

[davecuse]

The Catholic church continues to amaze me. Stem Cell research which could cure some horrible disease is so wrong that they feel the need to deny someone their religion, but molesting young boys... no problem.

[mactastic]

How about withholding communion from polititians who espouse pro-death-penalty views?

[numediaman]

Latest:

Police Union Endorses Kerry
Group Backed Bush in 2000

By Mike Glover
The Associated Press
Friday, May 14, 2004; 2:13 PM

Presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry on Friday collected the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, a police union that backed President Bush in the 2000 election.

"After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a president with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement," IBPO President David Holway said in a statement provided by the Kerry campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27280-2004May14.html

[mactastic]

Presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry on Friday collected the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, a police union that backed President Bush in the 2000 election.

Ouch... That's gotta sting. I imagine the firefighters union will go the same way too.

[Sayhey]

Ouch... That's gotta sting. I imagine the firefighters union will go the same way too.

If I recall, the Firefighters were among the earliest unions to endorse Kerry. They have been a prominent force within the Labor movement for Kerry, even when the "big boys" - SEIU, AFSCME etc. - were with Dean.

[pseudobrit]

How about withholding communion from polititians who espouse pro-death-penalty views?

There'd be no Catholic politicians practicing the faith. Politicians are rarely both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. They end up alienating the single issue voters who demand an anti-abortion candidate but don't want one who's "soft on crime" and lose the primary.

[skunk]

xThey end up alienating the single issue voters who demand an anti-abortion candidate but don't want one who's "soft on crime" and lose the primary.
I believe that by November there will be only a single issue.

[Voltron]

If I recall, the Firefighters were among the earliest unions to endorse Kerry. They have been a prominent force within the Labor movement for Kerry, even when the "big boys" - SEIU, AFSCME etc. - were with Dean.
What the union wants and what their members want isn't always the same thing.
http://www.firefightersforbush.com/

[Neserk]

If I recall, the Firefighters were among the earliest unions to endorse Kerry. They have been a prominent force within the Labor movement for Kerry, even when the "big boys" - SEIU, AFSCME etc. - were with Dean.
Yup. That is because Bush screwed them within 18 months of 9/11 with some law that doesn't allow people who make over 22 thousand a year to get overtime :roll:

[IJ Reilly]

I believe that by November there will be only a single issue.

That's easy for you to say. Or at least from your perspective, it might seem so, but never underestimate the ability of a well-oiled, professional political machine to distract the voters.

[numediaman]

Timken Layoffs Potentially Devastating For Canton
1,300 Jobs Predicted To Be Cut

POSTED: 10:30 am EDT May 16, 2004

CANTON, Ohio -- Timken is slashing a quarter of its employees in Canton, and as workers facing layoffs consider their future, the ripple effect is already beginning.

"How can I afford to get married, afford a house payment, maybe kids, if I don't have a job?" said Timken employee Shawn Higgins.

Timken is Canton's biggest employer, and it is reported that 1,300 jobs are to be cut. Former Mayor Richard Watkins, who led the city for 12 years, knows how enormous the impact of such a downsizing can be.

"It isn't just about Timken," said Watkins. "Other jobs are affected. If (people) can't spend money, the smaller entrepreneur won't be able to stay in business."

Ironically, it was a little more than a year ago when President George W. Bush visited Timken's world headquarters heralding his tax cut and job creation plan. Now this very company's job cuts will be a major blow to the economy in Canton.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3310895/detail.html

[Voltron]

Meanwhile Wal-mart reported today that this month their sales has gone up 6-7% from last year.

[Neserk]

Meanwhile Wal-mart reported today that this month their sales has gone up 6-7% from last year.

But what are they compared to 4 years ago? You can't compare Bush to Bush. You have to compare him to Clinton. That was the last time the economy was strong.

[Voltron]

But what are they compared to 4 years ago? You can't compare Bush to Bush. You have to compare him to Clinton. That was the last time the economy was strong.
You mean prior to 9/11?

[Neserk]

You mean prior to 9/11?


You really have to stop using 9/11 as an excuse. 9/11 did not cause the deficit, it did not ruin the stock market or the economy. By the time Georgie had been in office for 3 months it was damn near impossible to get a job at the lowliest of places (ie a Video Store) trust me, I tried.

