NationStates Jolt Archive

especially if you were in nam, there it took about a week.

I was more happy that I was born when I was, cause compared to WWII, nam was a cake walk. One day of combat on iwo was tougher then a week in nam, as the vc would disappear a few min after engaging, while the japs fought to the death.

No not exactly, you have to request to be sent home, it doesn't just happen. He had to whine and say he was scratched in order to get those medals.Yeah--I mean think about it. Bush whined too and he only got to stay home and not show up for all his TANG service. Why didn't he get any medals? Give it a rest--Kerry got 5 medals in total and volunteered to go to Vietnam when a lot of people were finding creative ways to stay home.

pffffft yeah, right. so we have a bunch of little nations that have populations smaller than some cities in the US. And britian doesn't count because blare is nothing but a puppet and under his leadership britian has become the 51st state.

Then why do I still need a passport to travel there.

Then why do I still need a passport to travel there.
It has something to do with your accent. Plus, mainland governors don't really like Governor Blair. (Haha, just kidding...)

Boy, I'd sure like to live in that country, because it certainly isn't America at the moment. If you haven't bothered to look around, our economy is in the friggin toilet right now.

How can you say the economy is in the crapper? Do you have a job? Are you using the famous misery index? hahaha, if you think its so bad why is unemployment down lower then many european nations. Get off your butt, put down the doritos, and get a job.

There are more millionaires now then in the history of America.

Help is not a few hundred troops when we have over 150,000 over there.

Seems like every joint venture we do, we do the lions share anyway.

Then by all means, provide some evidence. Clinton managed to balance the budget, and Bush has managed to destroy Social Security and put us in a large deficit.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your statement please.

Yup he destroyed it, when will the seniors start rioting? It's been screwed up for years.

You... you seriously have got to be kidding me.... are you even looking at the crap you are spewing before you hit the submit button? you know that your claims are completely false and unfounded right?

You... you seriously think Clinton had anything to do with the economy doing so well in the 90's? Hey quiz kid the answer is he had a republican house and senate.

How can you say the economy is in the crapper? Do you have a job? Are you using the famous misery index? hahaha, if you think its so bad why is unemployment down lower then many european nations. Get off your butt, put down the doritos, and get a job.

There are more millionaires now then in the history of America.There are also more people in poverty in the US than at any other time in our history--the increase in population and the lowered vlaue of the dollar in the last hundred years are responsible for both the number of people in poverty and the number of millionaires. Fact is, the markets are down and employment is still stagnant. Sure--there are other places worse off than we are, but that doesn't preclude the notion that the US economy isn't as good as it should be right now.

You... you seriously think Clinton had anything to do with the economy doing so well in the 90's? Hey quiz kid the answer is he had a republican house and senate.
And Reagan had a Democratic House and Senate--you going to take the credit away from the Gipper as well?

here would you like me to spoon feed it to you?

1) decrease the deficit
2) cut taxes for the middle class
3) raise taxes for those who make over 200k per year
4) decrease health care burden
5) stop the back door draft of national guardsmen and reservists
6) increase funding for headstart programs and education
7) increase funding for veterans affairs
8) ask for help in Iraq from the UN so we can get some of our men and women home
do you really need me to continue?

Yup he sure will do all of these things, but #1. It will get huge as he is just another tax and spend liberal. Healthcare alone will ruin any hope for balancing the budget, plus ruin a potential kerry presidency. Bush may be a republican in name only, cause he sure as heck spends like a new england liberal.

And Bush has had four years to do this and still hasn't done it.

ADDITION: That's four years in office with a Republican-dominated Congress and a country that was willing to rally around him after 9/11.

hey a quiz for you. Have we been attacked since 9/11?

So Hannibal--if both sides are going to spend tax money at crazy rates, then why not vote for the guy who'll at least give you something to show for it. I mean, if you're right (and I'm not conceding that) and both Kerry and Bush are going to run up the deficit, then why not at least get health care out of it? All I'm getting from Bush is higher local taxes and higher fees for local services, because I don't make enough to actually see any federal tax relief.

hey a quiz for you. Have we been attacked since 9/11?

Hey quiz for you, had you ever been attacked like you were on 9/11?

Yeah, he is isn't he? Raise the debt, soak the poor, feed the rick, etc...

Can I feed the rick as well? Not bad. Can I attend you're perfect "charter school"?

Soak the poor? Do they need a bath, or are they just hot from living in their boxes and cars?

Kerry and Bush are both filthy rich, you think they actually care about the poor? They just see votes.

How can you say the economy is in the crapper? Do you have a job? Are you using the famous misery index? hahaha, if you think its so bad why is unemployment down lower then many european nations. Get off your butt, put down the doritos, and get a job.

There are more millionaires now then in the history of America.


Bush drove a nail deep into SS's coffin. It was haging by a thread before he came into office, but it's so messed up now because of him I probably won't be able to enjoy SS when I retire....

Well that one is rather tough.

That war was very F'd up. As my buddy once said "I don't know why we didn't move into the North. At least there, we wouldn't have to hesitate to shoot. If we were up there, then the NVA would have to come home to defend their homes."

Speaking out against it. I can see why. It was a politicians war and not a generals war. Body count? WTF was up with that?

Any how.

Now giving moral aid to the enemy? I would not argue with you about Hanoi Jane. I read a story from a POW vet who helped get her booted from the 100 women of the century.

She was at their POW camp doing the propaganda stuff. He said they palmed her paper with their names and id numbers on them. She went down the line and took them all. Then she marched over to the comidant and handed them over.

He said that a couple guys were beaten to death that night.

As to the claims of atrocities? Well there is some truth to that. Some of our soldiers did some rather nasty things. Again stories from my buddy that would make you go :eek:

I have mixed feelings on that.

Hmmm did people call Ron Kovic a traitor for speaking against the war?

I have seen what the shrub can do. I don't like it so I am willing to see what Kerry can do.

That post by Thunderland sums it up pretty good!

You're buddy huh?

Some of us did call Ron a traitor.

kerry should burn in the fiery pits of hell



read about my nation



Location: Greater Nova York
The Democratic States of Eastwestland is a very large, devout nation, notable for its compulsory military service. Its compassionate, hard-working, intelligent population of 50 million have some civil rights, but not too many, enjoy the freedom to spend their money however they like, to a point, and take part in free and open elections, although not too often.

The large government concentrates mainly on Law & Order, although Religion & Spirituality and Education are secondary priorities. Citizens pay a flat income tax of 14%. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Beef-Based Agriculture, Pizza Delivery, and Trout Farming industries.

The mob and the police have had numerous clashes in the back alleys of Eastwestland's cities recently due to the government's steadfast anti-casino stance, the government is attempting to impose a new national language on the public, citizens are encouraged to report friends, family members or co-workers who seem depressed to the government for "counselling", and long arduous trials are held for the most trivial of offences. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is relatively low, thanks to the all-pervasive police force. Eastwestland's national animal is the Moongoose-Eating Cow, which is also the nation's favorite main course, and its currency is the Weso.

Eastwestland is ranked 205th in the region and 72,757th in the world for Largest Gambling Industry



thanks tg me if u got ne questions



Eastwestland

oh, i've been defending! you just haven't been attacking it. alright, i'll stop accusing him of being someone that doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes.


Hey Raicheous, how about you get your facts straight before calling Kerry a flip-flopper. Stop feeding off of the garbage the Bush campaign spews on a daily basis. Thunderland said it best in another thread:



5. Check Kerry's voting record before repeating what you've seen on Bush's commercials. Kerry has voted for the military several times. The "flip-flop" Bush speaks of is when Kerry chose not to vote for an AMENDED version of an initial bill that he did vote for. He voted against it because the initial version spoke of how to pay for the bill. That portion was struck by the Republican leadership, showing fiscal irresponsibility. I am personally glad that a congressman would not blindly support something that sinks our country into deficits that can't be erased unless my children and their children pay for it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul....

hey a quiz for you. Have we been attacked since 9/11?

Don't know. According to Ridge and Ashcroft, it's just around the corner, though. And I guess we don't care about Bali or Madrid because, well, they're not us.

The War on Terror can be summed up in two words: Habeas Osama. He killed over three thousand people on 9/11 and now, three years later, we still don't have him. That is not a successful war. That's not even a successful police investigation.

Seriously, has Bush accomplished ANY of that? No. My health care costs way too much, I had to stop going to college because it was too damn expensive, and when I was in high school I could barely take any arts classes becasue they were all being cut.

Yes, Bush has done a bangup job.

the worlds smallest violin plays a song for you, it's your problem, stand up for yourself. It costs way too much, but I guess you really need your computer too? Get a freaking job already or another one. Should Bush come and cut your dinner for you as well?

It's called America, we are not socialists. You have what you have because you earned it.

Can I feed the rick as well? Not bad. Can I attend you're perfect "charter school"?

Soak the poor? Do they need a bath, or are they just hot from living in their boxes and cars?

Kerry and Bush are both filthy rich, you think they actually care about the poor? They just see votes.
One letter Hannibal. We can't all be perfect like you.

You forgot to read the rest of it:




Note the bolded part. If Kerry and his wife as so stinking rich, then how come he had to mortgage a home of his? Granted, they do have alot of money, but they're not like Bill Gates in a sense that they sleep on a matress stuffed with $100 bills.

Besides, mortgaging his own property to pay for his presidential campaign is commendable instead of groveling to corporations for money.

It's called liquid assets. Do you know anyone who has 10 million under their mattress?

hey a quiz for you. Have we been attacked since 9/11?
Hey, a quiz for you, when was the last time that we were attacked on the mainland before 9/11?

It's called liquid assets. Do you know anyone who has 10 million under their mattress?
Bill Gates?

the worlds smallest violin plays a song for you, it's your problem, stand up for yourself. It costs way too much, but I guess you really need your computer too? Get a freaking job already or another one. Should Bush come and cut your dinner for you as well?

It's called America, we are not socialists. You have what you have because you earned it.

I'm calling BS on that. Bush doesn't "have what he has" because he earned it. He was given everything, including a free ride through several arrests for drunk driving. He's bankrupted companies and still had friends to bail him out. He's driven the Texas school system into the freaking ground, but managed to kill more convicts than any other state in the nation and HE WAS BORN FILTHY RICH FROM OIL DOLLARS.

Please. The only thing Bush has ever earned is a pink slip.

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.

Why does it matter who is elected? Nothing will ever get done, besides you make more important decisions everyday, for example, what to have for lunch, ribbed or not, which gas station to stop at. It makes no difference, and honestly the president doesn't make a difference in your life.

So Hannibal--if both sides are going to spend tax money at crazy rates, then why not vote for the guy who'll at least give you something to show for it. I mean, if you're right (and I'm not conceding that) and both Kerry and Bush are going to run up the deficit, then why not at least get health care out of it? All I'm getting from Bush is higher local taxes and higher fees for local services, because I don't make enough to actually see any federal tax relief.

You know I read these arugments and I realise I lived in a warm goey shell. Seems people today live on the principles of I, Me, and Mine.

The Shrub is great because I have a couple more dollars in my account.

Lazy worthless people are the only ones on goverment assistence.

Why should my taxes pay for health care?

My favorite: There are no poor in America; only people looking for a free lunch!

Now I am starting to understand why Brando bought an island.... ;)

the worlds smallest violin plays a song for you, it's your problem, stand up for yourself. It costs way too much, but I guess you really need your computer too? Get a freaking job already or another one. Should Bush come and cut your dinner for you as well?

It's called America, we are not socialists. You have what you have because you earned it.


LOL. Between two jobs I work over 60 hours a week, thank you very much. I work for a construction company manking blueprints, then after I get done with that job I go off to referee paintball (on Wed. and Fridays. The field is closed today, hence why I'm online) Perhaps you yourself should step into the cutthroat workforce and see what's it's like in the real world. Everything I have I worked my ass off for, and nothing I've owned since age 16 has been given to me. That includes my computer, my paintball gear, my heath insurance, car insurance, my college (until I had to leave, too expensive), and my slowly increasing car fund.

