Why don't we like John Kerry?
!social
MoveOn's Democratic primary. I'm beginning to think that only Kerry
can successfully compete against Bush in 2004. Kerry is a Vietnam war
hero with two Purple Hearts, and he would make Bush appear like the
coward that he is. The Democrats will throw Bush's AWOL status right
in his face. It would finally become the serious campaign issue that
it could have been in 2000, hadn't Clinton also been a draft-dodger.
Plus, Kerry is a tireless champion of veterans rights and benefits,
while Bush certainly isn't. Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
"SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!" Not only would that slogan kick
serious ass, but it would also provide the Left with a great amount of
satisfaction after having successfully appropriated it from the Right
and used it against them. Oh, the irony would be so beautiful!
Kerry is also handsome, very articulate, and a complete gentleman.
This would be sharply contrasted against Bush's 'chimp-esque'
appearance and idiot manner. Because of this, Kerry can be expected to
carry the female vote. Also, Kerry reminds me of Kennedy for some
reason.
In post-911 America, it seems John Kerry and General Wesley Clark, the
Supreme Allied Commander of Desert Storm who recently hinted at a
possible run for President against Bush, would be the Democrat's 2004
Dream Team. They could bury Bush. Such a team would effectively
neutralize the cornerstone of Bush and Rove's 2004 campaign strategy
-- which is to make the public feel safe from terrorism under Bush,
and make them think that the Democrats would be 'soft on terrorism'.
But why don't we like Kerry? He's not far to the right as Lieberman
is. I don't even think he's a centrist(?). In fact, he even supports
issues which centrists typically stay clear of, such as medical
marijuana and state funded abortion.
It seems the two canditates most favored by the progressives -- Dean
and Kucinich -- are merely reflections of our own emotions and
frustration with the mainstream.
About Dean: he's not even liberal! He's against gun-control (of any
kind!), against medical marijuana, iffy on environmental causes, and
iffy on capital punishment. He's also impulsive, stand-offish, and a
trial lawyer. The public hates lawyers. He will look like a cocky,
arrogant asshole when sharply contrasted by Bush's down-home, folky,
harmless-idiot image. He cannot beat Bush in 2004. He will be
slaughtered.
The only thing going for Dean is his fierce criticism of the Iraq war.
On this issue he has come forward as the Left's leading candidate. On
this issue, he has unintentionally used our anger to no end. He is an
accidental demagogue, rising to power on the anger of his supporters.
If we continue to allow him to operate on our anger and frustration,
he will suck us into a bottomless void in which Bush is guaranteed to
emerge victorious. The Left should know better than to allow our more
primitive emotions to dominate judgement. That's what seperates us
from the Right. The fact that the Left would support this guy even
though he's not progressive just proves how blinded by anger we are.
(Interestingly enough, it is the media who perpetuates the purely
mythical notion of Dean's 'liberalness'.)
While Dean is the political manifestation of the Left's collective
anger, Kucinich reflects our irrational and unrealistic optimism.
Kucinich's new-age presence would alienate mainstream voters. The
public won't elect someone like Kucinich for at least another 20
years. You may as well put your support behind an alien from another
planet. He is the political equivalent of Timothy Leary. Not only
that, but his pro-choice stance doesn't seem sincere. Just last year
he voted 100% against abortion. Plus, he doesn't exactly have good
credentials. Author Melvin G. Holli conducted a poll of municipal
historians for his purely bipartisan 1993 book, "The American Mayor",
and found Kucinich to be rated the seventh-worst mayor in American
history. Whether or not that claim has any merit is not important, it
will nevertheless cause great damage next year if he were the DNC's
candidate. He cannot beat Bush in 2004. Maybe in 2024, but not next
year. And even though he'd likely be my pick as president, the public
isn't ready to accept him. We haven't come that far yet. Progress
occurs slowly. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We don't want to take
so big a step that we break our leg.
I think we should give up on these two candidates. How anyone could
possibly even think about putting either one of them up against Bush
given the media's current political alignment is beyond me. The media
will devour them daily. You just watch.
Not only would Dean and Kucinich be destroyed by the media, but they
will also alienate swing voters. They only appeal to the Left's
emotions. One to our hope, the other to our anger. Neither emotion
applies to the mainstream. Any effort currently being put behind
either one is being wasted. That money you donated to their campaign?
Gone.
We need to focus on getting someone realistic in front of Bush. We
need to focus on supporting someone who doesn't just reflect our
emotions and opinions, but that of the mainstream as well. That's why
I'm asking why we don't like Kerry. He seems like the ideal
compromise. The people will love him.
TellTheTruth
Not many people, except die-hard Democrats, like War Criminals.
"!social" <brain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce359d41.03070...@posting.google.com...
Gene
news:ce359d41.03070...@posting.google.com:
I think Kerry's support of NAFTA and the loss of jobs it has created
makes him seem more like a globalist. The rightwing has taken a lot of
labor votes away from the democrats because of their view that they own
the labor vote and don't need to address labor's issues. Many workers pay
their union dues and vote for a republican. Some of their issues that are
not supported by current democrats are:
1. Ending NAFTA and stop loss of jobs overseas.
2. Stop legalization of Gay marriages and affirmative action.
3. Stop ILLEGAL immigration and end benefits to them.
Job loss, Gay rights, and illegal immagration are not popular with the
common man.
The democratic party since the 70's has deserted the common man and
instead decided to focus on the uncommon. As a democrat, I see this as
the single most important factor for the loss of the south and many labor
votes throughout the country. They could regain their support but they
won't. It will probably result in their loss in 2004.
The democrats have consistantly tried to make the words EQUAl and SAME
have the same meaning. In many cases they persist in adding qualifiers to
the Phrase 'All men are created equal' much like the republicans.
In this country The list of diversive qualifiers continues to grow,
when in reality they all should be eliminated. The result has been the
end of the 'Melting Pot' and the rise of interest groups and their
lobbies. Even worse it has divided us all into angry camps willing to
divide the party and insure it's failure. Current qualifiers include
race, sex, religion, wealth, language, weight, and age.
I believe most if not all Americans are more than willing to give any
American the rights of the majority But are not willing to allow any
group be more than equal.
Should liberals give up their goals? No, they should instead
concentrate on fulfilling Jeffersons words and realize that the plight of
the minorities can best be eliminated through education and jobs. The
democratic party needs to become, once again, the party of the comman
man.
Eugene Kent
You neo-con fundys get wackier and wackier.
"TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Eugene Kent
After having been involved in countless voter registrations I find that the
more opinionated a person is the less that person takes the effort to either
register or vote. Have you ever voted in a primary? If you have never than
all your rhetoric is nothing but hot air.
"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AFCBB3DA...@216.168.3.44...
Gene
news:3f076cfb$0$49008$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net:
> Buddy I suggest that you begin to vote and express your opinions less.
> After having been involved in countless voter registrations I find
> that the more opinionated a person is the less that person takes the
> effort to either register or vote. Have you ever voted in a primary?
> If you have never than all your rhetoric is nothing but hot air.
>
Right now I see no one to vote for. There are just a bunch of guys with
their own narrow agenda's. As for voting or not voting and it's effect on
free speech. First, there is no connection and second, who I vote for, when
I choose to vote or choose to not vote, is not your concern - It's why we
have screens around polling booths. Quit looking over my shoulder and
address the issues I raised. Answering a question with a question or a
accusation may work on some, but not me. It appears as if you have a
problem with the thoughts expressed and have no defense for or against
them. Perhaps you are a member of one of the small groups with an agenda
and don't wish prove my point by speaking out. Either way, to be afraid of
ideas is not democratic or liberal.
HaL0bender
or Clark are the only ones who can remove the virus from the White House.
I'm afraid Dean will be another Mondale or Dukakis. Kerry/Clark would be
the preferred choice.
"!social" <brain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce359d41.03070...@posting.google.com...
Eugene Kent
In the 2002 primary less than 15% of the electorate even bothered to turn up
at the polls. Which when broken down to percentages means that less than 7 %
in either party gave a opinion who they preferred to run.
And in the regular election less than 40% turned out. Meaning that less than
25% of the general population elected those lackys that call themselves
politicians.
The only agenda I have is "I AM A DEMOCRAT" And proud of it.
Elections take on their own lives. And believe me the 2004 election will be
like an election never seen before.
It will be fought between Republicans and big money and the Middle Class and
their computers.
You fundys will bombard the TV's with your rant and we will fight you on the
net.
"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93AFD52BDF...@216.168.3.44...
Thumper
>"Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in
>news:3f076cfb$0$49008$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net:
>
>> Buddy I suggest that you begin to vote and express your opinions less.
>> After having been involved in countless voter registrations I find
>> that the more opinionated a person is the less that person takes the
>> effort to either register or vote. Have you ever voted in a primary?
>> If you have never than all your rhetoric is nothing but hot air.
>>
>Right now I see no one to vote for.
Then shut up. There is ALWAYS someone to vote for.
Thumper
Thumper
<hal0_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Impulsively I supported Dean at first but am beginning to realize that Kerry
>or Clark are the only ones who can remove the virus from the White House.
>I'm afraid Dean will be another Mondale or Dukakis. Kerry/Clark would be
>the preferred choice.
>
I agree with your assessment of Dean. We have to vote with their
minds and not their hearts. Any progressive that votes green is
helping Bush get re-elected. It's time for them to get their heads
out of the clouds and help defeat Bush.
Thumper
Gene
You idiot, I am a liberal democrat who's primary concern to oust Bush
will mean I will vote for a democrat. My concern is the loss of labor in
droves to the right. Of course any man that works for a living and votes
republican is a fool. We need to focus on speaking to their issues
besides being for the small vocal groups with agendas that do not reflect
the opinions of the majority of democrats. It's time for the party of
Jefferson to be more Jeffersonian. You want voters to vote? They need to
have their issues engaged, not just the 4% of gays and 12% of blacks. 16%
won't elect a president. Labor and women issues are not being addressed
enough. The democrats will never regain the majority with their present
focus on small groups. We need a unifier like Kennedy.