[mactastic]

Meanwhile Wal-mart reported today that this month their sales has gone up 6-7% from last year.

Hmm, corporate profits up, job growth nil... sounds like the perfect right-wing recovery.

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm, corporate profits up, job growth nil... sounds like the perfect right-wing recovery.

What are you griping about? All of the leading Wal-Mart indicators are up, up, up!

[alexf]

Is is just me or is this country looking like Germany in 1933 more and more every day?

The parallels are truly chilling...

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Voltron
Meanwhile Wal-mart reported today that this month their sales has gone up 6-7% from last year.

Hmm, corporate profits up, job growth nil... sounds like the perfect right-wing recovery.
Who do you think is spending their money in Wal-mart, Donald Trump?

[davecuse]

Is is just me or is this country looking like Germany in 1933 more and more every day?

The parallels are truly chilling...

That's a pretty bold statement, do you mind explaining those parallels. I have to admit that I don't really see any similarities jumping out at me. Please ellaborate.

[mactastic]

Who do you think is spending their money in Wal-mart, Donald Trump?

You know there are more ways than increased sales (which for Walmart are up, but not even to the level they were a year ago when the recovery was softer) to increase profit? Holding wages down is an excellent way to boost the bottom line.

I don't disagree that people are spending money, but you can't equate corporate profits with anything good happening for the little guy. Yes, there is a relationship, but it's not a direct one.

[alexf]

That's a pretty bold statement, do you mind explaining those parallels. I have to admit that I don't really see any similarities jumping out at me. Please ellaborate.

Well, to start with, the fear tactics being used by the administration in order to carry out their agenda are essentially the same as those used by Hitler (and essentially instrumented by Goebbels) immediately after he was elected. Of course, for Hitler the scapegoat was the communists (and later the Jews), and they worked very hard to make sure that the public was scared to death of a communist revolution rattling the country (hence after the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 - blamed on the communists - Hitler's popularity dramatically rose overnight).

Over a period of four years, Hitler and his "administration" worked on (meaning brainwashed) the public enough for them to finally support going to war. In a similar way, the Bush administration (who, frankly speaking, have shown just about as much contempt for democracy as Hitler) had an agenda to go to war with Iraq as soon as they took power.

First they tried to link Iraq with Al-Quaida; when that didn't work, they tried to convince the public that Iraq was producing WMD; when that didn't work, they tried to justify the war by touting it as a "humanitarian" deed ("removing a monstrous dictactor"). Now that the world knows that Americans have been involved in horrible human rights abuses and murders in Iraq, what will they think up next to justify this senseless war? Anyone want to guess?

The Bush administration and other figures in history are very well aware that the best way to keep power when they are in danger is to create an atmosphere of total fear and insecurity among the public. Most historians would agree that this was how Hitler managed to get to where he got and do what he did. And this is exactly what is going on in this country today. Since 9/11, the amount of fear-invoking propaganda saturating this country is mind-blowing. Perhaps I am more accutely aware of it because I spend a good part of every year overseas and also read the news from many different countries...

This is only parallel #1. Because this message is growing to monstrous proportions, I will stop here and be happy to give you more parallels upon request.

[Voltron]

Only one problem Hitler was using imaginary fears and we really did have airplanes crash into the WTC. And we really do have terrorists who want to blow things up over here.

[davecuse]

Only one problem Hitler was using imaginary fears and we really did have airplanes crash into the WTC. And we really do have terrorists who want to blow things up over here.

There's one huge hole in your argument, Al-Quaeda crashed airplanes into the WTC not Iraquis. Linking the two together would be like some other country saying, hey there are rebels in Columbia selling drugs the American's must be behind it. There is no justification for this war, no reason behind why we are there, just thinly veiled lied to push Dubyas original intent, to get that man who tried to kill his daddy.

[Voltron]

There's one huge hole in your argument, Al-Quaeda crashed airplanes into the WTC not Iraquis. Linking the two together would be like some other country saying, hey there are rebels in Columbia selling drugs the American's must be behind it. There is no justification for this war, no reason behind why we are there, just thinly veiled lied to push Dubyas original intent, to get that man who tried to kill his daddy.
Saddam refused to honor his surrender agreement the penalty of which is resumption of the Gulf War because it ended with a faulty or defaulted peace agreement. Thats the only justification needed.