Do me a favor, be abit more understanding about the situations of hard working people, the REAL people. Don't just shout at us and tell us to get a real job.

Bill Gates?

Sam Walton?

Oh wait that would be the coffin! :eek:

Why does it matter who is elected? Nothing will ever get done, besides you make more important decisions everyday, for example, what to have for lunch, ribbed or not, which gas station to stop at. It makes no difference, and honestly the president doesn't make a difference in your life.
Unless your gay, poor, a student, christian, an atheist, pay taxes, etc. Besides those people, the government has no power over you.

It's called liquid assets. Do you know anyone who has 10 million under their mattress?


The President of my company just added another floor onto his 2 story beach-front house and added a drive through garage for his Excursion and Escalade.

The creation of jobs should be a piece of cake for Kerry. Bush will have a net job loss at the end of his term. Last President to accomplish this feat was Herbert Hoover.

As far as fighting terror is concerned, Kerry will look to traditional allies and make amends. Bush's "you are either with us or against us" attitude worked as far as Afghanistan is concerned but fell apart when Iraq was attacked.

puff puff pass, dude. create jobs? which president creates jobs? Its the taxpayers who run the show not the president!

puff puff pass, dude. create jobs? which president creates jobs? Its the taxpayers who run the show not the president!
I'd have to agree, maybe the Fed Chairman, but definitally not the president.

So Hannibal--again, are you going to tell your fellow Republicans to stop praising Reagan for the "economic expansion" during his administration since 1) Presidents don't control the economy and 2) he had a Democratic House and Senate for most of his presidency? Or is it only Democratic presidents who don't control the economy?

What you so self-righteously call Bush-bashing I call discussing the issues, the most primary of which is the shitty job Bush has done as President. When Bush does his Kerry-bashing, its always with distortions of the record--like the "voted to raise taxes 350 times" bullshit.

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.

oh yeah the president doent affect our lives when he decides to push for a useless war on lies and sends our family members off to dies for those lies. athe president doesnt affect our lives when they make decisions that allow for more pollution into the environment decreasing our health. oh no, the presidents decisions that affect the economy, raising the cost of living greatly, have absolutly no bearing on my day to day activities.

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Why are you complaining about that when you were endorsing calling HRC and THK bitches in another thread?

You just called gays terrorists...
Besides, terrorists kill people, not gays.

unless they have aids, which does kill people. Agree?

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.

while personal attacks are very mature

You're the one accusing. Don't we believe in innocent until proven guilty? Prove him a flip-flopper.

He supported us going into Iraq, but since that moron Bush deceived him, now he is against it. says alot about kerry.

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.
When are you going to answer one of the many direct questions I have asked you instead of chickenshitting around?

He supported us going into Iraq.


Because he assumed Bush had a plan to win the peace, which he obvisouly didn't have. If he did we would have been out of Iraq months ago.

He supported us going into Iraq, but since that moron Bush deceived him, now he is against it. says alot about kerry.

Says even more about Bush. What's the problem here? He got bad intel and it caused him to make a bad decision and he's stated that he's going to work to make sure that doesn't happen again in the future while Bush keeps on keeping on, trying to sell the lie and refusing to admit that a mistake was made, intentional or otherwise.

...why don't you compare Kerry's military record to Bush's..

read my thread. kerry is being trumpeded around as if he single handidly won the war himself.

unless they have aids, which does kill people. Agree?

Oo, goody, so we can also persecute people with cancer, tuberculosis, the flu, west nile, ebola and any other communicable disease that could possibly lead to death (which is practically all of them).

Dumbest.

Post.

Ever.

Kerry's speech was weak. Obama's was crazy and 1000x better, but i don't care who wins, no matter what, Israel is going to exist. Quote from Edwards, "...assure the security of Israel." Republicans and Democrates are the same burocratic shi t that makes up the U.S. government. You guys live under an ideological system of hyerarchie and white supremacy and greed. I'm glad to be in canada

read my thread. kerry is being trumpeded around as if he single handidly won the war himself.

The hell he is. He served. He was wounded. If you wanted to run for public office tomorrow you'd have just as much right to popularize your military service in Viet Nam as he did. Like you said, we get what we have because we've earned it. Kerry earned the right to talk about Viet Nam by virtue of being there, just as you did. If he's done more with it than you have, that's your choice, not his.

There are also more people in poverty in the US than at any other time in our history--the increase in population and the lowered vlaue of the dollar in the last hundred years are responsible for both the number of people in poverty and the number of millionaires. Fact is, the markets are down and employment is still stagnant. Sure--there are other places worse off than we are, but that doesn't preclude the notion that the US economy isn't as good as it should be right now.

we are going to have more poor considering how we've never had this many people before.

we are going to have more poor considering how we've never had this many people before.
That's what I said--that's also a large part of the reason we have more millionaires than ever before. Larger population + devalued currency=more millionaires. Unless you're suggesting that today's dollar is equal to the 1900 dollar.

So Hannibal--if both sides are going to spend tax money at crazy rates, then why not vote for the guy who'll at least give you something to show for it. I mean, if you're right (and I'm not conceding that) and both Kerry and Bush are going to run up the deficit, then why not at least get health care out of it? All I'm getting from Bush is higher local taxes and higher fees for local services, because I don't make enough to actually see any federal tax relief.

How is he responsible for local taxes and state taxes? I don't want government provided healthcare. Why would I. I provide for my family.

Don't know. According to Ridge and Ashcroft, it's just around the corner, though. And I guess we don't care about Bali or Madrid because, well, they're not us.

The War on Terror can be summed up in two words: Habeas Osama. He killed over three thousand people on 9/11 and now, three years later, we still don't have him. That is not a successful war. That's not even a successful police investigation.


How many of them have met allah and their 72 virgins so far.

How is he responsible for local taxes and state taxes? I don't want government provided healthcare. Why would I. I provide for my family.

Because he cut federal taxes and left states to fend for themselves to fund federally mandated programs.

Do the words, No Child Left Behind ring a bell?

How many of them have met allah and their 72 virgins so far.

Over 3,000 people dead.

The man responsible has elluded the "full force" of the United States Military for three years.

Don't tell me about other terrorists.

Find Osama or it all means nothing.

Hey, a quiz for you, when was the last time that we were attacked on the mainland before 9/11?
At the end of WWII by those Jap balloon bombs. Sure only one really worked.

Bill Gates?

Cool you know bill gates? Do you play bridge with him too?

How is he responsible for local taxes and state taxes? I don't want government provided healthcare. Why would I. I provide for my family.
Let me explain it to you. I'll use short sentences so you can follow along.

The federal government requires certain expenditures of the individual states, and then often provides some funding for them.

When the federal government cuts taxes, they have less revenue for the states.

The states can't just stop funding the mandates--that's against the law--so they have to raise local taxes or fees to make up the shortfall. Got it?

And as to healthcare--you again missed the point. Not surprising after all this time, but what the hey. I'll try again.

My point was that if we're going to have a politician in office spending like a drunken sailor as you suggest, why not at least get something for our money, like healthcare? We're going to be screwed either way, so we might as well get kissed for our trouble.

At the end of WWII by those Jap balloon bombs. Sure only one really worked.
Wow, that's horribly wrong (OK city bombing in 1995 was the last, I think), but it works for my point. How many years was it from 1995 to 2001? 6? So we shouldn't expect another attack so soon then.

Cool you know bill gates? Do you play bridge with him too?
Yeah, we are best buds. He gives me money <3

I'm calling BS on that. Bush doesn't "have what he has" because he earned it. He was given everything, including a free ride through several arrests for drunk driving. He's bankrupted companies and still had friends to bail him out. He's driven the Texas school system into the freaking ground, but managed to kill more convicts than any other state in the nation and HE WAS BORN FILTHY RICH FROM OIL DOLLARS.

Please. The only thing Bush has ever earned is a pink slip.

temper temper. What Kerry doesn't have any blue blood in him? Some are born lucky, that's the way life is. Get over it....

I'm calling BJ on that one then.

Kerry gave a good speech. I really would love to hear that they were not goign to support Israel anymroe or veto resolutions against Israel. I bet that would really boost Americas image aroudn the world as well as help things out in Palestine

LOL. Between two jobs I work over 60 hours a week, thank you very much. I work for a construction company manking blueprints, then after I get done with that job I go off to referee paintball (on Wed. and Fridays. The field is closed today, hence why I'm online) Perhaps you yourself should step into the cutthroat workforce and see what's it's like in the real world. Everything I have I worked my ass off for, and nothing I've owned since age 16 has been given to me. That includes my computer, my paintball gear, my heath insurance, car insurance, my college (until I had to leave, too expensive), and my slowly increasing car fund.

Do me a favor, be abit more understanding about the situations of hard working people, the REAL people. Don't just shout at us and tell us to get a real job.

Cutt-throat world? Well whoever you are, I know what it's like to have SAM coming at you at 3 times the speed of sound.

It's not like I struggled to start my business, but I busted my butt and made it. You can too just find a better job then "paintball referee". Try "hot air ballooner" or "porn" actor, or even "rodeo clown". Heck I had 4 mouths to feed, so i know how hard it is.

LOL. Between two jobs I work over 60 hours a week, thank you very much. I work for a construction company manking blueprints, then after I get done with that job I go off to referee paintball (on Wed. and Fridays. The field is closed today, hence why I'm online) Perhaps you yourself should step into the cutthroat workforce and see what's it's like in the real world. Everything I have I worked my ass off for, and nothing I've owned since age 16 has been given to me. That includes my computer, my paintball gear, my heath insurance, car insurance, my college (until I had to leave, too expensive), and my slowly increasing car fund.

Do me a favor, be abit more understanding about the situations of hard working people, the REAL people. Don't just shout at us and tell us to get a real job.

Cutt-throat world? Well whoever you are, I know what it's like to have a SAM coming at you at 3 times the speed of sound, and then getting hit, and having guys trying to hunt you down like a dog.

It's not like I struggled to start my business, but I busted my butt and made it. You can too just find a better job then "paintball referee". Try "hot air ballooner" or "porn" actor, or even "rodeo clown". Heck I had 4 mouths to feed, so i know how hard it is.

The President of my company just added another floor onto his 2 story beach-front house and added a drive through garage for his Excursion and Escalade.

ten mil though, highly doubtful, but I did pay 5 million for a decomissioned F-105.

So Hannibal--again, are you going to tell your fellow Republicans to stop praising Reagan for the "economic expansion" during his administration since 1) Presidents don't control the economy and 2) he had a Democratic House and Senate for most of his presidency? Or is it only Democratic presidents who don't control the economy?

for the love of pete i am not a republican. i just hate kerry, do you see me attacking clinton, no

oh yeah the president doent affect our lives when he decides to push for a useless war on lies and sends our family members off to dies for those lies. athe president doesnt affect our lives when they make decisions that allow for more pollution into the environment decreasing our health. oh no, the presidents decisions that affect the economy, raising the cost of living greatly, have absolutly no bearing on my day to day activities.

Were you drafted or did you enlist?

Why are you complaining about that when you were endorsing calling HRC and THK bitches in another thread?

using it in context

for the love of pete i am not a republican. i just hate kerry, do you see me attacking clinton, noAgain--the point goes whizzing by you as if you were inattentive. My point is that you were suggesting that the Clinton economy was the result of a Republican congress, so I suggested that if you're right--you're not--then the Reagan economy must have been as a result of a Democratic congress. You can't have it both ways.

Were you drafted or did you enlist?

I pity the fool who can't follow a conversation.
http://sherwood.smalltownfreak.org/sundries/t/t.jpg

Hannibal I was explaining how a President can and does affect our everyday lives. I don't have to participate in a war to be affected. If one of my family members has to go to a useless war (or even a legitimate one) I am deeply affected.

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Really? I guess Dick Cheney pretty immature then. By the way, Bush is doing a shitty, shitty job, and his policies are bullshit. Why sugarcoat it?