John Smith
> kind!), against medical marijuana, iffy on environmental causes, and
> iffy on capital punishment. He's also impulsive, stand-offish, and a
Thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant and inattentive one must be to
drink the Kool-Aid and come out as an actual leftist. Dean is a PHYSICIAN.
_Edwards_ is a trial lawyer. Same crypto-socialist party, different
professions. Maybe you should quit posting (and, for God's sake, voting) and
just read "Das Kapital" over and over until Lenin rises from his tomb.
stevehoran
> kind!), against medical marijuana, iffy on environmental causes, and
> iffy on capital punishment. He's also impulsive, stand-offish, and a
> trial lawyer. The public hates lawyers. He will look like a cocky,
> arrogant asshole when sharply contrasted by Bush's down-home, folky,
> harmless-idiot image. He cannot beat Bush in 2004. He will be
> slaughtered.
>
Bullshit. Dean will not only get the nomination but he
will also beat Bush in '04, easily. One of the main reasons
that Dean is attractive is that he's not politically chickenshit.
Tim Russert attempted to sandbag him on Meet The Press
with off the wall questions but it only backfired. Dean doesn't
cower to the media, he dismissed Russert's questions as
"silly" and he was right to do so.
Try telling the unemployed that Bush is a "harmless-idiot".
Rich Travsky
>
> Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
Cite required for John Kerry...
John Slade
"TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Not many people, except die-hard Democrats, like War Criminals.
>
Please provide proof that John Kerry is a war criminal. I've heard these
charges made against Bob Kerry but not John Kerry. Please do as your name
suggests.
John
John Slade
> MoveOn's Democratic primary. I'm beginning to think that only Kerry
> can successfully compete against Bush in 2004. Kerry is a Vietnam war
> hero with two Purple Hearts, and he would make Bush appear like the
> coward that he is. The Democrats will throw Bush's AWOL status right
> in his face. It would finally become the serious campaign issue that
> it could have been in 2000, hadn't Clinton also been a draft-dodger.
Well they put out that Clinton was a draft dodger and a hippie and
Clinton really didn't deny it. He came out opposed to the Viet Nam war.
Clinton was pardoned for draft dodging when Jimmy Carter pardoned all Veit
Nam draft dodgers. It wasn't a declared war so the draft was illegal. Bush
has two problems, he was actually in the military and he went AWOL this is
illegal even if there is not declared war. If Bush admits he used the
National Guard to dodge the draft, it will sink his credibility among
average Americans and the military. AWOL is a felony and should have
prevented Bush from running the first time. However you've seen interviewers
and the press run from this issue. They went back to drunk driving but never
to AWOL. The FBI was supposed to look over Bush's military record and
investigate anything untoward in those records. How the FBI missed this is
incredible. It should have been in the security check the FBI did but we
heard nothing of it. This is really a big coverup. There is no statute of
limitation on AWOL and Bush could still be prosecuted for it.
It would really sink Bush if a war hero like Kerry asked Bush the direct
question, "Did you at any time go AWOL during your military service with the
National Guard?" Bush would have to answer or risk looking like a fool.
>
> Plus, Kerry is a tireless champion of veterans rights and benefits,
> while Bush certainly isn't. Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
> "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!" Not only would that slogan kick
> serious ass, but it would also provide the Left with a great amount of
> satisfaction after having successfully appropriated it from the Right
> and used it against them. Oh, the irony would be so beautiful!
>
Kerry would have the support of many troops being a combat vet from Viet
Nam. Kerry will probably win out over Dean. Dean is a great guy and all but
he may not be able to beat Bush as bad as Kerry would. I think anyone who
gets the nomination will win but I want to have the best chance of that.
To get Bush on the AWOL charge could involve many people requesting his
records be exposed by use of the Freedom of Information Act and the use of
massive questioning of the FBI regarding the security investigation done on
Bush in 2000. AWOL will come up, Gore was too "classy" to really hit home on
the issue in 2000, let's hope the next guy really digs into Bush's ass on
this one.
John
Gene
news:14uegv8vmqotro6a6...@4ax.com:
Obtuse. Thumper, is that your wife's pet name for you or a discription of
the sound your head makes when nodding? I'm glad you were able to figure
out the first line, perhaps more 'Hooked on Phonics' courses will enable
you to finish the first paragraph. This is either a rightwing thread
masking themselves as democrats or the dumbest and most inconsiderate
liberals I've ever run across. I suspect the first, I surely hope it
isn't the second.
John Slade
I'll give you a reason to vote for a Democrat over a republican. There
is a big myth floating around. That myth is called supply side economics or
the "trickle down theory". This system says that if massive tax cuts are
given to the top income brackets, the people who own factories will build
more because of the tax cuts. This is a myth. Nobody is going to build a
factory if they don't need to produce more goods. They also claim that tax
deductions for building a factory will work. This is a half truth. Nobody is
going to build a factory if they don't need to produce more goods so a tax
cut on factory building really doesn't help. These two myths have been
perpetrated by republicans for decades. The most recent examples of the
failure of supply side economics is the Reagan administration and the
current Bush administration. Reagan's massive tax cuts were short lived but
he brought us the payroll tax. This is a way of taxing income twice but it
taxes it before they get the money. This is a sneaky way for republicans to
get more revenue. In fact when Ronald Reagan was asked about payroll taxes,
he claimed it wasn't a tax hike but a "revenue enhancer". I leave it to you
to see if you can find a difference.
Democrats support large tax cuts to the poor and middle class. Those
people spend the money they get in tax cuts causing more goods to be bought
and more factories to be built. Capitalism works on supply and demand, not
charity from rich folks who will hire people to stand around in a brand new
factory and doing nothing.
Now there is another thing that republicans do. They claim that
Democrats are about "income redistribution". Republicans claim that the
Democrats want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Well
that's crazy. Every penny the government takes in is "income
redistribution". When you pay your taxes the money is going to be
distributed to someone you don't like. However given the spending trends you
are more likely to have the money you paid to some defense contractor who
will purposefully overcharge the government for something. Then you could
have your money paid to a millionaire farmer to not grow crops. I don't know
anyone who is paid millions not to work. Well, except for the heads of some
corporations who get corporate welfare. Democrats have opposed giving your
tax money to people who don't need it.
If you're confused, just vote for the party that brought us out of the
first Bush recession.
John
Gene
news:be8fu5$23u47$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de:
John, My issue was not to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, but that
as a democrat I am finding it hard to support the current crop of
candidates. As a Liberal I will eventually support one. But I am not
convinced any have broad support of labor or women and without their
support they will lose. The really sad thing that pisses me off to no end
is if one does get elected - their goal will be to make sure illegal
alien, one legged, green agnostic unisex four foot pole vaulters from
Norway are helped in their constant search to find short poles by
planting dwarf Bamboo plants in Central Park. Their base of old - the
common working man will again be deserted in search of the uncommon.
ALthough Republicans are the life long enemy of the working man,
Democrats haven't done much better in the recent years. The South is full
of working men making less than 30,000/year and voting republican. An
insane action. But they didn't desert the democratic party - they were
shoved out in droves over the last 20 years. Its time for the Democratic
Party to call us all Americans and treat us all equally. No extra equal
or less than equal.
Just equal. Discrimination is all it's forms is detestible. Quit focusing
on diversity it's diversive, focus on unity it's unifing.
To protect Social Security, expand medical benefits to some groups,
raise the wages of the least of us, and bring diplomacy back into our
forign Policy, and sanity to or economy, I will once again, out of
necessity, grudingly vote for the Democrat and help him plant Bamboo.
Gene
Divin Marquis
>>> We need to focus on getting someone realistic in front of Bush. We need
>>> to focus on supporting someone who doesn't just reflect our emotions
>>> and opinions, but that of the mainstream as well. That's why I'm asking
>>> why we don't like Kerry. He seems like the ideal compromise. The people
>>> will love him.
Frankly, I'm quite convinced a compromise will get you nowhere. Gore lost
the election in part because of this: he got fucked in the debates because
he looked like he agreed with anything junior said. So why vote for him?
John Slade
The reason those folk you mentioned aren't voting for the republicans
because
they think Democrats have left them. They're voting republican because
they're conservative plain and simple. They're voting because of gun control
and other issues, not labor. Many of them don't really know that republicans
would love to get rid of unions and labor rights. The recent changes in
overtime qualifications by Bush should leave a clue to these people. Time
and time again the conservatives/republicans have taken the side of big
business over labor. Any Democrat worth his salt would make that clear to
all regular people.
John
Gene
Have you noticed the lack of press coverage on that issue and the lack of
outrage from the democratic reps. I had to wage through the wording to
find out the nitty gritty and it is a complete farce. It will allow
corporations to reclassify higher paying jobs as management and end their
current overtime requirements and allow corporations to pay overtime to
more workers at the bottom end. The key word is allow not require. So any
fool can see the corporations will use it to basically end overtime pay
completely. They had to be forced to pay overtime in the first place how
can anyone believe they will volunteer to pay it now. What a farce and
nobody seems upset over the comprehensive attack on labor and basic
rights this administration is successfully conducting. Instead the news
is filled with Iraq, Gay rights, and other crap. The media seem content
to run indepth searching programs on the current bridal dresses or the
bio of some airhead actress. If it wasn't for C-Span, which exists only
at the whim of cable companies, there would be no news on TV.
The lost of the southern worker I think is due to the deplorable state of
their public education system. They don't have the necessary information
to make a better choice and neither party seems interested in really
fixing the education system. One wants to kill it the other wants to
continue on in the same vein producing students who can barely read and
write, know little of the world around them and are completely ignorant
of their own government. We have, as democrats interested in leveling the
playing field, lowered the high end to the level of the lower doing a
disservice to all. What a fix we are in, I think we have reached a peak
and are sliding down the slope. Only someone with the vision of a Kennedy
and fortitude of a Truman will be able to stop the slide. Maybe Clark
will be that man.