[skunk]

Saddam refused to honor his surrender agreement the penalty of which is resumption of the Gulf War because it ended with a faulty or defaulted peace agreement. Thats the only justification needed.
That's not what the UN thought, and the peace agreement was with the UN. The US and UK were theoretically acting under their auspices until they jumped the gun.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Voltron
Saddam refused to honor his surrender agreement the penalty of which is resumption of the Gulf War because it ended with a faulty or defaulted peace agreement. Thats the only justification needed.

That's not what the UN thought, and the peace agreement was with the UN. The US and UK were theoretically acting under their auspices until they jumped the gun.
waiting 12 years is jumping the gun?

BTW at first it was only the France veto that kept us from going in. And now we are learning that those who were against going in after Iraq was against it not for humanitarin reasons but because they would lose out on illegal oil deals made with Saddam.

[skunk]

waiting 12 years is jumping the gun?

BTW at first it was only the France veto that kept us from going in. And now we are learning that those who were against going in after Iraq was against it not for humanitarin reasons but because they would lose out on illegal oil deals made with Saddam.
That may or may not be true. What you conveniently forget is that the Powell UN "presentation" was - as he himself now admits - complete BS. Without this BS, there would probably have been more vetoes. Next time US intel is used to try to persuade reluctant allies, it's much less likely anyone will pay any attention.

The whole misadventure was conceived in prejudice, incompetently argued, poorly planned and carelessly executed. You thought you could take over a country of 23 million on the cheap, using reservists and private contractors. Well, big surprise! It's been a total cock-up. The saddest part is that if the diplomacy had not been carried out with such contempt, if the planning had allocated proper resources to the job, if someone - ANYONE - had bothered to work out an agenda for maintaining proper civil order, if all the experienced and skilled Iraqis, military and civilian, had not been thrown out of their jobs, disaster might have been averted.

This lot couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery, as we say in England.

[mactastic]

Saddam refused to honor his surrender agreement the penalty of which is resumption of the Gulf War because it ended with a faulty or defaulted peace agreement. Thats the only justification needed.

Hey, will you go find the text of the surrender agreement? I'm very curious as to what it says. Try not to pull it from Boortz though.

[Voltron]

Hey, will you go find the text of the surrender agreement? I'm very curious as to what it says. Try not to pull it from Boortz though.
If your curious as to what it says then you should do your own research.

[mactastic]

If your curious as to what it says then you should do your own research.

Ok, I figured since you were using that as the crux of your defense of our invasion that you *might* have read it. Guess I was wrong, and you got that from Boortz too....

So when you talk about a 'surrender agreement' are you refering to UNSCR 687?

[zimv20]

Ok, I figured since you were using that as the crux of your defense of our invasion that you *might* have read it. Guess I was wrong, and you got that from Boortz too....

one may try to get sly to deviate from his script, but one is likely to fail. maybe he'll post another quote from some random guy at the fantasy football league boards.

[alexf]

waiting 12 years is jumping the gun?

BTW at first it was only the France veto that kept us from going in. And now we are learning that those who were against going in after Iraq was against it not for humanitarin reasons but because they would lose out on illegal oil deals made with Saddam.

Voltron,

I would like you to explain to me how you believe Saddam Hussein was enough of a threat to world peace as to justify the loss and destruction of countless lives, both on the Iraqi and the American side.

It is easy for you to sit at the comfort of your Mac and talk about how such a war is justified, but if you were a soldier watching his friends being blown up or an Iraqi witnessing his family accidently being killed by American bombs (happened quite a bit) I have a suspicion you may feel differently. Please do wake up and face the facts: this a war that was personally motivated by Bush... Remember that comment that slipped out of his mouth about 2 years ago in Texas, referring to Saddam: "After all, this is the man who tried to kill my dad." Does this not tell you something, or have you not been paying attention? Do you really belief that this is a good enough reason to throw away billions upon billions of dollars, sacrifice many lives, and endanger Americans for years to come?

The US has proven to the world that it is arrogant beyond belief, blatantly shunting the UN and doing whatever it wants regardless of international (or national, for that matter) opinion. And unfortunately it will pay dearly for it in the years to come; this is a fact.

Bush has damaged America on the national and international level to such an extent that I fear it will take generations before such damage can be undone.