In my opinion, Bush is one of the worst president's we've had in a very long time. I'd rather elect a can of tuna than him, because at least I know the can of tuna isn't out to screw over us middle class people. Kerry may not be the ideal man for president, but I liked him before, and I like him even more after the speech.

Kerry gave a good speech. I really would love to hear that they were not goign to support Israel anymroe or veto resolutions against Israel. I bet that would really boost Americas image aroudn the world as well as help things out in Palestine

Couldn't agree more. Our relationship with Israel is not mutually beneficial. In fact, if we didn't support israel as much as we do I am confident that the 9-11 terrorist attacks might not have happened. It's time for us to stop babying Israel and let them answer take some fucking responsibility for their atrocities.

Has anyone heard the speech Kerry gave 30 years ago?

It was pretty awesome.

Full transcript. (http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html)

Audio at DemocracyNow. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1532244)

The country doesn't realize it yet but it has created a monster in the form of thousands of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history - men who have returned with a sense of anger and betrayal that no one so far has been able to grasp. We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country.

How many of them have met allah and their 72 virgins so far.

:rolleyes:

Hmmm that quote from picket fenses is correct.

"'Religion is like a fart. your own smells ok but everybody else's stinks."

I have not found validity in that statement yet as I only started reading the Qur-an.

Any Muslims care to comment?

Why do you always use profanity to make your point? It is a serious character flaw, and shows a lack of maturity on your part.

:eek: Profanity does not exist in the Military? :eek:

Who would have thought!

What about Gen. Patton?

In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration has pursued an aggressively militaristic foreign policy marked by religious rhetoric and ambitiously imperial declarations. Is the social and ideological base and agenda of this administration uniquely rooted in the Christian Right, neoconservatism, and the less scrupulous sections of the corporate elite, or is this simply a more crass reflection of a prevailing consensus among an American elite emboldened by the emergence of America as the world’s sole hegemon?

If you prefer clear answers in place of derogatory argument, please refer to http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/JAlam0206.htm : an interview with the unpopular media critic Noam Chomsky. Otherwise, continue with the cyber logorrhea.

What did Komrade Kerry say?

This bit of brilliant political fertilizer has been brought to you by yet another Bush supporter who would rather throw insults than give any sort of educated opinion on the issues at hand. Thank you for once again reminding me why I left the republican party.

I thought that Kerry's speech was well thought out, well delivered, and well written. I would have liked to have heard more of how he plans to implement and pay for his programs, but that will follow in the weeks to come.

So Hannibal--again, are you going to tell your fellow Republicans to stop praising Reagan for the "economic expansion" during his administration since 1) Presidents don't control the economy and 2) he had a Democratic House and Senate for most of his presidency? Or is it only Democratic presidents who don't control the economy?

The Fed chairman is actually the mose powerful economic force in America.

The Fed chairman is actually the mose powerful economic force in America.
Mose Hannibal?

Why are you complaining about that when you were endorsing calling HRC and THK bitches in another thread?

bitch is not profanity, you can say it on tv. Nor is whore. Hey I'm a poet now.

So Hannibal--again, are you going to tell your fellow Republicans to stop praising Reagan for the "economic expansion" during his administration since 1) Presidents don't control the economy and 2) he had a Democratic House and Senate for most of his presidency? Or is it only Democratic presidents who don't control the economy?
The Fed chairman is actually the mose powerful economic force in America. And once again, the point goes zooming past while Hannibal struggles to make sense of it.

while personal attacks are very mature

what personal attacks? geez, with you liberal red diaper doper babies everything is a personal attack. You do need thick skin to survive the in the world. It's your right as an American to be offended by me.

When are you going to answer one of the many direct questions I have asked you instead of chickenshitting around?

point proven. Nice name calling, by the way, some of us here have a business to run and can't be on line all day.

In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration has pursued an aggressively militaristic foreign policy marked by religious rhetoric and ambitiously imperial declarations. Is the social and ideological base and agenda of this administration uniquely rooted in the Christian Right, neoconservatism, and the less scrupulous sections of the corporate elite, or is this simply a more crass reflection of a prevailing consensus among an American elite emboldened by the emergence of America as the world’s sole hegemon?

If you prefer clear answers in place of derogatory argument, please refer to http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/JAlam0206.htm : an interview with the unpopular media critic Noam Chomsky. Otherwise, continue with the cyber logorrhea.Thanks. I always like Chomsky and missed this interview. I don't agree with Chomsky, but I like him.

you liberal red diaper doper babies

Wow!

Well Lads, I think the true nature is starting to appear!

Oo, goody, so we can also persecute people with cancer, tuberculosis, the flu, west nile, ebola and any other communicable disease that could possibly lead to death (which is practically all of them).

Dumbest.

Post.

Ever.

how is that persecution, did I say all gays have aids, no? did i say lock them up in camps like cuba, no?

Dumbest response ever

Oh Hannibal, I've been proving my points all day, while you have attempted to dodge every tough question thrown at you.

I would go back and explain it to you, as you seem to miss every single point that anyone happens to bring up to you, but I JUST learned from your last post to me that you are unworthy of a response. Good luck

what personal attacks? geez, with you liberal red diaper doper babies everything is a personal attack. You do need thick skin to survive the in the world. It's your right as an American to be offended by me.

Red diaper doper babies? I have to question the sanity of anyone who quotes that draft-dodging, woman-hating scumbag Michael (Weiner) Savage.

Red diaper doper babies? I have to question the sanity of anyone who quotes that draft-dodging, woman-hating scumbag Michael (Weiner) Savage.


Is that one of his?

Is that one of his?

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.
Wow!

I tried to listen to Savage once but I felt my IQ starting to drop so I changed it quick.

Hmmmm HannibalSmith?

That costs you in the credibility department.

Wow!

I tried to listen to Savage once but I felt my IQ starting to drop so I changed it quick.

Hmmmm HannibalSmith?

That costs you in the credibility department.

I used to love talk radio, much for the same reasons people watch Jerry Springer. I can't take it for more than 15 minutes at a time now. The radio market is over-saturated with Rush clones that all spew the same garbage. Then there's Savage. The right distances themselves from him (he's too freakin' crazy), but love his anti-Kerry, anti-Democrat, anti-free speech, anti-everything that doesn't fall into lockstep with his warped view of the world message.

I guess that's why Hannibal has been taking these breaks frm posting--he needs to get more material from Savage.

An amusing aside about Savege--he recently said that he spits on people with honorary degrees. From Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_atrios_archive.html#109120186222911588)
Also, the former MSNBC host says that he spits on people like Bush. Okay, not exactly -- he's saying some delightful things about Maya Angelou. It's all really lovely, as you might imagine, but this jumped out at me:

"They granted her a fake degree, an honorary deg -- an honorary degree you buy. They give you one, I earned a real one from a great university, so I know what it is to earn a real doctorate, and I respect 'em. But I spit on people with honorary degrees. They're worthless."

Who am I to argue with him?

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut (CNN) -- President Bush returned to his old college stomping grounds and the city of his birth Monday to receive an honorary degree and address graduates at Yale University's commencement.
:D

Listening to Kerry's speech was a waste of my time. A bunch of words with no substance, a load of bull if you ask me.

Listening to Kerry's speech was a waste of my time. A bunch of words with no substance, a load of bull if you ask me.

Like what for instance?

Listening to Kerry's speech was a waste of my time. A bunch of words with no substance, a load of bull if you ask me.

You are being ignorant if you ask me. I listen to bushes speeches with interest hoping that he would say something smart, but I never consider it a waste of time.

It's funny...19 years the Senate, yet not one signature achievement. Sounds like Kerry might need a little work before he can handle being the President of the United States

It's funny...19 years the Senate, yet not one signature achievement. Sounds like Kerry might need a little work before he can handle being the President of the United States
More Republican talking points. Funny how all these newbies pop up and repeat the same shit over and over again with absolutely no substance.

Kerry nailed it.. and what is better is the next time the republicans try to go negative, the democrats can go SEE! Brilliant. He has made it so that if the republicans try any games that aren't the issues, they will look bad. Talk about the issues.. cause that's what the Democrats are doing! A perfect 10 for John Kerry.. I knew he had it in him! Yay!

Any republican who bad mouths Kerry will now only prove Kerry's point! :cool:

only page one and already have to say something!

Steph, my mother is an independent NON-VOTER! She watched the speech with me and my brother only because we forced her too!

This is what she has to say about the speech!

1) He needs to stop talking about Vietnam! It happened 40 years ago. She is glad that he served his country but he needs to move on.
2) He's nieve. He needs to see the real world not a fantasy world
3) ALot of ideas but not how he is going to pay for it!
4) And since when did we lose are democracy? We haven't lost it!
5) He supports gay marraige but he talks about family values and "honor thy mother and thy father"

These are just a summery of what she had to say about it! It is her opinion that he probably caused some people to think twice about Kerry!

Me? I think he cause abit of damage to himself. This is what I think! Those people he had behind him were a minority! Most of the people he was with, AREN'T supporting him. The majority of his former COs, Aren't Supporting him. The Majority of the Veterans, aren't supporting him. He may have FORMER Generals supporting him, however, people want a wartime president not a peace president. He states that Healthcare is a top priority! How is he going to pay for it IF it passes the House. He wants to double the Active Duty and special forces! It takes 6 weeks to train ONE soldier! Yea you have hundreds graduating but you know how much it'll cost to train the forces? Also it takes minimum 18 months to train special forces to 2 years!

Steph, it is my mother's opinion, not mine, that IF Kerry is elected President, he'll be a one term president only! Me? I think he won't get elected. He concerns me!

Republicans going negative? It's the Democrats who are seething with rage about how Bush is supposedly Hitler etc etc.

Republicans point out Kerry's record and the Democrats claim it's negative politics. How pathetic.

agreed!

Not to mention attacking his record on defense and he plays "they're questioning my patriotism" card then launches into his veitnam service.

agreed!

Not to mention attacking his record on defense and he plays "they're questioning my patriotism" card then launches into his veitnam service.
they did question his patriotism, like they questioned mccain's competence and in one election in texas some republicans questioned a veteran opponents patriotism, said veteran lost 3 limbs in the vietnam war

:rolleyes:

Ok. Follow me!

There was a standing policy that if you are wounded three times, you go home!

Guess what? He was wounded three times?

Did you follow that?

Shall we talk about the shrubs military record?

Actually a problem here. I actually wonder how many actually won MORE than 3 and stayed in fight in Vietnam! I bet if you look, it'll be the vast majority.

Actually a problem here. I actually wonder how many actually won MORE than 3 and stayed in fight in Vietnam! I bet if you look, it'll be the vast majority.

That matters why?

Actually a problem here. I actually wonder how many actually won MORE than 3 and stayed in fight in Vietnam! I bet if you look, it'll be the vast majority.


Look, let me make things reeeeeeeal simple.

Military wise?

Kerry > Bush.

One fought, one didn't.

END OF STORY.

Actually, if you have more evidence that the rest of the world doesn't know about it, do share.

Look people here it is.....

1) Kerry talks about all the great things hes gonna do but doesnt say hows he gonna do it!!?? for example "I will send 40 thousnad troups to iraq to help those fellow americans fighting" Were the hell is he getting the forty thousand is he gonna have a draft or just find them eating sandwiches what the hell is his plan!!

2) He contradicts himself......For example he said back in a old interview he said "There is no real threat of terrorism George bush exaggerated the threat all together" what the hell is that so thousands die and its no threat what the hell is his problem. and then later he says "i will fight terrorism because the threat is real! and worst than ever" I dont get this guy!!

Well o well i dont like bush or kerry but i would rather have bush because he actually gives a plan of action even if you dont like the plan atleast he doesnt just spit out words and then have nothing to back it.


KERRY IS NOT FIT FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

only page one and already have to say something!

Steph, my mother is an independent NON-VOTER!

Non-voter or do you mean not registered to a party?

If she doesn't vote, then (a tired old line but still is valid) she really can't complain.


1) He needs to stop talking about Vietnam! It happened 40 years ago. She is glad that he served his country but he needs to move on.