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
> MoveOn's Democratic primary. I'm beginning to think that only Kerry
> can successfully compete against Bush in 2004. Kerry is a Vietnam war
> hero with two Purple Hearts, and he would make Bush appear like the
> coward that he is.
There is no evidence that President Bush is a coward, but there is certainly
evidence that you are the typical Democrat ass.
The Democrats will throw Bush's AWOL status right
> in his face.
President Bush was never AWOL. If he had been, you can be sure that the
likes of Kennedy or Daschle or Carville or McCallauf or any of the other
hate-filled Democrat strategists would be beating their drums about it.
> Plus, Kerry is a tireless champion of veterans rights and benefits,
> while Bush certainly isn't.
There is no evidence that President Bush isn't a tireless champion of
veterans rights and benefits. BTW, how much of Kerry's own money has Kerry
spent to help veterans? Or are you merely referring to the usual Democrat
Party definition of "compassion" - spending taxpayer's money to show how
"compassionate" the Democrats (such as Kerry) supposedly are?
Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
> "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!"
Not as good as President Bush's: "SUPPORT OUR TAXPAYERS AND REDUCE THEIR
TAX BURDEN: VOTE BUSH!"
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:3F07A6F7...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> TellTheTruth wrote:
> >
> > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
>
> Cite required for John Kerry...
No, no such cite is required, because no cite was given for the claim that
Bush was AWOL or doesn't care about veterans benefits. You see, Demmies,
we Americans can make the same unsubstantiated allegations against you
pathetic Democrats that you loser Democrats keep making against others. You
want to play that hate-filled game of yours? Fine, two can play at that
game.
Go crawl back into your hole, you pathetic loser Democrats.
"Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:be8ceo$29jen$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de...
We're all still waiting for you to provide proof that Bush was "AWOL" (he
wasn't) or that he "fails to champion veterans benefits" (he doesn't), which
charges we've all heard made by you loser Demmies.
Go crawl back in your hole, Democrats.
Gene
news:eyTNa.50205$Xm3.11706@sccrnsc02:
Bush is a chicken hawk. He opted to use his daddies influence to get
out of going to Vietnam. Someone else had to take his place. That defines
the requirements to be considered a CHICKENHAWK.
Bush was trained as a pilot and chose to not take a required physical
to maintain flight status. Although not formally charged with AWOL or
DESERTION, anyone not privilaged and connected as he was would have been
carried as AWOL and 30 days later as a DESERTER for not showing up for
duty. After 30 days AWOL becomes desertion. He was absent without leave
for more than thirty consecutive days according to his commander.
As a former Commander I am aware of the UCMJ and I am also aware of the
guard during the Vietnam era. It was a hiding place for the rich and
famous. That Bush was not declared AWOL and a DESERTER does not suprise
me in the least. In every way, other than the formalities, he was.
As for his support for the military, the ARMY TIMES has been full of
his lack of support. These include current pending bills to reduce combat
pay, refusal to fund onpost housing requirements, reducing the proposed
pay raise, and a 20% reduction of the VA budget. He also promised to
restore the medical care to retired vets and has reneged on that. He is a
liar, a coward, and a completely useless human being. He has propelled us
into a winless situation in Iraq and caused the death of over 200 GI's by
twisting the intelligence to meet his needs overlooking any attempts at a
diplomatic solution. You don't declare war and later search for the
reason as is happening now. He is the only WMD that needs to be found out
and eliminated through the 2004 vote.
He continues to lie with the prescription drug benefit, overtime laws,
attempts at restructing the FCC rules, the tax cut, the Nigeria uranium
debacle, the unpatriotic Patriot Act, the economy, the 'No Child Left
Behind' and just about any time his lips move. None of his promises have
come true and by 2004 it will become evident to enough folks that this
idiot has got to go if he isn't impeached first.
To believe that a crime is committed or a lie is told only when caught
is a detestable belief only found in the Republican party, 3rd world
dictatorships and prisons.
Charles Aulds
Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>There is no evidence that President Bush is a coward, but there is certainly
>evidence that you are the typical Democrat ass.
>
>President Bush was never AWOL. If he had been, you can be sure that the
>likes of Kennedy or Daschle or Carville or McCallauf or any of the other
>hate-filled Democrat strategists would be beating their drums about it.
>
Never formally charged, but there is a load of evidence that he
avoided serving his country during wartime (1972), for instance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59151-2000Jun25
It doesn't look good.
>
>There is no evidence that President Bush isn't a tireless champion of
>veterans rights and benefits.
>
No, just that health benefits were cut in the President's budget
proposal, the only part of the military budget that was cut, I
believe. He certainly doesn't oppose plans by Donald Rumsfeld to
shift funds from the uniformed military to new defense programs that
would put billions in the pockets of defense contracting firms.
It doesn't look good.
>
>Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
>> "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!"
>
>Not as good as President Bush's: "SUPPORT OUR TAXPAYERS AND REDUCE THEIR
>TAX BURDEN: VOTE BUSH!"
>
Perhaps not; but that's only if the economy sees significant
improvement in the next 16 months. That may well happen, and the Bush
economic stimulus plan (relying on tax cuts to achieve that) will have
to be credited for it. But ...
It doesn't look good.
Bill
>I think we should give up on these two candidates. How anyone could
>possibly even think about putting either one of them up against Bush
>given the media's current political alignment is beyond me. The media
>will devour them daily. You just watch.
I've got news for you, they'll do that to Kerry too. Some of them
have already started, in fact.
sg
<snip>
> >
> >Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
> >> "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!"
> >
> >Not as good as President Bush's: "SUPPORT OUR TAXPAYERS AND REDUCE
THEIR
> >TAX BURDEN: VOTE BUSH!"
> >
>
> Perhaps not; but that's only if the economy sees significant
> improvement in the next 16 months. That may well happen, and the Bush
> economic stimulus plan (relying on tax cuts to achieve that) will have
> to be credited for it. But ...
>
> It doesn't look good.
>
>
>
the top 10% of our wealthiest...and I believe they already feel relief. The
very poor and the middleclass are going to feel a very blunted object being
rammed up their arses. Kerry, thus far, seems to be the only viable
candidate for us Dems. Unless, there's a hidden Kennedy somewhere????
sg
http://stangrimes.com
A Quiet Place
---
Dis baby is bugless!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/03
Phoenix Rising
>Imagine Kerry's possible campaign slogan:
>
>
>>"SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: VOTE KERRY!"
>>
>>
>
>
>Not as good as President Bush's: "SUPPORT OUR TAXPAYERS AND REDUCE THEIR
>TAX BURDEN: VOTE BUSH!"
>
Which, more accurately, would be "SCREW THE CHILDREN: UP THE DEFICIT!"
I honestly would have no problem with the Bush tax cut if he would
have cut enough spending to balance the budget instead of plunging us
$500bn in the hole and thus seriously devaluing our currency. It may
provide a short-term boost to our exporters, but it also hurts our
trading partners overseas and thus damages our long-term economic gains
(since we gain most from trade with healthy industrialized economies),
and allows foreign firms to buy up US companies at comparatively
bargain-basement prices with their stronger currencies set against our
ailing stock prices. It also means that future generations of taxpayers
... basically anyone under 25 at the moment, and therefore of the age
group that typically isn't politically interested enough to vote in
elections ... are going to have to pay for this "reducing the tax
burden." It's not reducing it, it's only delaying it.
--Phoenix Rising
TellTheTruth
"Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3f076bc6$0$88061$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> Better change drugs. Bush is the war criminal.
Your logic is flawed.
Should Bush be a war Criminal, that would not preclude Kerr(e)y from being a
War Criminal.
Carry on, Leftie . . . . .
> You neo-con fundys get wackier and wackier.
>
> "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
> >
> > Not many people, except die-hard Democrats, like War Criminals.
> >
> >
> >
> > "!social" <brain...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ce359d41.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > > I've been engaged in some serious thought since voting for Kucinich in
> > > MoveOn's Democratic primary. I'm beginning to think that only Kerry
> > > can successfully compete against Bush in 2004. Kerry is a Vietnam war
> > > hero with two Purple Hearts, and he would make Bush appear like the
> > > coward that he is. The Democrats will throw Bush's AWOL status right
> > > in his face. It would finally become the serious campaign issue that
> > > it could have been in 2000, hadn't Clinton also been a draft-dodger.
> > >
> > > Plus, Kerry is a tireless champion of veterans rights and benefits,
> > > I think we should give up on these two candidates. How anyone could
> > > possibly even think about putting either one of them up against Bush
> > > given the media's current political alignment is beyond me. The media
> > > will devour them daily. You just watch.
> > >
David Lentz
stevehoran wrote:
<snip>
> Bullshit. Dean will not only get the nomination but he
> will also beat Bush in '04, easily. One of the main reasons
> that Dean is attractive is that he's not politically chickenshit.
> Tim Russert attempted to sandbag him on Meet The Press
> with off the wall questions but it only backfired. Dean doesn't
> cower to the media, he dismissed Russert's questions as
> "silly" and he was right to do so.
>
> Try telling the unemployed that Bush is a "harmless-idiot".
Howard Dean is arrogant. That appears to be Dean's major
qualification. Dean says little more than the fact that he is
angry. Dean is not ready for prime time.
David
TellTheTruth
> brain...@hotmail.com (!social) wrote in
> news:ce359d41.03070...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I've been engaged in some serious thought since voting for Kucinich
"serious thought . . . voting for Kucinuch"
LOL!
Phoenix Rising
The country is already disillusioned enough from politics because of
the polarization of the two parties, and the hardline stances that have
enabled them to split so much under the guise of "giving the voters true
choice." The fact remains that most of the people in the country have
preferences somewhere between the two parties but the Republicans are
currently winning the battle for the center, and will as long as the
fringe elements of the Democratic party continue to force through
candidates who are farther to the left than Bush is to the right. This
would include both Dean and Kucinich. To get someone from the
Democratic party elected, it's going to take someone who's willing to
distance themselves from the farthest-left fringe elements of the party;
pandering to that leftmost 10% is alienating the middle 30%.