I am hoping to hear your response to my questions, since I am truly curious as to how you can hold such beliefs.

[Voltron]

Saddam was playing games moving vehicles from facilities prior to UN visits for a reason. Either that reason was to hide WMD's or it was to convince othe countries that he was hiding WMD's from us and pulling a fast one.
Saddam has already proved he was more than willing to use them.
Saddam has already proved he wanted to add more territory to his regime.
Saddam has voice his anger towards Israel our ally over there.
Saddam was flaunting the fact that he wasn't abiding by his surrender agreement.
All of these are factors that we couldn't just ignore. Nothing else worked. 12 years of trying to find a solution that didn't require war failled. Letting it drag on was costing us Credibility and also bringing us closer to the point where Saddam may become too powerful to go to war with. Thus we didn't have a choice in the matter. True we should've used more might and struck harder so as to insure those like Al Sadr would either be dead or too cowed to play their games.
We did it to protect ourselves.
We did it to protect our allies.
We did it to protect the viability of treaties with other nations. If we are not willing to enforce such treaties by force why would anyone be willing to actually stick by some of these treaties.
There are a multitude of reasons for going to war against Iraq.

[skunk]

Saddam was playing games moving vehicles from facilities prior to UN visits for a reason. Either that reason was to hide WMD's or it was to convince othe countries that he was hiding WMD's from us and pulling a fast one.
Saddam has already proved he was more than willing to use them.
Saddam has already proved he wanted to add more territory to his regime.
Saddam has voice his anger towards Israel our ally over there.
Saddam was flaunting the fact that he wasn't abiding by his surrender agreement.
All of these are factors that we couldn't just ignore. Nothing else worked. 12 years of trying to find a solution that didn't require war failled. Letting it drag on was costing us Credibility and also bringing us closer to the point where Saddam may become too powerful to go to war with. Thus we didn't have a choice in the matter. True we should've used more might and struck harder so as to insure those like Al Sadr would either be dead or too cowed to play their games.
We did it to protect ourselves.
We did it to protect our allies.
We did it to protect the viability of treaties with other nations. If we are not willing to enforce such treaties by force why would anyone be willing to actually stick by some of these treaties.
There are a multitude of reasons for going to war against Iraq.
Given a competent effort at diplomacy, any one of these might have done the trick, but NONE OF THOSE REASONS WAS USED! The reason actually used was a lie "based on misleading intelligence" (Colin Powell, 2004)

[mactastic]

Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam had gotten stronger militarily between 1991 and 2003? 'Cause I got news for you, he was considerably weaker this time around. Also, you aren't seriously suggesting that anything short of a nu-cu-lar weapon would have made Saddam a threat to America are you? Because most military types will tell you that a chem/bio weapon is a tactical weapon as opposed to a nuclear weapon being a strategic weapon capable of threatening our country.

Also your assertion that Saddam was violating his surrender agreement is seriously flawed. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq, and they were reporting the same thing the Bush administration has been forced to admit; namely that there were no active WMD programs and no evidence of banned weapons. All we've found so far is a centrifuge that has been buried since 1991, some chemicals that may or may not have been intended for weapons production (and no proof that they were), and a chemical munitions round that no one is sure where it came from.

Plus that 'surrender agreement' you keep talking about was a UN resolution, which should make it irrelevant. Or is the UN only irrelevant when they disagree with you?

[IJ Reilly]

I like the pretzel logic of our "doing it for our allies." It only works if you accept the brave, new definition of "allies" as "those who do whatever the US tells them to do."

[Voltron]

Are you seriously suggesting that Saddam had gotten stronger militarily between 1991 and 2003? 'Cause I got news for you, he was considerably weaker this time around. Also, you aren't seriously suggesting that anything short of a nu-cu-lar weapon would have made Saddam a threat to America are you? Because most military types will tell you that a chem/bio weapon is a tactical weapon as opposed to a nuclear weapon being a strategic weapon capable of threatening our country.

Also your assertion that Saddam was violating his surrender agreement is seriously flawed. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq, and they were reporting the same thing the Bush administration has been forced to admit; namely that there were no active WMD programs and no evidence of banned weapons. All we've found so far is a centrifuge that has been buried since 1991, some chemicals that may or may not have been intended for weapons production (and no proof that they were), and a chemical munitions round that no one is sure where it came from.