Why? America likes a soldier. Ike, JFK, and now Kerry. Fact is VERY valid. One of the things they liked to throw at Clinton was the fact he was a draft dodger.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. You have a guy that went over and got shot at vs a guy whose daddy got him a position in the guard and protected us from commies in Texas and Arkansas. Well when he showed up.


2) He's nieve. He needs to see the real world not a fantasy world

Wow that explains a great deal! I think I will vote for the shrub now!


3) ALot of ideas but not how he is going to pay for it!

Well, many of his "info" sheets say how he is going to pay for it.

4) And since when did we lose are democracy? We haven't lost it!

I missed the speech so I don't know where she is going with this.

5) He supports gay marraige but he talks about family values and "honor thy mother and thy father"

Why can't he support both?

These are just a summery of what she had to say about it! It is her opinion that he probably caused some people to think twice about Kerry!

You sure she is an independent? That sounds pretty conservative Republican to me.

Me? I think he cause abit of damage to himself. This is what I think! Those people he had behind him were a minority! Most of the people he was with, AREN'T supporting him. The majority of his former COs, Aren't Supporting him. The Majority of the Veterans, aren't supporting him. He may have FORMER Generals supporting him, however, people want a wartime president not a peace president.

The people you mention refuse to let their records be examined and they formed a political action comitte so their "opinions" are suspect. And if you read the post by Thunderland he paints a more belivable picture. The vets he takes care of supported him in 2000 but then they saw he does not respect them or the support programs they have. Many support Kerry now.


He states that Healthcare is a top priority! How is he going to pay for it IF it passes the House. He wants to double the Active Duty and special forces! It takes 6 weeks to train ONE soldier! Yea you have hundreds graduating but you know how much it'll cost to train the forces? Also it takes minimum 18 months to train special forces to 2 years!

He explained Healthcare and to the training issues? Ok your Republican buds have spouted the war on terror will go on for a long time. So the time to train isn't a valid point.


Steph, it is my mother's opinion, not mine, that IF Kerry is elected President, he'll be a one term president only! Me? I think he won't get elected. He concerns me!

You sure about that? Not to many moms talk about training time for special forces. Hmmmmmmm

no no no here it is...

Bush...received a bachelor's degree from Yale University, served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms, signed into law policies to improve public schools, signed tax relief that lowered tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America, increased pay and benefits for the military and works on saving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare... this might outweigh Kerry's participation in Vietnam (that he never ceases to remind us of) and his 19 years in the Senate sitting on his ass not getting anything done nor making any significant achievements

Bush > Kerry

no no no here it is...

Bush...received a bachelor's degree from Yale University, served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms, signed into law policies to improve public schools, signed tax relief that lowered tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America, increased pay and benefits for the military and works on saving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare... this might outweigh Kerry's participation in Vietnam (that he never ceases to remind us of) and his 19 years in the Senate sitting on his ass not getting anything done nor making any significant achievements

Bush > Kerry

1) bush never flew a f102 anywhere, he was in alabama alot of the time with his records lost now
2) wow a bachelors in business, big man isnt he
3) the bushs OWN texas
4) really so bush did all these things for medicare and social security (which he is actualyl tryign to fuck up) when he was a PREISDENT, yet the guy in teh senate didnt do jack shit. i think you need to study up on how the government works boyo

I only tuned in for the last few words and then all the cheering and smiling bs.

3) the bushs OWN texas

No ... no they don't. They own some land and hold some interests, but that's far from being in control of the 30+ million people who live in TX. Up until quite recently, Texas was a Democratic state and we will be again very soon.

The Republicans are trying desperately to steal Texas from the people through redistricting, but even that will be their ultimate demise in this state. Texans are *pissed* about redistricting.

Non-voter or do you mean not registered to a party?

If she doesn't vote, then (a tired old line but still is valid) she really can't complain.


Why? America likes a soldier. Ike, JFK, and now Kerry. Fact is VERY valid. One of the things they liked to throw at Clinton was the fact he was a draft dodger.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. You have a guy that went over and got shot at vs a guy whose daddy got him a position in the guard and protected us from commies in Texas and Arkansas. Well when he showed up.


Wow that explains a great deal! I think I will vote for the shrub now!


Well, many of his "info" sheets say how he is going to pay for it.

I missed the speech so I don't know where she is going with this.

Why can't he support both?

You sure she is an independent? That sounds pretty conservative Republican to me.

The people you mention refuse to let their records be examined and they formed a political action comitte so their "opinions" are suspect. And if you read the post by Thunderland he paints a more belivable picture. The vets he takes care of supported him in 2000 but then they saw he does not respect them or the support programs they have. Many support Kerry now.


He explained Healthcare and to the training issues? Ok your Republican buds have spouted the war on terror will go on for a long time. So the time to train isn't a valid point.



You sure about that? Not to many moms talk about training time for special forces. Hmmmmmmm

Black Forrest, my mother SERVED in the armed forces for 6 years! And yes women do serve in the military, she is a non-voter, and she has full right to state her opinion. She never complained. These are HER OBSERVATIONS!

I'm sorry, but I could not vote for a man that voted for sending US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan but voted against spending the money to send them body armor. If that's the kind of president he'd be... well, lets just say things would probably only get worse...

I just don't think Kerry understands...he made that pretty obvious in his speech---

1) he just doesnt get the War of Terror...he was truthful about how he'd fight the War, he won't, which I find odd since the war is the biggest concern of Americans...

2)he didnt give any answers... what I had hoped to hear was how his admirable record of military and public service would make a difference in leading this nation in the war on terror...unfortunately he ended his speech leaving me, and many others, still unsure of the answer

3)he barely mentioned Iraq, the issue that has shaped and dominated this presidential campaign, divided the Democratic Party and has hurt his own candidacy, I am shocked, especially at a time when we are looking for an exit strategy and I also wonder whether Kerry even has a plan for Iraq that is different from Bush's, he offered only the assurance that he knows how to get it right....right???
I mean the trouble is that Kerry still hasn't formed an image of where he'd take the nation on its most urgent issues: the war on terrorism and resolving the mess that is the U.S. situation in Iraq. So far, his policies sound a lot like those of President Bush

All in all it was a dissappointment!

No ... no they don't. They own some land and hold some interests, but that's far from being in control of the 30+ million people who live in TX. Up until quite recently, Texas was a Democratic state and we will be again very soon.

The Republicans are trying desperately to steal Texas from the people through redistricting, but even that will be their ultimate demise in this state. Texans are *pissed* about redistricting.
texas has a george bush beanie baby

I'm sorry, but I could not vote for a man that voted for sending US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan but voted against spending the money to send them body armor. If that's the kind of president he'd be... well, lets just say things would probably only get worse...
Did you ever think that people in the senate vote on more than just the principle of the bill? Did you ever think that he may have voted against the bill to send troops body armor because he felt it wasn't enough and we could do much better? Don't you remember his speech? "America can do better"

the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms

Until 1972, on approval of a constitutional amendment to extend the term of office, the term of office for Texas Governor was 2 years. This measure went into effect in 1975, but since then (a mere 20 years) the only governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms was George W. Bush. However, his selection as President in the middle of his second term meant that no one has yet been able to fully exploit the potential political advantages of serving two full terms.

I will concede that he was the first Texas Governor not born in Texas since W. Lee O'Daniel and the first Texas Governor not born in the South since Lawrence Sullivan Ross.

signed into law policies to improve public schools, signed tax relief that lowered tax rates for everyone who pays income taxes in America, increased pay and benefits for the military and works on saving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare

He signed them into law, but he didn't create them. The Governor in Texas has *very* little power. The only reason we have a Governor is because the US required it for statehood, but the Governor has extremely limited power and is really an unnecessary office in this state.

So ... ermmmm ... yeah

2)he didnt give any answers... what I had hoped to hear was how his admirable record of military and public service would make a difference in leading this nation in the war on terror...unfortunately he ended his speech leaving me, and many others, still unsure of the answer

George Bush Sr. when running for office was quoted as saying he'd make a better leader because he had military experience. Why don't the republicans criticize that?

Did you ever think that people in the senate vote on more than just the principle of the bill? Did you ever think that he may have voted against the bill to send troops body armor because he felt it wasn't enough and we could do much better? Don't you remember his speech? "America can do better"

He didn't vote against it because the one HE SUPPORTED, using tax cuts to pay for it, didn't make it! That was the version he wanted. Ironically, only about 4 people that voted for the war, voted against the funding! Kerry and Edwards being 2 of them!

3)he barely mentioned Iraq, the issue that has shaped and dominated this presidential campaign, divided the Democratic Party and has hurt his own candidacy, I am shocked, especially at a time when we are looking for an exit strategy and I also wonder whether Kerry even has a plan for Iraq that is different from Bush's, he offered only the assurance that he knows how to get it right....right???
I mean the trouble is that Kerry still hasn't formed an image of where he'd take the nation on its most urgent issues: the war on terrorism and resolving the mess that is the U.S. situation in Iraq. So far, his policies sound a lot like those of President Bush

Iraq is the only thing that Bush has been talking about.

He didn't vote against it because the one HE SUPPORTED, using tax cuts to pay for it, didn't make it! That was the version he wanted. Ironically, only about 4 people that voted for the war, voted against the funding! Kerry and Edwards being 2 of them!
So you call him a flip-flopper because he has higher standards than 96 other senators?

texas has a george bush beanie baby

I don't think that signifies ownership.

So you call him a flip-flopper because he has higher standards than 96 other senators?

Did I mention that? hmm no! What I do criticize and why I do call him a flip flopper on this is because in a speech he stated clearly and still to this day no one knows why he said it, "I actually voted FOR the 87 Billion before I voted AGAINST it"

In another speech, he said he was GLAD he and Edwards didn't vote for it! That is what I have a problem with!

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.
I'm hearing you here. There are a lot of flames coming from the (neo-)conservatives on this board. They can't contain their extreme annoyance that there will probably be another "goddam librul!" in the White House next year.

He didn't vote against it because the one HE SUPPORTED, using tax cuts to pay for it, didn't make it! That was the version he wanted. Ironically, only about 4 people that voted for the war, voted against the funding! Kerry and Edwards being 2 of them!
Actually, he supported rolling back tax cuts to pay for it, but I think you were trying to say that. What I think you don't realize you just admitted was that every Republican Senator who opposed the bill Kerry supported voted against sending that same money and equipment to the soldiers in the field first and cast that vote because cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in America was more important than providing for our soldiers. That's despicable, no matter how you slice it.

The point is that the armor didn't get sent, not only that but they didn't even have desert issue uniforms! My father's unit was lucky enough to be delayed for three weeks getting over there and they snagged stuff in the warehouse that was supposed to go back into the pool. They were the only unit that had brand new armor and proper uniforms in their area.

I'm pretty sure it is rare that a bill the senate votes on is voted on twice...it's not called flip-flopping, it's called attention to detail.

I don't live in America and I haven't watched the TV news in a while. Where can I get a transcript of the speech?

The point is that the armor didn't get sent, not only that but they didn't even have desert issue uniforms! My father's unit was lucky enough to be delayed for three weeks getting over there and they snagged stuff in the warehouse that was supposed to go back into the pool. They were the only unit that had brand new armor and proper uniforms in their area.
The military is developing a new line of uniforms that are all-terrain. Same colors hide them whether it is desert or forest, night or day.

I don't live in America and I haven't watched the TV news in a while. Where can I get a transcript of the speech?
Google.

Actually, he supported rolling back tax cuts to pay for it, but I think you were trying to say that. What I think you don't realize you just admitted was that every Republican Senator who opposed the bill Kerry supported voted against sending that same money and equipment to the soldiers in the field first and cast that vote because cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in America was more important than providing for our soldiers. That's despicable, no matter how you slice it.

Wealthiest? Read the Tax cut! IT WAS FOR ALL TAX BRACKETS! Why do people forget that? Just because the rich Actually PAY MORE in taxes than anyone else, they don't deserve a cut like everyone else?