Gore did not get "f***ed in the debates" (he came darn close to
winning the election and would have had he taken his home state of
Tennessee), and it was more for his camera personality than his stances
on issues. Presentation matters and Bush did present himself more
convincingly than Gore (in terms of charisma and poise).
--Phoenix Rising
Thumper
<gram...@att.not.here> wrote:
> Gore did not get "f***ed in the debates" (he came darn close to
>winning the election and would have had he taken his home state of
>Tennessee), and it was more for his camera personality than his stances
>on issues. Presentation matters and Bush did present himself more
>convincingly than Gore (in terms of charisma and poise).
>
> --Phoenix Rising
I have to agree with this. Gore was a very poor candidate TV wise.
Thumper
Thumper
Fuck you Gene. No pun intended.
Thumper
stevehoran
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HXWNa.15593$ma....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Gore is stiff. McCain is nutty. And now Dean is
arrogant or angry. Republican loyalists love to beat
up on opponents by focusing on personality traits.
This was particularly disgraceful against fellow Repub
McCain. To hear chickenhawks like Limbaugh insinuate that
a former POW was bordeline crazy turned my stomach.
Comparing Dean to Bush I'd say a his alleged arrogance
is justified. Maybe a little anger is appropriate now
with Bush cashing in our future for a few political
points.
Dean is definitely the best candidate because he
doesn't couch every response in politics. He presents
his opinions as common sense and isn't worried
about whether they'll be seen as too controversial.
The various attacks against Dean don't hold water -
unless there's some scandal in his past that I don't
know about.
Polybius
> all of his time kissing mexishit ass either. A real plus.
Thumper
wrote:
Dean CANNOT energize the middle to vote for him. That was something
that Clinton understood very well and why he was elected. You need
the middle.
Thumper
David Lentz
stevehoran wrote:
<snip>
The typical United States voter likes their country. A lot love
their country. We just spent the Fourth of July celebrating our
nation. If the sentiment expressed by Howard Dean reflected the
mood of the electorate, you would have expected the Fourth to be
marked by mourning or depression instead of the celebration we
did get.
Dean is out of touch with everybody not in left wing of the
Democratic Party.
David
Dave Zero
Yeah, good idea.
I'm sure George and John will have a good laugh about running against
each other at the next Skull and Bones meeting.
--
Dave Zero - dave...@mindspring.com jesusofth...@hotmail.com
Xanadu - http://tetrica.com/dz/
Media Jam - http://tetrica.com/dz/jam.html
The Encyclopedia Tetrica: http://tetrica.com/tiz/
"And I don't care about making an ass of myself because most
people already realize I am one." - Dr. Kary B. Mullis
"I criticize by creation." - Cicero
"He who is not with me is against me." - Jesus Christ
stevehoran
>
> The typical United States voter likes their country. A lot love
> their country. We just spent the Fourth of July celebrating our
> nation. If the sentiment expressed by Howard Dean reflected the
> mood of the electorate, you would have expected the Fourth to be
> marked by mourning or depression instead of the celebration we
> did get.
>
> Dean is out of touch with everybody not in left wing of the
> Democratic Party.
Look at Dean's platform: he's not "left wing" at all.
He's surely a Democrat but he's also a pragmatist.
>
> David
You believe the spin that Democrats or liberals or
whatever you want to call us hate America. This is
very silly. People can oppose the war in Iraq without
opposing (or hating) America. Last time I checked
we were still a free country. I see Dean's message
as very positive.
PS I had a terrific 4th and I hope you did too.
Phoenix Rising
This betrays a lack of understanding both of what it means to be
president and how elections work.
Democrats might be wise to focus on personality traits, too.
Personality traits win on TV debates. They win battles of commentary.
They win the war for public opinion, which wins elections. People
aren't electing a shopping list, they're electing a person, a leader,
someone who in no small way embodies the country. The presidency is a
symbolism-laden position and we are a country with a lot of appreciation
for symbols. That means that the intangibles matter just as much as the
nuts and bolts.
Kennedy won on personality. Clinton won on personality, not just
the Bush Sr. economy. (Carter won because of the scandals surrounding
the Nixon presidency.)
Much of Bush's policy doesn't come from Bush himself. Anti-neocons
like to attack him on this because the prospect of regime change in Iraq
was floated by several people now close to the administration several
years ago, but the fact of the matter is that this is hardly atypical.
Clinton was more involved but even he, like all presidents in a
government this size, played more the role of facilitator than
policymaker. This is why it's more important to be a "people person"
than a Ph.D. in economics, educational policy, petroleum engineering,
etc. to be a good president. Carter was probably one of the most
technically brilliant men in the presidency but he made a bad president.
So don't dismiss personality or other intangibles when evaluating
presidential candidates. At the end of the day, most people
(particularly in Democratic core constituencies) vote with their guts,
not their right brains.
--Phoenix Rising
Jim
and minorities. He has done nothing for the non-union working class
white folks who hold white collar jobs and make more than 40K per
year. He is a child of priviliege who never had to work, and doesn't
understand where "folks like me" have come from. I am sure in his
private schools he was taught his people are responsible for all the
social ills of the world and he is working hard to punich folks like
me for the ills we have created. He is purging his soul on the backs
of whites for things most whites did not do. He is more than willing
to tax folks like me for his constituency, and I can't think of one
thing he did for folks like me. Why should I vote for him?
Gene
Jim Vadek
"TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
Hey moron, Kerry has 3 puple hearts.
Bush was an AWOL deserter.
marika
> Bush is a chicken hawk. He opted to use his daddies influence to get
> out of going to Vietnam. Someone else had to take his place.
Robert Plant?
mk5000
"This is because the following "s" is dental.
As it does
not fall into any of the above five classes, it does
not have a character"--Anshuman Pandey
John Slade
"Rene" <Rene "Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TBTNa.50225$Xm3.12045@sccrnsc02...
Everyone knows Bush went AWOL. His commanding officer and some of his
fellow pilots claim Bush was gone. Bush's commanding officer said that Bush
was not observed when he should have been on duty. Bush was elsewhere
working on his daddy's campaign I hear. Now as for the Veterans Benifits,
just do a yahoo search for "Bush veto veterans"(without the quotes) then you
will see what Bush thinks about veterans benifits. He thinks 58 billion
dollars over ten years is way too much money to pay 100% disabled veterans
their pension along with disability pay. Here's one article on it.
http://todaysseniorsnetwork.com/bush,_vets_spar.htm
John
John Slade
>
> "Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:3f076bc6$0$88061$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> > Better change drugs. Bush is the war criminal.
>
> Your logic is flawed.
>
> Should Bush be a war Criminal, that would not preclude Kerr(e)y from being
a
> War Criminal.
>
> Carry on, Leftie . . . . .
>
>
Notice how "TellinLies" puts the possible "e" into the name of Kerry.
He doesn't know if it's John Kerry or Bob Kerry. There was a blurb a while
back about Bob Kerrey being a war criminal but it never really made it big
because he didn't run for President. I have heard ZERO about John Kerry
being a war criminal. And it appears that this "TellinLies" jackass hasn't
either because he hasn't posted one story about John Kerry being a war
crimial.
John
Thumper
That's just plain nonsense. The right's attempt to characterize
dissent and criticism as not loving your country is despicable. You
love you kids but criticize them and correct them all the time. The
right does not have a lock on patriotism.
Thumper
Thumper
I think it's foolish to hold it against either one of them. They
were in their early twenties and joined a "secret" fraternity.
We have their adult records to judge them by.
Thumper
John Slade
> > The reason those folk you mentioned aren't voting for the
> > republicans
> > because
> > they think Democrats have left them. They're voting republican because
> > they're conservative plain and simple. They're voting because of gun
> > control and other issues, not labor. Many of them don't really know
> > that republicans would love to get rid of unions and labor rights. The
> > recent changes in overtime qualifications by Bush should leave a clue
> > to these people. Time and time again the conservatives/republicans
> > have taken the side of big business over labor. Any Democrat worth his
> > salt would make that clear to all regular people.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
> Have you noticed the lack of press coverage on that issue and the lack of
> outrage from the democratic reps. I had to wage through the wording to
> find out the nitty gritty and it is a complete farce. It will allow
> corporations to reclassify higher paying jobs as management and end their
> current overtime requirements and allow corporations to pay overtime to
> more workers at the bottom end. The key word is allow not require. So any
> fool can see the corporations will use it to basically end overtime pay
> completely. They had to be forced to pay overtime in the first place how
> can anyone believe they will volunteer to pay it now. What a farce and
> nobody seems upset over the comprehensive attack on labor and basic
> rights this administration is successfully conducting. Instead the news
> is filled with Iraq, Gay rights, and other crap. The media seem content
> to run indepth searching programs on the current bridal dresses or the
> bio of some airhead actress. If it wasn't for C-Span, which exists only
> at the whim of cable companies, there would be no news on TV.
C-Span is wonderful. What more can I say about it? You really have to
listen to liberals on talk radio. I know they say that they aren't out there
but the number one station int he country has liberals on and they talk
about these issues. The station is KGO in San Francisco, they have a free
webcast if you aren't in their signal range just go to www.kgoam810.com. The
two most liberal and Democratic guys on there are Bernie Ward(10PM-1AM and
Ray Taliaferro(1AM-5AM). I record the shows with Total Recorder and listen
to them at a reasonable hour. They really go into everything Bush and the
republicans do. About ten times as many people listen to these two guys than
listen to Foxnews. Ray Taliaferro was talking about Project For A New
American Century months before anyone in the US even heard about it. They
talk about the news and have debate on this issue all the time. Bernie Ward
was just talking about how the republicans are against labor a couple of
weeks ago. They also have debate with the oposition. It's not dittohead
stuff like Rush Limbaugh.