Plus that 'surrender agreement' you keep talking about was a UN resolution, which should make it irrelevant. Or is the UN only irrelevant when they disagree with you?
If he was abiding by the surrender agreement he should've driven the UN inspectors the the WMD's or the destroyed WMD's. You cannot completly destroy anything there is always some evidence left behind. All you can do is bury it. So all he had to do was dig it up problem solved, and it would've sufficed for him abiding by the surrender agreement.

[Voltron]

I like the pretzel logic of our "doing it for our allies." It only works if you accept the brave, new definition of "allies" as "those who do whatever the US tells them to do."
France is as much our ally now as they were to Czechovakia right before WWII. There is much more to being an ally then simply saying you are. Either we are together one team united or we are not.

[mactastic]

If he was abiding by the surrender agreement he should've driven the UN inspectors the the WMD's or the destroyed WMD's. You cannot completly destroy anything there is always some evidence left behind. All you can do is bury it. So all he had to do was dig it up problem solved, and it would've sufficed for him abiding by the surrender agreement.

There were sites where UN officials determined that WMDs had been destroyed, but because of the methods the quantities were unverifiable. The Bush administration used that as more evidence that Saddam was hiding something.

Try again.

[skunk]

There is much more to being an ally then simply saying you are. Either we are together one team united or we are not.
But you dictate the terms, right?

[alexf]

Saddam was playing games moving vehicles from facilities prior to UN visits for a reason. Either that reason was to hide WMD's or it was to convince othe countries that he was hiding WMD's from us and pulling a fast one.
Saddam has already proved he was more than willing to use them.
Saddam has already proved he wanted to add more territory to his regime.
Saddam has voice his anger towards Israel our ally over there.
Saddam was flaunting the fact that he wasn't abiding by his surrender agreement.
All of these are factors that we couldn't just ignore. Nothing else worked. 12 years of trying to find a solution that didn't require war failled. Letting it drag on was costing us Credibility and also bringing us closer to the point where Saddam may become too powerful to go to war with. Thus we didn't have a choice in the matter. True we should've used more might and struck harder so as to insure those like Al Sadr would either be dead or too cowed to play their games.
We did it to protect ourselves.
We did it to protect our allies.
We did it to protect the viability of treaties with other nations. If we are not willing to enforce such treaties by force why would anyone be willing to actually stick by some of these treaties.
There are a multitude of reasons for going to war against Iraq.

Are you telling me that you HONESTLY believe that the Bush administration believed that Saddam had WMD? With all due respect, my friend, it seems that you have not been paying attention. It should be obvious at this point that they knew all along that they wouldn't find any WMD; this was totally fabricated. Even some Republicans are accusing Bush of knowing this.

Treaties with other nations? I assume you must be joking. Bush and his actions have shown so much contempt for diplomacy that when you bring the word "treaties" into the argument it almost discredits everything else you say.

[IJ Reilly]

But you dictate the terms, right?

The problem with this reasoning goes even deeper. Allies are, by definition, "an alliance of nations joining together to fight a common enemy." You cannot, again by definition, be protecting your allies from a common enemy when that enemy is not recognized, in common, as an enemy.

[numediaman]

Kerry: I'll Lure Those Who Support Nader


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 19, 2004
Filed at 3:19 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat John Kerry said Wednesday he believes his candidacy will attract Ralph Nader supporters and ``reduce any rationale'' for the independent's candidacy as the two men prepared to meet.

In an interview with reporters and editors of The Associated Press, Kerry said he would never ask another candidate to bow out of the race. Several Democrats have urged Nader to abandon his bid, convinced that his run in 2000 cost Democrat Al Gore the presidency.

``I have never suggested that any candidate get out or get in or behave in any particular way,'' Kerry told the AP, shortly before his one-on-one session with Nader at Kerry campaign headquarters.

Instead, the Democrat said he would court voters inclined to support Nader.

``It's my intention to speak very directly to those people who voted for Ralph Nader last time,'' Kerry said. ``I believe my campaign can appeal to them and frankly reduce any rationale for his candidacy.''

One of his arguments, Kerry said, is that Nader's presence on the ballot makes it more likely that Bush will be re-elected.