The middle class got a tax cut as did the poor and the rich. Yea the rich technically got more of a break because they pay more.

I know, stuff looks pretty nifty. If only they can get it all to work.

Wealthiest? Read the Tax cut! IT WAS FOR ALL TAX BRACKETS! Why do people forget that? Just because the rich Actually PAY MORE in taxes than anyone else, they don't deserve a cut like everyone else?

The middle class got a tax cut as did the poor and the rich. Yea the rich technically got more of a break because they pay more.You fucking read it--I'm tired of your ignorance, FD. The vote for this bill involved rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% that had already been passed in a vote almost a year earlier. Get your facts straight or shut the hell up.

You fucking read it--I'm tired of your ignorance, FD. The vote for this bill involved rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% that had already been passed in a vote almost a year earlier. Get your facts straight or shut the hell up.

ok now no need to swear! Sorry if I struck a nerve with you Incertonia! The fact remains that he VOTED AGAINST it after he voted FOR the war. Doesn't matter what version it was. The bill that Passed Congress was going to fund our soldiers that were FIGHTING overseas. He voted AGAINST IT!

ok now no need to swear! Sorry if I struck a nerve with you Incertonia! The fact remains that he VOTED AGAINST it after he voted FOR the war. Doesn't matter what version it was. The bill that Passed Congress was going to fund our soldiers that were FIGHTING overseas. He voted AGAINST IT!

He voted against George W. Bush thinking that he can use the nation as a massive credit card.

ok now no need to swear! Sorry if I struck a nerve with you Incertonia! The fact remains that he VOTED AGAINST it after he voted FOR the war. Doesn't matter what version it was. The bill that Passed Congress was going to fund our soldiers that were FIGHTING overseas. He voted AGAINST IT!
Have you looked into the details of that bill or asked Kerry why he voted against it? I can just about gaurantee you there is a good reason.

It was an eloquent speech, filled with symbolism. However, most of it was rhetoric. While he wants to cut taxes, he wants money to finance healthcare, education, and a huge military. And he's not gonna privatize Social Security, either. Well, my theory is that if he really wants to carry this out, he'll borrow against Social Security. But hey, this is why he's a waffler: he's unrealistic.

It was an eloquent speech, filled with symbolism. However, most of it was rhetoric. While he wants to cut taxes, he wants money to finance healthcare, education, and a huge military. And he's not gonna privatize Social Security, either. Well, my theory is that if he really wants to carry this out, he'll borrow against Social Security. But hey, this is why he's a waffler: he's unrealistic.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that in the speech he said he would leave Bush's tax cuts in place, but he'd roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% (the people earning 200,000+ are getting less of a cut) which means he'll have a lot more money to spend. Besides, who's the one who made tons of tax cuts then went on an international crusade to fight against a tactic?

ok now no need to swear! Sorry if I struck a nerve with you Incertonia! The fact remains that he VOTED AGAINST it after he voted FOR the war. Doesn't matter what version it was. The bill that Passed Congress was going to fund our soldiers that were FIGHTING overseas. He voted AGAINST IT!
Except it does matter. It matters because of two things that were in the bill that eventually passed that weren't in the bill he voted for. The first I've already hammered on at length. The second has to do with accountability.

You see, the early appropriations bills were essentially blank checks for the administration to do what they wanted with. Once it became clear that this administration can't be trusted with money, the Democrats said, "we'll give you the money, but we want you to tell us what you're going to do with it." The Republicans said "go to hell." So when Kerry and Edwards voted against the final bill, they were saying not only that we needed to pay for the appropriations with a rollback of tax cuts, but that we needed to make sure that the money wasn't going to be shat away like the earlier money was.

It was an eloquent speech, filled with symbolism. However, most of it was rhetoric. While he wants to cut taxes, he wants money to finance healthcare, education, and a huge military. And he's not gonna privatize Social Security, either. Well, my theory is that if he really wants to carry this out, he'll borrow against Social Security. But hey, this is why he's a waffler: he's unrealistic.

Applauds!

Thank you PE! Excellent post!

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in the speech he said he would leave Bush's tax cuts in place, but he'd roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% (the people earning 200,000+ are getting less of a cut) which means he'll have a lot more money to spend. Besides, who's the one who made tons of tax cuts then went on an international crusade to fight against a tactic?

He won't be able to use that money for ALL of them! He'll run out of money before he gets to the military just on his healthcare plan alone! The Cabinet still needs money. Now how is he going to pay for Healthcare, pay for more troops, and for his educational plan?

As for a crusade? The tax cuts where passed BEFORE 9/11!

Applauds!

Thank you PE! Excellent post!



He won't be able to use that money for ALL of them! He'll run out of money before he gets to the military just on his healthcare plan alone! The Cabinet still needs money. Now how is he going to pay for Healthcare, pay for more troops, and for his educational plan?

As for a crusade? The tax cuts where passed BEFORE 9/11!
And what did he do after 9/11 in an effort to encourage the economy?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in the speech he said he would leave Bush's tax cuts in place, but he'd roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% (the people earning 200,000+ are getting less of a cut) which means he'll have a lot more money to spend. Besides, who's the one who made tons of tax cuts then went on an international crusade to fight against a tactic?
The wealthiest 2% of the nation have very little money, compared with the other 98%. In fact, most of the economy is sustained thanks to the lower 98%. The other 2% may bring in about $100 billion extra, but that's chump change compared to what Kerry needs for his program. He has another $800 billion to go to finance just his healthcare plan.

And there was another tax cut passed after 9/11 as well.

The wealthiest 2% of the nation have very little money, compared with the other 98%. In fact, most of the economy is sustained thanks to the lower 98%. The other 2% may bring in about $100 billion extra, but that's chump change compared to what Kerry needs for his program. He has another $800 billion to go to finance just his healthcare plan.Your numbers are so terribly terribly wrong, Purly, and I suspect you know it. Hell, the last time I checked, the bottom 50% was everyone making less than $26,000 a year, so there's no way that the bottom 98% has way more than the top 2%

The wealthiest 2% of the nation have very little money, compared with the other 98%. In fact, most of the economy is sustained thanks to the lower 98%. The other 2% may bring in about $100 billion extra, but that's chump change compared to what Kerry needs for his program. He has another $800 billion to go to finance just his healthcare plan.

I thought his healthcare plan was about 900 Billion! I wasn't sure at first which is why I left it out of one my posts.

And there was another tax cut passed after 9/11 as well.

I guess you didn't know that Greenspan said that if it wasn't for the tax cuts before and after 9/11, our economy would've been worse than it was!

I guess you didn't know that Greenspan said that if it wasn't for the tax cuts before and after 9/11, our economy would've been worse than it was!
Yea...so a Bush deficit is okay and excusable because it helps the economy...

Your numbers are so terribly terribly wrong, Purly, and I suspect you know it. Hell, the last time I checked, the bottom 50% was everyone making less than $26,000 a year, so there's no way that the bottom 98% has way more than the top 2%
Indeed, the bottom 50% pay little taxes. but there is still 48% left. In this group are most of America's businessowners, doctors, lawyers, professors, and many other professions. In fact, take a look for yourself.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

I guess I did know that, FD. I also know that time has shown that Greenspan was wrong about that, and was, in fact, contradicting himself from the testimony he had given while Clinton was in office. I'm not new to this stuff, FD--I've lived and worked through both Bush recessions, and neither time have their economic plans worked, Greenspan or not.

Indeed, the bottom 50% pay little taxes. but there is still 48% left. In this group are most of America's businessowners, doctors, lawyers, professors, and many other professions. In fact, take a look for yourself.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
It is the top 10% pay more then the bottom 90%

Indeed, the bottom 50% pay little taxes. but there is still 48% left. In this group are most of America's businessowners, doctors, lawyers, professors, and many other professions. In fact, take a look for yourself.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
You're arguing against Kerry's plan for taxes because the top 2% don't pay as much total taxes as the other 98%...?

It is the top 10% pay more then the bottom 90%
My point, however, is that it misses a significant income group. Notice how the top 25% pay significantly more than the top 1%? My point is that they are needed in order to finance such lavish spending.

Also, notice how significantly the share of income taxes rise between the wealthiest 1%, and even the wealthiest 25%. Significant revenues may be gained with the top 2%, but it'd be barely enough to satisfy the spending programs Kerry proposes. I wonder what will be needed to fund his healthcare initiative, anyhow.

I guess I did know that, FD. I also know that time has shown that Greenspan was wrong about that, and was, in fact, contradicting himself from the testimony he had given while Clinton was in office. I'm not new to this stuff, FD--I've lived and worked through both Bush recessions, and neither time have their economic plans worked, Greenspan or not.

There was NEVER a 2nd Bush Recession! The recession started UNDER CLINTON! I guess you forgot that little detail.

There was NEVER a 2nd Bush Recession! The recession started UNDER CLINTON! I guess you forgot that little detail.
Maybe where he lives. I know he lives in San Fransico, where they get quite a bit from Silicon Valley in the South. Since the bubble collapsed, however, Silicon Valley has been economically dead, bringing much of California with it.

Maybe where he lives. I know he lives in San Fransico, where they get quite a bit from Silicon Valley in the South. Since the bubble collapsed, however, Silicon Valley has been economically dead, bringing much of California with it.

Ok that I will agree with! however the Recession that he claims started under this Bush actually started under Bill Clinton!

There was NEVER a 2nd Bush Recession! The recession started UNDER CLINTON! I guess you forgot that little detail.
The president has zero control over the economy. People often overlook that.

Ok that I will agree with! however the Recession that he claims started under this Bush actually started under Bill Clinton!
Yeah, but neither Clinton nor Bush had any real control over the economy. The only reason I think Kerry will is because he'll take control over large chunks of the economy, and turn it into a superbureaocracy. For example, healthcare is about 12% of the GDP. The Government is already about 15%. Imagine if we combine the two. Over a quarter of our economy would need money it'd only hemorrhage, and it may trickle into other sectors.

Yeah, but neither Clinton nor Bush had any real control over the economy. The only reason I think Kerry will is because he'll take control over large chunks of the economy, and turn it into a superbureaocracy. For example, healthcare is about 12% of the GDP. The Government is already about 15%. Imagine if we combine the two. Over a quarter of our economy would need money it'd only hemorrhage, and it may trickle into other sectors.

That I will buy!

As for Kerry, I think he is getting in over his head myself. I actually think that IF he is elected, he'll be a one term president! I don't think he'll survive for a 2nd term

That I will buy!

As for Kerry, I think he is getting in over his head myself. I actually think that IF he is elected, he'll be a one term president! I don't think he'll survive for a 2nd term
Probably not. However, in the past four years, for better or worse, the nation changed a lot. Under four years of Kerry, it'll certainly change quite a bit, and almost certainly for the worst, for both us and the world.

Probably not. However, in the past four years, for better or worse, the nation changed a lot. Under four years of Kerry, it'll certainly change quite a bit, and almost certainly for the worst, for both us and the world.

Agreed. I'm not saying that I support Bush 100%, I don't! Frankly his immigration policy sucks! However, I consider him a more consistent leader. Kerry has Flip-flopped to much for me to even consider him to lead.

That I will buy!

As for Kerry, I think he is getting in over his head myself. I actually think that IF he is elected, he'll be a one term president! I don't think he'll survive for a 2nd term
I actually want Kerry to be a one-term president and have a different dem run in 2008. That way we might finally get two competent candidates.

There was NEVER a 2nd Bush Recession! The recession started UNDER CLINTON! I guess you forgot that little detail.
Not according to the National Bureau of Economic Research:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

This also dispels that the economy sucked under Clinton?

Agreed. I'm not saying that I support Bush 100%, I don't! Frankly his immigration policy sucks! However, I consider him a more consistent leader. Kerry has Flip-flopped to much for me to even consider him to lead.
Kerry's flip-flopping that you accuse him of is mostly over periods of ten to twenty years. Even if he were president for two terms, that's only eight years.

I actually want Kerry to be a one-term president and have a different dem run in 2008. That way we might finally get two competent candidates.
There've been a few historical precedents to that, although it's mostly because a one-termer refuses to run again.