>
> The lost of the southern worker I think is due to the deplorable state of
> their public education system. They don't have the necessary information
> to make a better choice and neither party seems interested in really
> fixing the education system. One wants to kill it the other wants to
> continue on in the same vein producing students who can barely read and
> write, know little of the world around them and are completely ignorant
> of their own government. We have, as democrats interested in leveling the
> playing field, lowered the high end to the level of the lower doing a
> disservice to all. What a fix we are in, I think we have reached a peak
> and are sliding down the slope. Only someone with the vision of a Kennedy
> and fortitude of a Truman will be able to stop the slide. Maybe Clark
> will be that man.
The problem with education everywhere is the superintendents who are
making tons of money and getting raises all the time just letting the
schools go to hell. The schools that do poorly get less money for good
teachers and the schools that do well get more money. This ass backwards
approach has been going on for too long. They need to change it.
The Affirmative Action thing in colleges is not the reason for people
not getting an education. Anybody who can get into college can go to another
school if they don't get into the school of their choice because of a legacy
or athlete getting AA. The few minorities getting into college on AA is no
excuse for whites who chose not to get a better education and sit around
drinking beer at keggers rather than hitting the books. I went to mostly
white schools and mostly black schools. Needless to say the drinking and the
drugs were done much more in the mostly white schools I attended. Also
whites using AA as a racial thing for an excuse for not working is bullshit.
The vast majority of AA jobs go to white women. Those people who whine about
AA should cry about gender rather than race. However the
republicans/conservatives have duped the average American into thinking AA
is a black white issue when it is not. That's why we need more
liberals/Democrats in the media getting the truth out.
John
stevehoran
"Phoenix Rising" <gram...@att.not.here> wrote in message
news:3F08626D...@att.not.here...
I'm not suggesting that Dean's personality is a non-issue.
I'm just criticizing the Republicans' tendency to attack
their opponents by smearing their personality. I think
Dean has a winning personality actually and that would
help explain why his grass roots campaign is raking in so
much money. One very encouraging sign about the Dean
campaign is that his contributions went up after his tussle
with Tim Russert on Meet The Press. Russert attempted
to sandbag him and Dean called him on it. The DC Press
Corps said that Dean's MTP appearance was a disaster
but, again, the contributions to his campaign spiked right
after it aired. Dean's very natural when being interviewed,
like McCain, and that has a lot of appeal.
It's interesting to see how he's attacked by his potential
adversaries. They say he's too liberal when he's really
more of an independent; as someone else said he's socially
liberal but fiscally conservative. Another reason that
people says he's vulnerable is because he opposed the
war in Iraq but by November 2004 that stance may look
visionary, if it doesn't already. You'll also hear people
say that he doesn't have a chance. Few prognosticators
gave any of the Democrats a snowball's chance around
this time in GHW Bush's one term.
Jim Vadek
> John, My issue was not to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, but that
> as a democrat I am finding it hard to support the current crop of
> candidates. As a Liberal I will eventually support one. But I am not
> convinced any have broad support of labor or women and without their
> support they will lose. The really sad thing that pisses me off to no end
> is if one does get elected - their goal will be to make sure illegal
> alien, one legged, green agnostic unisex four foot pole vaulters from
The point is that this bozo has to go.
If Bush did not get the nomination from the Republican party, I would look
at it with an open mind and consider the replacement Republican candidate,
based on merit. I'm not looking specifically for a Democrat to vote for - I
am looking for a level headed centrist who works from the middle, not the
extreme left or right. But, as Republicans are these days I doubt there are
any eligible centrists... so the result is an automatic vote for the
Democratic nominee.
Jim Vadek
news:ca91e4ae.03070...@posting.google.com...
You must choose Bush or Kerry. If you decide not to vote, then that is a
vote for Bush. That is the reality.
Gene
news:zo1Oa.120613$R73.14734@sccrnsc04:
Well, I think your right on all counts. Funny how a republican of the
50's would be a a pariah to his party today.
Jim Vadek
> The typical United States voter likes their country. A lot love
> their country. We just spent the Fourth of July celebrating our
> nation. If the sentiment expressed by Howard Dean reflected the
> mood of the electorate, you would have expected the Fourth to be
> marked by mourning or depression instead of the celebration we
> did get.
> Dean is out of touch with everybody not in left wing of the
> Democratic Party.
I agree. But, Dean is fulfilling an important role - he is whipping up the
very left, they are pissed off and want to vote Bush out. Those votes will
roll over to the eventual nominee which I expect to be Kerry.
People forget that many people did not vote in the last election. I think it
is more likely that these people will be activated and will decide to vote
this time around - against Bush.
Jim Vadek
"sg" <stan....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:enWNa.32856$JY1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> rammed up their arses. Kerry, thus far, seems to be the only viable
> candidate for us Dems. Unless, there's a hidden Kennedy somewhere????
There will never be another Kennedy. But Kerry used to hang out with JFK so
he might appreciate JFK's qualities better than most.
Jim Vadek
"stevehoran" <steve...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0h1Oa.69320$1e.2851@fed1read04...
> I'm not suggesting that Dean's personality is a non-issue.
> I'm just criticizing the Republicans' tendency to attack
> their opponents by smearing their personality. I think
It's all the Republicans can do - because they CANNOT win on the issues. The
results are in, and they are pathetic.
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"Jim Vadek" <toomu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:me2Oa.121091$R73.14236@sccrnsc04...
> People forget that many people did not vote in the last election. I think
it
> is more likely that these people will be activated and will decide to vote
> this time around - against Bush.
No, those people will vote GOP. You loser Democrats have been crooning
that tired tune - "We Democrats have the minds and hearts of the American
People, it's just that we can't get them to get out and vote for us
Democrats" - ever since 1992, which was the last time you loser Democrats
won the House.
And remember, the House is the ONLY branch of the federal government which
is apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote.
Today's Democrat Party SUCKS, Jim. You know it, and the American People
know it. That's why they refuse to vote Democrat any longer.
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
Kennedy was a well-known womanizer and adulterer, perhaps even worse so than
Clinton. That you inform us Kerry admires those qualities doesn't surprise
us, given that Kerry is a $$$rich$$$ Democrat.
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
>
> "stevehoran" <steve...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:0h1Oa.69320$1e.2851@fed1read04...
>
> > I'm not suggesting that Dean's personality is a non-issue.
> > I'm just criticizing the Republicans' tendency to attack
> > their opponents by smearing their personality. I think
>
> It's all the Republicans can do - because they CANNOT win on the issues.
On the contrary, the Democrats haven't been able to win the House since
1992, which is over a decade ago, Jim.
And remember, Jim - the House is the ONLY branch of the federal government
which is apportioned on the basis of the Popular Vote. I trust you already
knew that fact?
TellTheTruth
>
> "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> news:tUWNa.38781$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f076bc6$0$88061$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> > > Better change drugs. Bush is the war criminal.
> >
> > Your logic is flawed.
> >
> > Should Bush be a war Criminal, that would not preclude Kerr(e)y from
being
> a
> > War Criminal.
> >
> > Carry on, Leftie . . . . .
> >
> >
>
> Notice how "TellinLies" puts the possible "e" into the name of Kerry.
> He doesn't know if it's John Kerry or Bob Kerry.
You digress.
Keep supporting the War Criminals.
> There was a blurb a while
> back about Bob Kerrey being a war criminal but it never really made it big
> because he didn't run for President.
Only War Criminals that run for President warrant exposure?
An interestin set of morals you carry.
> I have heard ZERO about John Kerry
You head has been filled with froth from the mouth all your life.
Hence your present condition.
> being a war criminal. And it appears that this "TellinLies" jackass hasn't
> either because he hasn't posted one story about John Kerry being a war
> crimial.
So democrat Kerr(e)y is the War Criminal?
Thanks for clearing that up.
LOL!
>
> John
>
>
>
>
TellTheTruth
>
> "Rene" <Rene "Libs_r Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TBTNa.50225$Xm3.12045@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:be8ceo$29jen$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
> > > >
> > > > Not many people, except die-hard Democrats, like War Criminals.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please provide proof that John Kerry is a war criminal. I've heard
> > these
> > > charges made against Bob Kerry but not John Kerry. Please do as your
> name
> > > suggests.
> >
> >
> > We're all still waiting for you to provide proof that Bush was "AWOL"
(he
> > wasn't) or that he "fails to champion veterans benefits" (he doesn't),
> which
> > charges we've all heard made by you loser Demmies.
>
> Everyone knows Bush went AWOL.
Everyone doesn't know that. Regardless our dementia.
> His commanding officer
Q1 Post his CO's complete statement.
> and some of his
> fellow pilots claim Bush was gone.
Q2 Which pilots?
Q3 Gone where?
LOL!
> Bush's commanding officer said that Bush
> was not observed when he should have been on duty.t
Bush's CO said he had a poor memory.
Q4 Did you post that comment?
Q5 Why not?
BTW, yopur McAuliff Whining Points have beeen superceeded.
Q6 Didn't you know that either?
> Bush was elsewhere
> working on his daddy's campaign I hear.
Q7 Which of the voices are saying that?
Q8 Can you answer even one of my questions?
(the eighth is out of pity for your condition)
<snip>
TellTheTruth
>
> "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
>
> Hey moron, Kerry has 3 puple hearts.
> Bush was an AWOL deserter.
LOL!
A War Criminal with THREE PURPLE HEARTS?
Explain.
Phoenix Rising
Most people find it easier to gain contributions after a major TV
appearance. Also, fundraising all around should be a rather painful
subject for the Democrats to broach this year; not even Hillary is
raising as much as Bush and she's out-fundraising any of the actual
presidential hopefuls.
>Russert attempted
>to sandbag him and Dean called him on it. The DC Press
>Corps said that Dean's MTP appearance was a disaster
>but, again, the contributions to his campaign spiked right
>after it aired. Dean's very natural when being interviewed,
>like McCain, and that has a lot of appeal.