``In the end, I hope I can make people aware that a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush,'' Kerry said. ``A vote for John Kerry is a vote for the principles and values they care about.''

Meeting with Nader, Kerry probably will point out that the two rivals share a goal -- ousting President Bush -- and contend that a joint effort is the best way to achieve it, aides to the Massachusetts senator said. Nader told The Associated Press that he looks forward to discussing ``certain common policies'' with Kerry.

``I think that's for the good of our country and for the benefit of the American people that are being ignored or repudiated by the Bush regime,'' Nader said in an interview.

Still, Kerry aides hope Nader eventually comes around to Kerry's view -- if not after the meeting, then following what senior Democrats say will be a weeks-long campaign by party operatives to pressure Nader publicly and privately. That effort, being formulated by Democrats not aligned with the Kerry campaign, may include television commercials and challenging Nader's efforts to get on state ballots, the Democrats said on condition of anonymity.

The national Reform Party endorsed Nader last week, a move that gives him access to the ballot in at least seven states, including the battlegrounds of Florida and Michigan.

Emerging as an issue between the two campaigns is the war in Iraq. Nader is seeking to rally anti-war sentiment.

``You can't have a discussion without talking about the war in Iraq,'' said Nader. He has been critical of Bush and Kerry for not outlining a plan to withdraw U.S. troops.

Kerry has been campaigning with former rival Howard Dean, who made opposition to the war central to his campaign. Dean has warned that a vote for Nader only helps Bush.

While Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he has been critical of Bush's prosecution of the war.

While Nader and Kerry camps have been seeking the meeting for some time, it developed quickly and top Kerry aides were meeting deep into the night Tuesday and early Wednesday to map their strategy, said officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

The relationship between the two camps is delicate, with some fearing heavy pressure to exit could stiffen Nader to stay in the race.

Kerry's advisers argue that the liberal Nader drains votes mainly from Democrats and could end up tipping the balance to Bush.

Many Democrats argue that Nader cost Gore the White House in 2000, draining just enough votes from Gore to give Bush the closest president election in history. Nader dismisses that suggestion, saying Gore was a poor candidate.

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Nader.html

[alexf]

The problem with this reasoning goes even deeper. Allies are, by definition, "an alliance of nations joining together to fight a common enemy." You cannot, again by definition, be protecting your allies from a common enemy when that enemy is not recognized, in common, as an enemy.

Well put, IJ Reilly.

[skunk]

The problem with this reasoning goes even deeper. Allies are, by definition, "an alliance of nations joining together to fight a common enemy." You cannot, again by definition, be protecting your allies from a common enemy when that enemy is not recognized, in common, as an enemy.
Oh, but you CAN if you know what is in their interests better than they do themselves. The common enemy is there all right, but only the US and the UK and a few other sad countries can see it. I'm sure all those "allies" are immensely grateful.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, but you CAN if you know what is in their interests better than they do themselves.

Spoken like somebody who knows. You wouldn't be married, would you? :)

BTW, I now officially have only two degrees of separation from John Kerry, because I've met Ralph Nader.

[Neserk]

BTW, I now officially have only two degrees of separation from John Kerry, because I've met Ralph Nader.

I met Gore!

[skunk]

Spoken like somebody who knows. You wouldn't be married, would you? :)
:rolleyes:
26 years! :D

[IIvan]

:rolleyes:
26 years! :D

Wow- we sure do seem to have a lot of wisened old types here bouts... 'Rat is what- 70? and how bout you Zim?

I digress. Do you think Nader should drop out? I think maybe this time he should call it quits- or maybe he could be Kerry's running mate? (ice cube in hell...) Everyone on the left is so totally anti-Bush that they really ought to forget their differences and fight the man. Normally, this would seem wrong, but I think this may be a warranted occasion.

[zimv20]

and how bout you Zim?

eek! i'm in my 30s! how old do i seem?

[skunk]

eek! i'm in my 30s! how old do i seem?
It's only your great wisdom which makes you seem so ancient.

[zimv20]

It's only your great wisdom which makes you seem so ancient.
hmmmmmmmm

[blackfox]

It's only your great wisdom which makes you seem so ancient.
by applying that logic, I must seem around 14...and Sly...well...

[skunk]

by applying that logic, I must seem around 14...and Sly...well...
Not even a twinkle... :rolleyes: :D