Not according to the National Bureau of Economic Research:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

This also dispels that the economy sucked under Clinton?

Well excuse me! but you do have a slight problem! It started Under Bill Clinton. That was when the Downturn started. It didn't become prevelant till the Bush Administration! Now the recession was short but then we had a terror attack that Knocked down WTC and a side of the Pentagon as well as a plane in PA! This caused MANY industries that rely on air travel to tank. We were on the road to recovery when the corprate scandals hit causing another round of massive layoffs! Considering all of this, our economy is the fastest growing in 20 years.

Well excuse me! but you do have a slight problem! It started Under Bill Clinton. That was when the Downturn started. It didn't become prevelant till the Bush Administration! Now the recession was short but then we had a terror attack that Knocked down WTC and a side of the Pentagon as well as a plane in PA! This caused MANY industries that rely on air travel to tank. We were on the road to recovery when the corprate scandals hit causing another round of massive layoffs! Considering all of this, our economy is the fastest growing in 20 years.
You people are ALL missing the real reason behind this recession...
It's the .com bubble. Tons and tons and tons of .com companies sprung up and then they started looking like they were worth more than they were really worth on paper because they got lots of buyers but couldn't' keep up with the demand so they had to give people their money back and then all these .coms started falling apart. You think any president had any control on that? I mean, seriously, it's all Gore's fault. He's the one who invented the internet...

You people are ALL missing the real reason behind this recession...
It's the .com bubble. Tons and tons and tons of .com companies sprung up and then they started looking like they were worth more than they were really worth on paper because they got lots of buyers but couldn't' keep up with the demand so they had to give people their money back and then all these .coms started falling apart. You think any president had any control on that? I mean, seriously, it's all Gore's fault. He's the one who invented the internet...
Incertonia would argue that Clinton started the dot-com bubble.

Agreed. I'm not saying that I support Bush 100%, I don't! Frankly his immigration policy sucks! However, I consider him a more consistent leader. Kerry has Flip-flopped to much for me to even consider him to lead.
Such as?

Such as?

His voting record on defense!

He voted AGAINST most of what my father and what most of my family uses currently!

His voting record on defense!

He voted AGAINST most of what my father and what most of my family uses currently!
People are never concerned with whether or not there were good reasons just that he voted against it and that's wrong...

Well excuse me! but you do have a slight problem! It started Under Bill Clinton. That was when the Downturn started. It didn't become prevelant till the Bush Administration! Now the recession was short but then we had a terror attack that Knocked down WTC and a side of the Pentagon as well as a plane in PA! This caused MANY industries that rely on air travel to tank. We were on the road to recovery when the corprate scandals hit causing another round of massive layoffs! Considering all of this, our economy is the fastest growing in 20 years.

You know why the corporate scandals hit? Because the SEC under the Bush Administration hasn't been fucking doing their jobs! And the WTC thing had VERY little effect on the economy, the economy was already in terrible shape and the dow was already sub-9000. If anything it was good for the conomy because it got bush to quit doing photo ops and taking vacations and get off his ass to do something. And no, god damnit, no. It is not even close to being the fastest growing in 20 years. Under clinton it was growing at almost twice the rate it is now.

His voting record on defense!

He voted AGAINST most of what my father and what most of my family uses currently!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp
*sigh*
Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."

Status: False.

Origins: Numerous variants of this message claiming that Senator John Kerry of Masschusetts "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988" have been circulating since at least February 2004. The message's implication — that Senator Kerry distinctly and specifically voted to kill upwards of a dozen different weapons systems — is inaccurate and grossly misleading, however.

A 22 February 2004 Republican National Committee (RNC) research briefing includes the list of weapons systems found in this message and citations that purportedly support the claim that Senator Kerry voted to kill each one. But all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems.

The three votes cited — regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) — were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars — including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others.

Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons — because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.

The inclusion of some of the items listed here is all the more ridiculous given that they were weapons systems that a previous Republican administration advocated eliminating. For example, it was Dick Cheney himself, in his capacity as Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee on 13 August 1989 that he had recommended cancelling the AH-64 Apache Helicopter program:

The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.)

Likewise, on 1 February 1992, Secretary of Defense Cheney complained to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was being "forced" to spend money on unneeded weapons such as the M-1, the F-14, and the F-16:

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements . . . You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s — all great systems . . . but we have enough of them.

And President Bush noted in his 1992 State of the Union address that he was phasing out several weapons systems, including the B-2, to "reflect the changes of the new era":

Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

His voting record on defense!

He voted AGAINST most of what my father and what most of my family uses currently!

hrmn, how about being more specific and perhaps I can enlighten you.

You know why the corporate scandals hit? Because the SEC under the Bush Administration hasn't been fucking doing their jobs! And the WTC thing had VERY little effect on the economy, the economy was already in terrible shape and the dow was already sub-9000. If anything it was good for the conomy because it got bush to quit doing photo ops and taking vacations and get off his ass to do something. And no, god damnit, no. It is not even close to being the fastest growing in 20 years. Under clinton it was growing at almost twice the rate it is now.

How fast you forget. Most of this was happening under CLINTON'S WATCH, not Bush! Jeez get that fact straight!

WTC actually had a lot to do with it. How many thousands lost jobs because of the towers collapse as well as the surrounding buildings? Tens of thousands that's what! Airlines had to lay people off because people weren't traveling! There is more job losses. Tourist sites had to cut back too. There is where we lost more jobs and that was only in one attack!

So he voted against MOST of what we use today. That still doesn't excuse it CSW.

How fast you forget. Most of this was happening under CLINTON'S WATCH, not Bush! Jeez get that fact straight!

WTC actually had a lot to do with it. How many thousands lost jobs because of the towers collapse as well as the surrounding buildings? Tens of thousands that's what! Airlines had to lay people off because people weren't traveling! There is more job losses. Tourist sites had to cut back too. There is where we lost more jobs and that was only in one attack!
Go read my post about the .com bubble.

So he voted against MOST of what we use today. That still doesn't excuse it CSW.
Did you bother to read that formal? He voted against massive appropriation bills, not those items in particular.
"The three votes cited — regarding S. 3189 (1990), H.R. 5803 (1990), and H.R. 2126 (1995) — were bills covering fiscal year Department of Defense appropriations, all of which Senator Kerry voted against. (Two of those three votes were not technically on defense appropriations per se, but on House-Senate conference committee reports for defense appropriations bills.) As the text of a typical defense appropriations bill shows, such bills cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars — including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements. Members of Congress ultimately vote "yea" or "nay" on an entire appropriations bill; they don't pick and choose to approve some items and reject others."

Go read my post about the .com bubble.

I did!

I did!
Then why do you blame the current recession on Clinton? ...or any president?

It's funny...19 years the Senate, yet not one signature achievement. Sounds like Kerry might need a little work before he can handle being the President of the United States
Instead of mouthing off about what Fox News provided as the stereotypical response, why don't you list the signature achievements of George W Bush in the years before he became President?

Tell us the story of his 6 active years in the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam conflict. Tell us about the lives he saved and the buddies he protected. Gotta be some good war stories there.

Tell us about the party years, and how they became signature events in the history of the USA. Does partying with Hunter S Thompson qualify him for an honorary medal, maybe?

Tell us about the fabulous success of Arbusto Oil, and all the money he made for his investors, and how he made his employees rich beyond their wildest dreams. Tell us about how he made Spectrum 7, Harken, and Aloha Petroleum such nationally respected and financially successful companies.

Tell us about how George led the Texas Rangers towards being America's Team. How under his tutelage they won the World Series. How his subtle knowledge of coaching, batting, pitching and fielding makes him the idol of Texas and won the hearts of the American people.

Tell us about the 6 years in the Texas Statehouse. Perhaps about how his good buddy Ken Lay and Enron ponied up almost $150,000 towards the gubernatorial race, and all that taught him about life in the corporate trenches. Tell us how sharing a border with Mexico gave him such enormous foreign policy experience, and instantly qualified him as an Internationalist par excellence. One wonders how he failed to know the name of the Mexican Foreign Minister just a few months into his presidential campaign. Seems an experienced diplomat like GWB wouldn't miss that opportunity to dazzle us.

Tell us, please, Ding Dong Doppers. We're all on the edges of our seats here. If you're quick enough to identify Kerry's failings, perhaps you're also bright enough to prove Bush's successes.

Instead of mouthing off about what Fox News provided as the stereotypical response, why don't you list the signature achievements of George W Bush in the years before he became President?

Tell us the story of his 6 active years in the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam conflict. Tell us about the lives he saved and the buddies he protected. Gotta be some good war stories there.

Tell us about the party years, and how they became signature events in the history of the USA. Does partying with Hunter S Thompson qualify him for an honorary medal, maybe?

Tell us about the fabulous success of Arbusto Oil, and all the money he made for his investors, and how he made his employees rich beyond their wildest dreams. Tell us about how he made Spectrum 7, Harken, and Aloha Petroleum such nationally respected and financially successful companies.

Tell us about how George led the Texas Rangers towards being America's Team. How under his tutelage they won the World Series. How his subtle knowledge of coaching, batting, pitching and fielding makes him the idol of Texas and won the hearts of the American people.

Tell us about the 6 years in the Texas Statehouse. Perhaps about how his good buddy Ken Lay and Enron ponied up almost $150,000 towards the gubernatorial race, and all that taught him about life in the corporate trenches. Tell us how sharing a border with Mexico gave him such enormous foreign policy experience, and instantly qualified him as an Internationalist par excellence. One wonders how he failed to know the name of the Mexican Foreign Minister just a few months into his presidential campaign. Seems an experienced diplomat like GWB wouldn't miss that opportunity to dazzle us.

Tell us, please, Ding Dong Doppers. We're all on the edges of our seats here. If you're quick enough to identify Kerry's failings, perhaps you're also bright enough to prove Bush's successes.

Interesting how you turn a Kerry comment into a an anti-bush comment. What you quoted doesn't fit into what you just stated. What he said is right! He doesn't have one outside of establishing ties with Nam, something we shouldn't have done, and putting more cops on the streets, passed in the 80s.

hrmn, how about being more specific and perhaps I can enlighten you.

I think you put words into my mouth. Never did blame Clinton! I said it started with clinton but came full force under Bush. I don't blame anyone. If I do have to blame someone, I would blame the accountants of the corporations as well as the CFOs and some CEOs.

John Kerry gave an excellent speech. That's a simple fact. He obeyed all technical rules, apealled to the common man's emotions, and made Bush's administration look backward. And that scares me.

Being the Republican that I am, I have had several problems with Bush, specifically in the economics department. He is a spending Democrat. However, I agree with him as far as moral issues are concerned and I trust him (mostly) in leading the USA. More so than Kerry, anyway.

Bush has a very, very weak point. He is a terrible speaker. He has good ideas, but he cannot sell them for his life. Politics is all about...well, politicing. And that is not Bush's strongpoint. Irronically, I think Bush agreed with Kerry's assesment of the country. But ten to one, he'll get all defensive in his speech. WRONG. I predict that Kerry's speech is not Bush's downfall, it will be Bush's response.

-Yo Momma

PS- Kerry's little speal on "valuing families" was so incredibly hypocritical, btw. Yeah, we see your actions speaking, John.

Interesting how you turn a Kerry comment into a an anti-bush comment. What you quoted doesn't fit into what you just stated. What he said is right! He doesn't have one outside of establishing ties with Nam, something we shouldn't have done, and putting more cops on the streets, passed in the 80s.
First, what the hell are you talking about? This post makes even less sense than most of your others.

Second, I took a piece of blatant propoganda from the Bush camp (no signature legislation from Kerry in 19 years) and turned it around on Bush. Tell me how that doesn't fit what I stated.

Finally, I don't quote other's material. I research and I write. Try it sometime - your brain might expand a bit.

I watched jsut about all of the DNC, and I really liked it. I changed the channel for some of the musical, and dance performances. I didn't liek them much. Kerry's speech was very good. But I liked Senator Obama's more.