>
This is good but it isn't a winning TV package in itself.
>It's interesting to see how he's attacked by his potential
>adversaries. They say he's too liberal when he's really
>more of an independent; as someone else said he's socially
>liberal but fiscally conservative. Another reason that
>people says he's vulnerable is because he opposed the
>war in Iraq but by November 2004 that stance may look
>visionary, if it doesn't already. You'll also hear people
>say that he doesn't have a chance. Few prognosticators
>gave any of the Democrats a snowball's chance around
>this time in GHW Bush's one term.
>
Admittedly, though don't draw parallels before they're made reality;
history doesn't repeat itself quite as predictably as it sometimes seems
in hindsight.
--Phoenix Rising
Phoenix Rising
So would a Democrat of the 50's. Most of today's Democrats are not
cast in the mould of FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, to say nothing of Scoop
Jackson. The political correctness and doublethink hadn't taken over
the party yet.
Ironically, half of Bush's current fiscal policy would have made FDR
proud; his idea of running up the deficit to fight deflation and
unemployment isn't that far from the New Deal. FDR just spent it better
and did it in a more appropriate age.
--Phoenix Rising
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F07A6F7...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> > TellTheTruth wrote:
> > >
> > > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
> >
>
> No, no such cite is required, because no cite was given for the claim that
Yes, cite required. Because TellsALie is confusing two different people...
> Bush was AWOL or doesn't care about veterans benefits. You see, Demmies,
> we Americans can make the same unsubstantiated allegations against you
> pathetic Democrats that you loser Democrats keep making against others. You
> want to play that hate-filled game of yours? Fine, two can play at that
> game.
>
> Go crawl back into your hole, you pathetic loser Democrats.
John Slade
Bush had more than one commanding officer. They both wrote in their
evaluation of Bush that "he was not observed" for a whole year.
>
> > and some of his
> > fellow pilots claim Bush was gone.
>
> Q2 Which pilots?
Duh the pilots in the Texas and Alabama National Guard units that Bush
deserted.
>
> Q3 Gone where?
>
To help his pappy run his campaign.
> LOL!
>
> > Bush's commanding officer said that Bush
> > was not observed when he should have been on duty.t
>
> Bush's CO said he had a poor memory.
>
> Q4 Did you post that comment?
But Bush's commanding officer did not write down that Bush was
observed doing his required duty. He did not show up and was "not observed".
In the military, when you're "not observed" means you weren't there.
Boy TellinLies. You sure love to ask dumb questions now don't you? Boy
you sure ask for proof when something doesn't go your way but fail to back
up any one of you crazy claims.
Q1 Did John Kerry's commanding officer accuse him of war crimes? Please post
his complete statement.
Q2 Was John Kerry ever court marshaled for war crimes? Please post the court
martial records and where John Kerry served time.
Q3 What unit was John Kerry in when he committed these war crimes you claim
he did?
Q4 Why haven't you provided one shred of proof when you made the claim and
everyone asked you for it?
Q5 Did you imagine that John Kerry was a war criminal?
Q6 Did you take your medication today?
Q7 Are there some drugs you're supposed to betaking or are you taking some
drugs you aren't supposed to be taking?
Q8 Why do you think Bush does not want to release his military records
like EVERY other candidate currently running has?
John
John Slade
>
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:bea1ok$2qioo$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> > news:tUWNa.38781$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Eugene Kent" <eugen...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3f076bc6$0$88061$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
> > > > Better change drugs. Bush is the war criminal.
> > >
> > > Your logic is flawed.
> > >
> > > Should Bush be a war Criminal, that would not preclude Kerr(e)y from
> being
> > a
> > > War Criminal.
> > >
> > > Carry on, Leftie . . . . .
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Notice how "TellinLies" puts the possible "e" into the name of
Kerry.
> > He doesn't know if it's John Kerry or Bob Kerry.
>
> You digress.
>
> Keep supporting the War Criminals.
Q1 Who were these crimes committed against and when was John Kerry
court marshaled?
>
> > There was a blurb a while
> > back about Bob Kerrey being a war criminal but it never really made it
big
> > because he didn't run for President.
>
> Only War Criminals that run for President warrant exposure?
It turned out that the accusations were false. Now please show where
John Kerry was a war criminal.
>
> An interestin set of morals you carry.
>
> > I have heard ZERO about John Kerry
>
> You head has been filled with froth from the mouth all your life.
>
> Hence your present condition.
Ok prove me wrong. Please provide proof that John Kerry is a war
criminal. What crimintal act did he committ?
>
> > being a war criminal. And it appears that this "TellinLies" jackass
hasn't
> > either because he hasn't posted one story about John Kerry being a war
> > crimial.
>
> So democrat Kerr(e)y is the War Criminal?
>
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
In other words TellinLies did not know what the hell he/she is talking
about. He heard a story about Kerry and just ran with it. Didn't check it
out and didn't even know what Kerry was involved. Now this TellinLies
jackass said John Kerry, is this his way of admitting he lied? Well he put
another big lie right in it. Bob Kerry is not running for President nor has
he been proven to be a war criminal.
TellinLies is just another half wit who listens to Rush and other
conservative dregs all day and then parrots their bullshit. See how stupid
he looks right now. This should serve as a warning to other conservative
talk radio parrots in here.
John
John Slade
"Rene" <Rene "Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cw2Oa.21691$Ey6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Just when we were having a civil debate, guess who shows up and makes
an arse out of himself.
John
TellTheTruth
And you post neither.
Strike one.
> > > and some of his
> > > fellow pilots claim Bush was gone.
> >
> > Q2 Which pilots?
>
> Duh the pilots in the Texas and Alabama National Guard units that Bush
> deserted.
Which pilots?
Post their statements.
Strike two.
> > Q3 Gone where?
> >
>
> To help his pappy run his campaign.
Strike three.
> > LOL!
> >
> > > Bush's commanding officer said that Bush
> > > was not observed when he should have been on duty.t
> >
> > Bush's CO said he had a poor memory.
> >
> > Q4 Did you post that comment?
>
> But Bush's commanding officer did not write down that Bush was
> observed doing his required duty. He did not show up and was "not
observed".
> In the military, when you're "not observed" means you weren't there.
Again, you paraphrase from the Democrat Whining points.
Strike four.
> Boy TellinLies. You sure love to ask dumb questions now don't you?
And yet you are incapable of answering them.
Talk about dumb.
Strike five.
>Boy
> you sure ask for proof when something doesn't go your way but fail to back
> up any one of you crazy claims.
You have yet to answer a single question.
My crazy claims?
Post a few of those crazy claims.
Strike six.
> Q1 Did John Kerry's commanding officer accuse him of war crimes?
Did I say he did?
Strike seven
> Please post
> his complete statement.
I didn;t reference his statement.
You, on the othe hand referenced Bush's CO amd fellow pilots, but failed to
poost their statements.
Caught lying again.
Strike nine.
> Q2 Was John Kerry ever court marshaled for war crimes?
When did I say he was?
Strike ten.
> Please post the court
> martial records and where John Kerry served time.
I didn;t reference any "coutr martial records"".
You, on the other hand referenced Bush's CO amd fellow pilots, but failed to
post their statements.
Strike eleven.
> Q3 What unit was John Kerry in when he committed these war crimes you
claim
> he did?
Strike twelve.
> Q4 Why haven't you provided one shred of proof when you made the claim
and
> everyone asked you for it?
Why do you apply a standard of proof to things I never said, while there is
no standard for you?
I'll answer that for you --
Becasue you are a habitual liar.
> Q5 Did you imagine that John Kerry was a war criminal?
Did I say I imagined that?
Are you njow prepared to provide the statements of Bush's COP and fellow
pilots?
Liar.
> Q6 Did you take your medication today?
Not for the personal attacks.
Liar.
> Q7 Are there some drugs you're supposed to betaking or are you taking
some
> drugs you aren't supposed to be taking?
Liar.
Post your proof, liar.
> Q8 Why do you think Bush does not want to release his military records
> like EVERY other candidate currently running has?
Snips noted.
Carry on with your lies for the Whining Points.
And thanks for demonstrating your double standard for proof.
That was precisely what I was loking for.
You failed to answer a single question.
Even the gimme I posed out of pity.
Liar.
>
> John
>
>
TellTheTruth
I see you making claims, but not providing the statements you claim you base
them upon.
You show up ank make a liar out of yourself.
And then you resort to namecalling.
You also practise two different standards of proof.
That makes you a lying hypocrite.
>
> John
>
>
TellTheTruth
> The problem with education everywhere is the superintendents who are
> making tons of money and getting raises all the time just letting the
> schools go to hell.
The problem with the public (government) schools is that they are government
schools.
And lying Leftist hypocrites like you.
stevehoran
>
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:bea1ok$2qioo$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> > back about Bob Kerrey being a war criminal but it never really made it
big
> > because he didn't run for President.
>
> Only War Criminals that run for President warrant exposure?
>
> An interestin set of morals you carry.
You're exposing yourself as an ass. You obviously got
John Kerry confused with Bob Kerrey, both of whom
are Deomcrats with war records. The topic of Senator
Bob Kerrey is not on the table.
Regarding Bush's service during the war, the right-wing
Usenet poster known as "LiberalsHateAmerica" cut and
paste the following account of Bush's experience in the
National Guard. I don't know where he found it but this
is apparently a Republican-positive take. Beneath the
pro-Bush spin the facts show a guy who was unaccounted
for during much of his stint in the Guard.
"
At the Republican convention in Philadelphia, George W. Bush declared: "Our
military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the
commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to
report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" Bush says he is the candidate who can
"rebuild our military and prepare our armed forces for the future." On what
direct military experience does he make such claims?
George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968,
less than two weeks before he graduated from Yale University. The country
was at war in Vietnam, and at that time, just months after the bloody Tet
Offensive, an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join
Guard units across the country. Bush was sworn in on the day he applied.
Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in
September 1999 that in late 1967 or early 1968, he asked a senior official
in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot.
Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman
and friend of former President George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman.
Despite Barnes's admission, former President Bush has denied pulling strings
for his son, and retired Colonel Walter Staudt, George W. Bush's first
commander, insists: "There was no special treatment."
The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot
training in June 1970. During that time and in the two years that followed,
Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with heat-seeking missiles
that could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers
regarded Bush as a competent pilot and enthusiastic Guard member. In March
1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his
performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained
by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to solo in the F-102... Lt. Bush said his
father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he
was." In Bush's evaluation for the period May 1, 1971 through April 30,
1972, then-Colonel Bobby Hodges, his commanding officer, stated, "I have
personally observed his participation, and without exception, his
performance has been noteworthy." In the spring of 1972, however, National
Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's military activity. Though
trained as a pilot at considerable government expense, Bush stopped flying
in April 1972 and never flew for the Guard again.
Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a
Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington
Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May."
Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve
Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered
no pay. Although that unit's commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31
higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's
request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to
his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can be
assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval
memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for
assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by
Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a
month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize
events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's
overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he
performed Guard duties during that summer.
On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required
annual medical exam at his Texas unit. As a consequence, he was suspended
from flying military jets. Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett told
Georgemag.com: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not
flying. The paperwork uses the phrase 'suspended from flying,' but he had no
intention of flying at that time."
Some media reports have speculated that Bush took and failed his physical,
or that he was grounded as a result of substance abuse. Bush's vagueness on
the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush's
commanding officer in Texas, however, denies the charges. "His flying status
was suspended because he didn't take the exam,not because he couldn't pass,"
says Hodges. Asked whether Bush was ever disciplined for using alcohol or
illicit drugs, Hodges replied: "No."
On September 5, Bush wrote to then-Colonel Jerry Killian at his original
unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical
Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the
months of September, October, and November," wrote Bush.
This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered
Bush to report to then-Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air
Force Base in Montgomery on October 7th and 8th. The memo noted that
"Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with
our group," since the 187th did not fly F-102s.
The question of whether Bush ever actually served in Alabama has become an
issue in the 2000 campaign-the Air Force Times recently reported that "the
GOP is trying to locate people who served with Bush in late 1972 ... to see
if they can confirm that Bush briefly served with the Alabama Air National
Guard." Bush's records contain no evidence that he reported to Dannelly in
October. And in telephone interviews with Georgemag.com, neither Turnipseed,
Bush's commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of
the 187th, remembered Bush serving with their unit. "I don't think he showed
up," Turnipseed said.
Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. "Governor Bush specifically
remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and respectfully disagrees with the
Colonel," says Bartlett. "There's no question it wasn't memorable, because
he wasn't flying." In July, the Decatur Daily reported that two former
Blount campaign workers recall Bush serving in the Alabama Air National
Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for
about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to
complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama
resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state.
After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and
subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for
disadvantaged youths. This period of time has also become a matter of
controversy, because even though Bush's original unit had been placed on
alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his
whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, Bush's squadron leader in the 147th, Lieutenant
Colonel William Harris, Jr. wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this
unit" for the past year. Harris incorrectly assumed that Bush had been
reporting for duty in Alabama all along. He wrote that Bush "has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon
Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." Base commander Hodges says of Bush's return
to Texas: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his
days."
Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the
time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23,
1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following
month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush
that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first.
Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine
occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and
May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine
points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from
inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every
member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the
50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a
Guardsman.
On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and
documents show that he proceeded to cram in another 10 sessions over the
next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service
and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous
points, achieved the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974.
On October 1, 1973, First Lieutenant George W. Bush received an early
honorable discharge so that he could attend Harvard Business School. He was
credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his
six-year service obligation.
"
Wbarwell
> Bush was never AWOL. Even the NYTimes agrees with that.
Bush was AWOl. He asked to be posted to an Alabama
outfit and was denied that, yet he was gone by the time the denial reacheed
his last address. He asked for another post to another Alabama outfit, and
given that, never showed up.
He was AWOL for over a year. And after 30 days, that is desertion.
Desertin' George Bush.
You guys will never admit the truth, will yopu.
All bigger liars than Clinton, the lot of you.
Not an honest right winger in all of America.
Lie loving, far right excuse mongering fools.
Bush lies and you drool and bark, you love it when he lies.
Bush deserted and lied about it and lies about it to this day.
Cheerful Charlie
>
> It was a made up story first published in the Boston Globe (also a NYTimes
> paper) and almost immediately discounted by the NY Times as not-factual.
> It has become an item of "Faith" among you Bush-haters, but as an item of
> "Fact," it has been shown to be nonsense.
>
> All service required by the Air National Guard under law was completed by
> Bush, who was subsiquently issued the officer's equivalent of an
> "Honerable
> Discharge" when his term of service was over. I suggest that you
> Bush-haters spend some some reviewing the ANG program and service-time
> requirements. You are also free to request Bush's service record under
> the
> Freedom of Information Act. I assure that *EVERY* major news organization
> has already done so and if Bush was actually AWOL, every liberal rag in
> the world would already be trumpeting it on a daily basis.
>
> As is typical among your stripe, you have confused what you WISH with WHAT
> IS. And the belief that Bush was AWOL is fundamental in that alternate
> reality and fantasy world that you live in.
>
> Further, you delude yourself if you think that Kerry -- the man who
> pretended to throw away his Vietnam service medals away, but mounted them
> on a wall-plaque in his office -- will be able to convert his public
> anti-war record into one as a patriot.
>
> Wesley Clark, on the other hand, does bring credibility to the table as a
> retired 4 star general. Short of his entry into the race, you democrats
> don't stand a chance in 2004 with the stable of loons you have now
> pandering
> to the stupids of your left wing. Even with his entry into the race, you
> still don't stand much of a chance, even if he does manage to get the
> nomination (which he won't, your extreme leftwing hates the US military).
>
> --
> "We thank you, people of the great United States, for the gift that you
> have bestowed on us. I cannot promise that we will succeed in making good
> of it. But I do promise that we will try very hard."
>
> [Iraqi exile, Kanan Makiya, "THANK YOU, AMERICA, 4/15/2003,
> http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/73414.htm]
>
> --
>
> "In Saddam's killing fields, however, there is only silence. The
> [regime's] guns fell silent with the outbreak of the coalition's
> "unjustified" war to remove Saddam Hussein."
>
> [Hal Lindsey, "Islam's Hitler," 6/12/2003,
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33042]
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
TellTheTruth
>
> "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> news:gp3Oa.40571$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:bea1ok$2qioo$1...@ID-162665.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >
> > > There was a blurb a while
> > > back about Bob Kerrey being a war criminal but it never really made it
> big
> > > because he didn't run for President.
> >
> > Only War Criminals that run for President warrant exposure?
> >
> > An interestin set of morals you carry.
>
> You're exposing yourself as an ass. You obviously got
> John Kerry confused with Bob Kerrey, both of whom
> are Deomcrats with war records. The topic of Senator
> Bob Kerrey is not on the table.
You are interjecting yourself here.
So what exavctly is obvious to you?
Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
And you are an apologist for War Criminals.
> Regarding Bush's service during the war, the right-wing
> Usenet poster known as "LiberalsHateAmerica" cut and
> paste the following account of Bush's experience in the
> National Guard. I don't know where he found it but this
> is apparently a Republican-positive take. Beneath the
> pro-Bush spin the facts show a guy who was unaccounted
> for during much of his stint in the Guard.
The "facts"?
Sheese, you are as bankrupt as Slade.
And lying hypocrite Slade has two sets of standards of proof.
That he demonstrated here.
<snipped leftist take on facts presented without proof>
And since you don't seem to get it either, I'll post a gew facts for you:
08Sep64 Clinton registers for Draft
17Nov64 Clinton classified 2-SO
20Mar68 Clinton reclassified 1-A
28July69 Clinton ordered to report this date for induction but fails to show
07Aug1969 Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in US Army Reserves under
authority of Col. E. Holmes. Clinton signs papers and takes oath of
enlistment
Sep1969 Clinton fails to report for duty at ROTC Station, University of
Arkansas.
30Oct1969 Clinton reclassified 1-A, enlistment in Army Reserves revoked by
Col. E. Holmes, and now AWOL and subject to arrest under PL90-40(2)(a)
"registrant who has failed to report . . remain liable for induction."
01Dec1969 Clinton's number is drawn, #311, but those already ordered to
report are ineligible.
1974 Clinton runs for Congress while a fugitive under PL90-40
You are precisely the product the public (government) schools intended to
produce.
Sue them.
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
Same thing with the accusations that Bush was "AWOL". It turns out those
accusations by the Democrats are false too.
Now please show us why the American People, in poll after poll, trust the
Republicans to handle the nation's defense (and even the economy!) more than
they trust the Democrats!
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
Please describe for us which branch of the federal government the voters
decided to put the Democrats in charge of, John.
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
"Wbarwell" <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:3f090232$0$5790$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com...
> George of the Jungle wrote:
>
> > Bush was never AWOL. Even the NYTimes agrees with that.
>
>
> Bush was AWOl. He asked to be posted to an Alabama
> outfit and was denied that, yet he was gone by the time the denial
reacheed
> his last address.
If what you claim is true, it would show up in his military record, and you
would be able to refer to it. In fact, there would be AWOL proceedings in
his military record. Yet there aren't. No, the ONLY place any record of
Bush being "AWOL" shows up is in the Democrat Party playbook.
IOW, the Democrats are increasingly desperate.
The Democrat Party Death Spiral continues, unabated. The Party's collective
mind has gone AWOL, if you will.
TellTheTruth
As the Dems slip into obscurity, these false accusations are all they have.
And the Double Standard is the foundation upon which they are fabricated.