PS- Kerry's little speal on "valuing families" was so incredibly hypocritical, btw. Yeah, we see your actions speaking, John.
Explain.

First, what the hell are you talking about? This post makes even less sense than most of your others.

Second, I took a piece of blatant propoganda from the Bush camp (no signature legislation from Kerry in 19 years) and turned it around on Bush. Tell me how that doesn't fit what I stated.

Finally, I don't quote other's material. I research and I write. Try it sometime - your brain might expand a bit.

Normally I would think you were mean for being so blunt, but I actually can't help but agree that FDs post made absolutelly no sense at all.

I watched jsut about all of the DNC, and I really liked it. I changed the channel for some of the musical, and dance performances. I didn't liek them much. Kerry's speech was very good. But I liked Senator Obama's more.

Obama did have a good speech. I actually like him. He isn't liberal and he is level headed. Something I find in Joe Lieberman. Joe would be better candidate than Kerry anyday. If Lieberman was the Candidate, I wouldn't give Bush a chance of winning! With Kerry, Bush will probably get 4 more years.

Obama did have a good speech. I actually like him. He isn't liberal and he is level headed. Something I find in Joe Lieberman. Joe would be better candidate than Kerry anyday. If Lieberman was the Candidate, I wouldn't give Bush a chance of winning! With Kerry, Bush will probably get 4 more years.
Not liberal? You don't get around much, I see.

Obama did have a good speech. I actually like him. He isn't liberal and he is level headed. Something I find in Joe Lieberman. Joe would be better candidate than Kerry anyday. If Lieberman was the Candidate, I wouldn't give Bush a chance of winning! With Kerry, Bush will probably get 4 more years.

First of all, what is wrogn with liberals? Second, Lieberman is essentially Bush in disguise...but more boring. Obama has some purty good ideas, i would vote for him long before Lieberman.

First of all, what is wrogn with liberals? Second, Lieberman is essentially Bush in disguise...but more boring. Obama has some purty good ideas, i would vote for him long before Lieberman.

ok there you have a point but the fact was that Lieberman was running for prez and Obama wasn't. Lieberman at least sticks by his votes.

ok there you have a point but the fact was that Lieberman was running for prez and Obama wasn't. Lieberman at least sticks by his votes.
Kerry doesn't? More examples of these besides the ones that we have already shot down I hope?

It's funny...19 years the Senate, yet not one signature achievement. Sounds like Kerry might need a little work before he can handle being the President of the United StatesInstead of mouthing off about what Fox News provided as the stereotypical response, why don't you list the signature achievements of George W Bush in the years before he became President?

Tell us the story of his 6 active years in the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the Vietnam conflict. Tell us about the lives he saved and the buddies he protected. Gotta be some good war stories there.

Tell us about the party years, and how they became signature events in the history of the USA. Does partying with Hunter S Thompson qualify him for an honorary medal, maybe?

Tell us about the fabulous success of Arbusto Oil, and all the money he made for his investors, and how he made his employees rich beyond their wildest dreams. Tell us about how he made Spectrum 7, Harken, and Aloha Petroleum such nationally respected and financially successful companies.

Tell us about how George led the Texas Rangers towards being America's Team. How under his tutelage they won the World Series. How his subtle knowledge of coaching, batting, pitching and fielding makes him the idol of Texas and won the hearts of the American people.

Tell us about the 6 years in the Texas Statehouse. Perhaps about how his good buddy Ken Lay and Enron ponied up almost $150,000 towards the gubernatorial race, and all that taught him about life in the corporate trenches. Tell us how sharing a border with Mexico gave him such enormous foreign policy experience, and instantly qualified him as an Internationalist par excellence. One wonders how he failed to know the name of the Mexican Foreign Minister just a few months into his presidential campaign. Seems an experienced diplomat like GWB wouldn't miss that opportunity to dazzle us.

Tell us, please, Ding Dong Doppers. We're all on the edges of our seats here. If you're quick enough to identify Kerry's failings, perhaps you're also bright enough to prove Bush's successes.
I'm still waiting to see one of you Kerry-bashing Bush fanatics respond to this one. Anybody got an answer, or is only one party going to be held accountable in this election? C'mon, it's a good question.

only page one and already have to say something!

Steph, my mother is an independent NON-VOTER! She watched the speech with me and my brother only because we forced her too!

This is what she has to say about the speech!

1) He needs to stop talking about Vietnam! It happened 40 years ago. She is glad that he served his country but he needs to move on.
2) He's nieve. He needs to see the real world not a fantasy world
3) ALot of ideas but not how he is going to pay for it!
4) And since when did we lose are democracy? We haven't lost it!
5) He supports gay marraige but he talks about family values and "honor thy mother and thy father"

These are just a summery of what she had to say about it! It is her opinion that he probably caused some people to think twice about Kerry!

Me? I think he cause abit of damage to himself. This is what I think! Those people he had behind him were a minority! Most of the people he was with, AREN'T supporting him. The majority of his former COs, Aren't Supporting him. The Majority of the Veterans, aren't supporting him. He may have FORMER Generals supporting him, however, people want a wartime president not a peace president. He states that Healthcare is a top priority! How is he going to pay for it IF it passes the House. He wants to double the Active Duty and special forces! It takes 6 weeks to train ONE soldier! Yea you have hundreds graduating but you know how much it'll cost to train the forces? Also it takes minimum 18 months to train special forces to 2 years!

Steph, it is my mother's opinion, not mine, that IF Kerry is elected President, he'll be a one term president only! Me? I think he won't get elected. He concerns me!


I'm glad your mother isn't voting. One less ignorant person at the polls.

I hope Republicans aren't voting for Bush just because he supports banning gay marriage. Kerry is against gay marriage as well.

I'll give you a summary of what this speech has done for to the Republican party so far: PWNT! (and it isn't over yet..)

Was I watching some other John Kerry? Cause, speaking personally, I found his speech so mind-blowingly dull and spiritless that I physically died during the recitation and had to be revived by a team of doctors with defibrillators. And adrenaline injections. And heart massages. And loud music. And a snort of cocaine.

I'm glad your mother isn't voting. One less ignorant person at the polls.

Now now. It's not cool to dis somebodies mom.

Was I watching some other John Kerry? Cause, speaking personally, I found his speech so mind-blowingly dull and spiritless that I physically died during the recitation and had to be revived by a team of doctors with defibrillators. And adrenaline injections. And heart massages. And loud music. And a snort of cocaine.
Well, thanks to science (which some politicians don't believe in), that was all available to you. Yay!

Was I watching some other John Kerry? Cause, speaking personally, I found his speech so mind-blowingly dull and spiritless that I physically died during the recitation and had to be revived by a team of doctors with defibrillators. And adrenaline injections. And heart massages. And loud music. And a snort of cocaine.

*turns on the TV*

LOOK TELETUBBIES!

More like thank the NHS. Oh wait.. you don't have that do you? Oh well, never mind then.

Now now. It's not cool to dis somebodies mom.

I know. But calling someone ignorant isn't like calling them stupid. I hope his mother turns off FAUX news and gets some real information. Then she'll probably vote this chimp out of the white house.

More like thank the NHS. Oh wait.. you don't have that do you? Oh well, never mind then.
What is this NHS you're talking about?

The only NHS I know of is the National Honors Society, which I graduated high school as a member of.

Liberal Entitlement

It’s fix time for political junkies. Yes, I’m a political junkie. I admit it. Have been since at least 1975, when I began studying political science as a college freshman. With the Democrat National Convention underway, it’s hard for me to think or write about anything else. Thank goodness the Tour de France is over and the Olympic Games have yet to begin; otherwise, I’d have a two-track mind.

Does it seem to you as though liberals feel entitled to govern? It does to me. This sense of entitlement has two sources. First, liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives. Do you want to be governed by a smart crowd or a dumb crowd? Second, liberals think they’re better (specifically, more compassionate) than conservatives. Governance, they suggest, is a matter of having sympathy for the disadvantaged. It’s about having your heart in the right place. Liberals loved it when Bill Clinton said he felt his interlocutors’ pain. It struck just the right note with them.

Both liberal beliefs are false. I’ve addressed the first of them—about alleged conservative stupidity—in a Tech Central Station column. See here. With regard to the second, I can only point to the law of unintended consequences. Most liberals I know, and I know quite a few of them, having been one, are well-meaning and admirably motivated. They sincerely believe that their policy prescriptions, if implemented, will make the world a better place for all concerned. If only those dastardly conservatives would get out of the way, they seem to say, we would have heaven on earth.

But intentions are not outcomes. Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards. Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed. Programs designed to create opportunities for African-Americans have generated resentment among whites and an insidious assumption that any African-American who “makes it” is unqualified. Imagine the effect this has on the self-respect of African-Americans. If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

When you think about it, it’s ironic that liberals believe they’re more intelligent than conservatives, because an intelligent person tempers idealism with reality. Liberals conveniently ignore certain unpleasant realities, such as the effect redistributive policies have on incentive. The more people are taxed, the less incentive they have to work or invest. Liberals think that if we sit down nicely with our enemies, we can bring them around. This may work with some enemies, but not all. In their zeal to ensure that everyone has a decent minimum of health care and other necessities, liberals ignore self-respect, self-esteem, and personal responsibility. When is the last time you heard a liberal talk about such things, much less emphasize them? And yet, aren’t they crucially important? Shouldn’t every policy take them into account?

It’s no accident that liberals are called do-gooders. They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help. It’s tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think it’s more complicated than that. They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow. They view humans as sentient beings, not as rational, autonomous agents. They’re impetuous. They don’t think through the implications of their policies.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, these are not the traits of the wise. They are the traits of children. Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.

-Keith Burgess-Jackson

His speech was too long. He talks too much, and he does, and has done, hardly anything at all. His record in Congress is proof of that. He told everyone what they wanted to hear, nothing more. He knows the Congress will probably remain largely Republican after the election. So he can say any damn thing he wants to, promise any damn thing he wants to, and blame it on the Republicans in Congress if his promises fail to materialize. Any dope could figure that out.. I did :D

MSNBC... "Pledging to “restore trust and credibility to the White House,” Sen. John Kerry accepted the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night by promising to defeat terrorism but to “never mislead us into war.”

Well, just how the hell will he defeat terrorism without having a war, and how can he have a war without justifying it to EVERYONE'S satisfaction? More double speak. He just won't have a war to begin with because he knows he'll never be able to justify it to everyone. I'm not talking about Iraq, he didn't even touch on that issue really... or abortion rights, or gay marriage rights, or his votes first to authorize the war in Iraq but then not to approve new funding for it, or how to keep American businesses from fleeing to foreign countries (where his adorable truck-driver mouthed wife has 28 companies making catsup), or his anti-war activism after he returned from Vietnam... but he sure does try to make his Vietnam record look like he's Dwight D. Eisenhower or some damn thing.

Typical fare from a bizillionaire career politician. "Par for the course". He's simply riding the tide of discontent with the current administration, saying all the right things, doing nothing... blah blah blah. Nader looks better and better everyday.

He did have plenty to say about terrorism though. He talks about it like it's a matter of criminal justice.Terrorism isn't a 'criminal' issue. In and of itself, foreign-borne Terrorism IS an act of war, at the scale we're dealing with, and it should be responded to as an act of war. So, he's already got a war that he'll have to fight, and would have had it anyway despite all the former presidents actions, and he'll never go to foreign soil to end it. I guess it's pretty obvious now, he's not going to 'nip it in the bud' and go after the terrorists where they live and breed, he's going to wait until thousands more innocent Americans die at the hands of foreign terrorists on our homeland soil and abroad, before he does anything, if anything... Par for the course.

Kerry's nothing special. He's certainly not our saviour!

I could go on all night... but I won't cuz you all wouldn't read it all anyway :p

I'll bet Kerry sleeps with a teddy bear and sucks his thumb sometimes. Any takers?