> Now please show us why the American People, in poll after poll, trust the
> Republicans to handle the nation's defense (and even the economy!) more
than
> they trust the Democrats!
Because the Dems cost too much and deliver too little.
>
>
"Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
> > Now please show us why the American People, in poll after poll, trust
the
> > Republicans to handle the nation's defense (and even the economy!) more
> than
> > they trust the Democrats!
>
> Because the Dems cost too much and deliver too little.
Well said, and right on the mark.
stevehoran
>
> "Wbarwell" <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> news:3f090232$0$5790$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com...
> > George of the Jungle wrote:
> >
> > > Bush was never AWOL. Even the NYTimes agrees with that.
> >
> >
> > Bush was AWOl. He asked to be posted to an Alabama
> > outfit and was denied that, yet he was gone by the time the denial
> reacheed
> > his last address.
>
>
> If what you claim is true, it would show up in his military record, and
you
> would be able to refer to it.
That's the problem: *He* doesn't show up in his record!
> In fact, there would be AWOL proceedings in
> his military record. Yet there aren't.
He got a pass because he was the son of privelege.
> No, the ONLY place any record of
> Bush being "AWOL" shows up is in the Democrat Party playbook.
>
> IOW, the Democrats are increasingly desperate.
You seem a lot more desperate. You can't defend
Bush's shoddy record so you just deny.
>
> The Democrat Party Death Spiral continues, unabated. The Party's
collective
> mind has gone AWOL, if you will.
Your mantra is putting me to sleep. When your leading
Republican is George W Bush, I wouldn't start attacking
the Democrats' "collective mind"!
stevehoran
LOL! You can't attack John Kerry so you attempt to
chcange the subject to Bob Kerrey. You can't defend
Bush so you attempt to change the subject to Clinton.
You have to learn to deal with the issue at hand. The
truth will set you free. Take off your jackboots and
relax.
stevehoran
>
> Same thing with the accusations that Bush was "AWOL". It turns out those
> accusations by the Democrats are false too.
He was never charged as AWOL but, in reality, he
skipped out on roughly a year's worth of service
making him de facto AWOL.
>
> Now please show us why the American People, in poll after poll, trust the
> Republicans to handle the nation's defense (and even the economy!) more
than
> they trust the Democrats!
Hah! Even you seem surprised by this!
TellTheTruth
Where have you been?
LOL!
"stevehoran" <steve...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rsfOa.69466$1e.35263@fed1read04...
David Lentz
Jim Vadek wrote:
>
> "TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.net> wrote in message
> news:cIINa.37945$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Because Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
>
> Hey moron, Kerry has 3 puple hearts.
> Bush was an AWOL deserter.
A charge made without any evidence which to support it. Even the
web sitss which attempt to prove the charge the George W. Bush
was absent without Official Leave refutes their own case.
David
TellTheTruth
They can't win at the ballot box, and they know it.
Which explains their sudden obsession with the unelected Supreme Court.
>
>
David Lentz
stevehoran wrote:
>
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:evYNa.16491$ma.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > The typical United States voter likes their country. A lot love
> > their country. We just spent the Fourth of July celebrating our
> > nation. If the sentiment expressed by Howard Dean reflected the
> > mood of the electorate, you would have expected the Fourth to be
> > marked by mourning or depression instead of the celebration we
> > did get.
> >
> > Dean is out of touch with everybody not in left wing of the
> > Democratic Party.
>
> Look at Dean's platform: he's not "left wing" at all.
> He's surely a Democrat but he's also a pragmatist.
>
> >
> > David
>
> You believe the spin that Democrats or liberals or
> whatever you want to call us hate America. This is
> very silly. People can oppose the war in Iraq without
> opposing (or hating) America. Last time I checked
> we were still a free country. I see Dean's message
> as very positive.
>
> PS I had a terrific 4th and I hope you did too.
I am not saying that all democrats hate the United States, I am
saying the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party does hate
the United States, and those all the voters to whom Howard Dean
is appealing.
David
David Lentz
Jim Vadek wrote:
>
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:evYNa.16491$ma.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> > The typical United States voter likes their country. A lot love
> > their country. We just spent the Fourth of July celebrating our
> > nation. If the sentiment expressed by Howard Dean reflected the
> > mood of the electorate, you would have expected the Fourth to be
> > marked by mourning or depression instead of the celebration we
> > did get.
>
> > Dean is out of touch with everybody not in left wing of the
> > Democratic Party.
>
> I agree. But, Dean is fulfilling an important role - he is whipping up the
> very left, they are pissed off and want to vote Bush out. Those votes will
> roll over to the eventual nominee which I expect to be Kerry.
>
> People forget that many people did not vote in the last election. I think it
> is more likely that these people will be activated and will decide to vote
> this time around - against Bush.
Sounds a wee bit like Terry McAuliffe's plan to capitalize on
voter anger over the Two Thousand election to beat Jeb Bush in
Florida. That one worked real well.
David
"Libs_r_Dumb As_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
>
> "Rene" <Rene "Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oocOa.25448$Ey6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Wbarwell" <Wbar...@munnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f090232$0$5790$811e...@news.mylinuxisp.com...
> > > George of the Jungle wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bush was never AWOL. Even the NYTimes agrees with that.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bush was AWOl. He asked to be posted to an Alabama
> > > outfit and was denied that, yet he was gone by the time the denial
> > reacheed
> > > his last address.
> >
> >
> > If what you claim is true, it would show up in his military record, and
> you
> > would be able to refer to it.
>
> That's the problem: *He* doesn't show up in his record!
Apparently the military service doesn't think so, else they would have filed
a Court Martial proceeding against him, yet there is no record of any Court
Martial proceeding against George Bush. THAT doesn't show up in his record
either! No, the ONLY place an "AWOL" charge against George Bush shows up
is in the Democrat Party's playbook!
"Libs_r_Dumb As_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
>
> "Rene" <Rene "Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zkcOa.25423$Ey6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > Same thing with the accusations that Bush was "AWOL". It turns out
those
> > accusations by the Democrats are false too.
>
> He was never charged as AWOL but, in reality, he
> skipped out on roughly a year's worth of service
> making him de facto AWOL.
No, if he had "skipped out on roughly a year's worth of service", he would
have been charged as AWOL. In fact, the ONLY place an AWOL charge against
George Bush shows up is in the Democrat Party's tired and worn-out playbook!
LOL at you!
David Lentz
Rene wrote:
<snip>
> > There will never be another Kennedy. But Kerry used to hang out with JFK
> so
> > he might appreciate JFK's qualities better than most.
>
> Kennedy was a well-known womanizer and adulterer, perhaps even worse so than
> Clinton. That you inform us Kerry admires those qualities doesn't surprise
> us, given that Kerry is a $$$rich$$$ Democrat.
Recent news has forced to revise my opinion of the Clan Kennedy.
I have long held that the Kennedy men were cads, Joe Senior, John
F., Teddy, Michael. Yet the Kennedy women seem to have some
class, i.e, Jackie.
The recent revelation the Kerry Kennedy Cuomo lusted after a
married polo player made me realize that these Kennedy women with
class were imports. Kennedy Cuomo is a Kennedy by blood, and
that all that appears that is needed.
David
David Lentz
Wbarwell wrote:
>
> George of the Jungle wrote:
>
> > Bush was never AWOL. Even the NYTimes agrees with that.
>
> Bush was AWOl. He asked to be posted to an Alabama
> outfit and was denied that, yet he was gone by the time the denial reacheed
> his last address. He asked for another post to another Alabama outfit, and
> given that, never showed up.
>
> He was AWOL for over a year. And after 30 days, that is desertion.
>
> Desertin' George Bush.
That is an assertion made without evidence. To date, I have
never seen any evidence that George W. Bush was ever absenet
without official leave.
David
stevehoran
"Rene" <Rene "Libs_r_Dumb As_Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EOfOa.59795$fG.41441@sccrnsc01...
>
> "stevehoran" <steve...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:KpfOa.69464$1e.60045@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Rene" <Rene "Libs_r_Dumb_As Rocks" Ste...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > news:oocOa.25448$Ey6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
and
> > you
> > > would be able to refer to it.
> >
> > That's the problem: *He* doesn't show up in his record!
>
>
> Apparently the military service doesn't think so, else they would have
filed
> a Court Martial proceeding against him, yet there is no record of any
Court
> Martial proceeding against George Bush. THAT doesn't show up in his
record
> either! No, the ONLY place an "AWOL" charge against George Bush shows up
> is in the Democrat Party's playbook!
>
How often do people in the National Guard get court
martialed? Bush evaded the draft by getting into the
Guard in the first place but he didn't even make good
on that commitment. Here's the Republican approved
account of his military stint:
"Libs_r_Dumb As_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Rene
> > > > If what you claim is true, it would show up in his military record,
> and
> > > you
> > > > would be able to refer to it.
> > >
> > > That's the problem: *He* doesn't show up in his record!
> >
> > Apparently the military service doesn't think so, else they would have
> filed
> > a Court Martial proceeding against him, yet there is no record of any
> Court
> > Martial proceeding against George Bush. THAT doesn't show up in his
> record
> > either! No, the ONLY place an "AWOL" charge against George Bush shows
up
> > is in the Democrat Party's playbook!
>
> How often do people in the National Guard get court
> martialed?
As often as people in the Guard go AWOL.
Krow
>
> > Bob Kerrey is not on the table.
>
> You are interjecting yourself here.
>
> So what exavctly is obvious to you?
>
> Kerr(e)y is a War Criminal.
>
> And you are an apologist for War Criminals.
>
And you are a fucking moron. BOB Kerry had those charges leveled against
him but there were never proven. JOHN Kerry is a decorated war hero who YOU
choose to slander.
TellTheTruth
"Krow" <kro...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cUhOa.7297$EQ5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I'm gonna have to renew my license. I'm over limit now.
So, it's Democrat BOB Kerry who is the war criminal?
LOL!
>
>
TellTheTruth
It appers that you reject the Democrats Double Standard of Proof.