Liberal Entitlement
-Keith Burgess-Jackson

Right on, I read that guy too! Here's another one he did. It's funny. Good outspoken modern philosophers are hard to find these days ;)

Explaining Liberal Anger

Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem -- dare I say it? -- insane, or at least discombobulated.

The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.

As the philosopher John Kekes has pointed out so eloquently, liberals disregard or discount concepts that loom large in the thinking of most of us, such as personal responsibility and desert. Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions.

Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way (or are perceived as standing in their way). Ideally, liberals would rationally persuade those who resist in the hope of bringing them around. But this doesn't work. Belief in personal responsibility and desert is widespread and entrenched. Time and again, liberals run up against it. Since it seems obvious to them that the belief is baseless, they tell themselves a story about why it's pervasive.

It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.

Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.

That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful, and spiteful and why they resort to courts rather than to legislatures to implement their vision of the just society. They have given up hope of engaging their adversaries on rational ground. They know that they can't muster a majority for their causes. To liberals, only the outcome matters, not the process. Without power, their egalitarianism is mere fantasy. But conservatives should be careful not to dismiss it as such, for liberals have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to secure and retain power. We saw it in the case of Robert Bork. We saw it in the case of Bill Clinton. We see it in the case of war in Iraq. To the liberal, the end justifies the means. Take it from me, a former liberal.

Kieth Burgess-Jackson

I know. But calling someone ignorant isn't like calling them stupid. I hope his mother turns off FAUX news and gets some real information. Then she'll probably vote this chimp out of the white house.

Actually, I'm female and my mom actually found it funny!

However, calling someone ignorant because she has a different opinion than you is unbecoming! I have not called Kerry supporters Ignorant, I have not called Bush supporters ignorant.

Says even more about Bush. What's the problem here? He got bad intel and it caused him to make a bad decision and he's stated that he's going to work to make sure that doesn't happen again in the future while Bush keeps on keeping on, trying to sell the lie and refusing to admit that a mistake was made, intentional or otherwise.

Shouldn't kerry have not believed Bush as he is such a moron. What is it the blind leading the blind?

Over 3,000 people dead.

The man responsible has elluded the "full force" of the United States Military for three years.

Don't tell me about other terrorists.

Find Osama or it all means nothing.

What about WWII, we didn't know what happened to Hitler until well after the end. Was it all for nothing because we never got Hitler? What about the other Nazi's, they didn't count because we never got their leader?

Right on, I read that guy too! Here's another one he did. It's funny. Good outspoken modern philosophers are hard to find these days ;)

Explaining Liberal Anger

Why are liberals such as Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean so angry and aggressive? I like to think that I have insight into this matter, since I was a liberal for a long time. If you haven't been a liberal, you may be puzzled by what you hear and read from them. They may seem -- dare I say it? -- insane, or at least discombobulated.

The first thing you must realize is that liberals have a program. They are visionaries. They envision a world in which everyone controls the same amount of resources. Nobody is born to privilege or disadvantage; or, if anyone is, it is swiftly neutralized by the state. To allow disadvantage, they believe, is to become a participant in it. Society, to the liberal mind, is a massive engineering project. Most of us distinguish misfortune and injustice. Not the liberal. No misfortune goes unaddressed by the social engineers. It is presumed -- conclusively, without evidence or argument -- that disparities in wealth are the result of morally arbitrary factors (accidents of birth or circumstance) rather than individual character, effort, discipline, work, or merit.

As the philosopher John Kekes has pointed out so eloquently, liberals disregard or discount concepts that loom large in the thinking of most of us, such as personal responsibility and desert. Most of us believe that responsibility and desert should play a role in the distribution of benefits and burdens. Liberals disagree. Deep down, liberals deny that anyone is responsible for anything. What we are, in terms of personal character, is a function of circumstances beyond our control. How we behave depends solely on our environment. Our very choices are determined, not free. Liberalism dissolves the person. To the liberal, we are loci of movement rather than initiators of action, patients rather than agents, heteronomous rather than autonomous beings. Liberals will deny this, of course, but look at their beliefs and policy prescriptions.

Liberals, unlike conservatives, are zealous. Like all zealots (true believers), they are eager to implement their program, but when they attempt to do so, they meet resistance. This resistance frustrates them immensely and eventually leads to anger toward and aggression against those who stand in their way (or are perceived as standing in their way). Ideally, liberals would rationally persuade those who resist in the hope of bringing them around. But this doesn't work. Belief in personal responsibility and desert is widespread and entrenched. Time and again, liberals run up against it. Since it seems obvious to them that the belief is baseless, they tell themselves a story about why it's pervasive.

It's a multifaceted story. First, the liberal imagines that the belief in question is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Deep down, liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice.

Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression. It's often been remarked that liberals are less adept than conservatives at arguing for their views. Now you see why. They don't practice.

That, in a nutshell, is the liberal mentality. It explains why liberals are so angry, hateful, and spiteful and why they resort to courts rather than to legislatures to implement their vision of the just society. They have given up hope of engaging their adversaries on rational ground. They know that they can't muster a majority for their causes. To liberals, only the outcome matters, not the process. Without power, their egalitarianism is mere fantasy. But conservatives should be careful not to dismiss it as such, for liberals have demonstrated that they will do whatever it takes to secure and retain power. We saw it in the case of Robert Bork. We saw it in the case of Bill Clinton. We see it in the case of war in Iraq. To the liberal, the end justifies the means. Take it from me, a former liberal.

Kieth Burgess-Jackson

i wasnt gonna reply until i caught the major bullshit before the page changed

liberals are zealots and conservatives arnt this whole bullshit statement is full of hypocrisy, egocentricity, and self righteousness

Let me explain it to you. I'll use short sentences so you can follow along.

The federal government requires certain expenditures of the individual states, and then often provides some funding for them.

When the federal government cuts taxes, they have less revenue for the states.

The states can't just stop funding the mandates--that's against the law--so they have to raise local taxes or fees to make up the shortfall. Got it?

And as to healthcare--you again missed the point. Not surprising after all this time, but what the hey. I'll try again.

My point was that if we're going to have a politician in office spending like a drunken sailor as you suggest, why not at least get something for our money, like healthcare? We're going to be screwed either way, so we might as well get kissed for our trouble.

The whole point you missed, hippie, is that healthcare should be up to the individual. Ever hear of self reliance? I guess not, as the government should give us something for our money as you said.

Wow, that's horribly wrong (OK city bombing in 1995 was the last, I think), but it works for my point. How many years was it from 1995 to 2001? 6? So we shouldn't expect another attack so soon then.

It was a domestic attack, it was not an act of aggresion by foreigners which was my point. Hey I hope you learn something when you go back to your "Awesome Charter School".

Yeah, we are best buds. He gives me money <3

Are you his little love slave?

Kerry gave a good speech. I really would love to hear that they were not goign to support Israel anymroe or veto resolutions against Israel. I bet that would really boost Americas image aroudn the world as well as help things out in Palestine

Why is it wrong to support Isreal? Europe didn't want them anymore, remember. Where were they going to go? They needed a nation for themselves. These mud people want the destruction of Isreal, but whenever they went to war against them, they were annhiliated. Let Isreal live, move those rock throwers to some other nation. But no Arab nation will take them in, I wonder why?

We should want Europe to look at us better, esp. on Isreal? They turned their backs on them once before, now they've done it again.

Again--the point goes whizzing by you as if you were inattentive. My point is that you were suggesting that the Clinton economy was the result of a Republican congress, so I suggested that if you're right--you're not--then the Reagan economy must have been as a result of a Democratic congress. You can't have it both ways.

How was Clinton responsible for the economy? Did he wave his little wand, no, the congress passed bills allowing for growth. A republican congress by the way. When Clinton had Democrats what did he give us? Just the largest tax increase in history.

Obama did have a good speech. I actually like him. He isn't liberal and he is level headed. Something I find in Joe Lieberman. Joe would be better candidate than Kerry anyday. If Lieberman was the Candidate, I wouldn't give Bush a chance of winning! With Kerry, Bush will probably get 4 more years.

.... you.... you have got to be kidding me...... Lieberman is a censorship Nazi bastard. Gore's crappy choice of Lieberman as a running mate is part of the reason he lost last time. If you would vote for Lieberman before you voted for Kerry you need to have your fucking head examined... seriously. I would vote for Bush before I would vote for Liberman, I may hate Bush intensely and have very little reason to vote for him, but I fear Liberman and what he would do to this country. Then again if it was Bush v. Lieberman I'd prolly vote for Nader.

I pity the fool who can't follow a conversation.
http://sherwood.smalltownfreak.org/sundries/t/t.jpg

Hannibal I was explaining how a President can and does affect our everyday lives. I don't have to participate in a war to be affected. If one of my family members has to go to a useless war (or even a legitimate one) I am deeply affected.

No the president really doesn't have anything to do with your life. Do you stay up at night wondering how the president is going to stand on some bill? If you do then you're a nutcase. It doesn't matter who you're leaders are, the same stuff happens over and over again. The president doesn't decide where you live, who you marry, or have a gay marriage with, what kind of car you buy, what job you have, what you do for fun, etc. These are more important then any president ever was. If Bush is doing this stuff for you all I can say is you'd better get that tin foil on your head quick.

How was Clinton responsible for the economy? Did he wave his little wand, no, the congress passed bills allowing for growth. A republican congress by the way. When Clinton had Democrats what did he give us? Just the largest tax increase in history.

Yeah and he paid down the national debt with that money. If I have to give an extra $30 a year or even an extra $100 out of my meager salary to ensure the fiscal stability of this country I'll fucking do it in a heartbeat. Bush and his trickle-down economic theory where giving tax cuts to the rich will benefit those in lower classes is horse shit. That only works if the people on top aren't greedy little bastards, which, at this point in history, they all are. And you know, since the Bush tax cuts, my taxes have actually stayed the same. Where's my fuckin slice of the pie? Or was I lied to again? Hrmn, under this administration that would be such a novel idea *sarcasm*.

.... you.... you have got to be kidding me...... Lieberman is a censorship Nazi bastard. Gore's crappy choice of Lieberman as a running mate is part of the reason he lost last time.

Actually, it was his behavior in the debates. Lieberman was actually a good choice for VP. He was strong on most issues.

If you would vote for Lieberman before you voted for Kerry you need to have your fucking head examined... seriously. I would vote for Bush before I would vote for Liberman, I may hate Bush intensely and have very little reason to vote for him, but I fear Liberman and what he would do to this country. Then again if it was Bush v. Lieberman I'd prolly vote for Nader.

Why? Because Lieberman Supported the war then funded the troops fighting it? Yea that is a disqualification? He voted for Partial Birth Abortion? Yep another disqualification. You just don't like him because he stood by what he voted. And before anyone asks for examples, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq now he is opposed to it. Sorry, not holding water with me. Lieberman is BETTER than Kerry! If Lieberman was the candidate, I honestly do believe that he would defeat Bush. By Electing Kerry, they are hoping that he loses. Yea they wanna win, but if He wins that means Hillary won't be able to run until 2012 unless the ask Kerry not to run for a 2nd term IF he gets elected.

Really? I guess Dick Cheney pretty immature then. By the way, Bush is doing a shitty, shitty job, and his policies are bullshit. Why sugarcoat it?

My you do have some issues, don't you? You must really hate your mother. I wan't discussing bush or cheney or thei foul mouths.

Yeah and he paid down the national debt with that money. If I have to give an extra $30 a year or even an extra $100 out of my meager salary to ensure the fiscal stability of this country I'll fucking do it in a heartbeat. Bush and his trickle-down economic theory where giving tax cuts to the rich will benefit those in lower classes is horse shit. That only works if the people on top aren't greedy little bastards, which, at this point in history, they all are. And you know, since the Bush tax cuts, my taxes have actually stayed the same. Where's my fuckin slice of the pie? Or was I lied to again? Hrmn, under this administration that would be such a novel idea *sarcasm*.

Don't forget that this happened during a GOOD BUSINESS CYCLE! Businesses do have cycles you know. No President has FULL CONTROL. Events do dictate how the economy is going to go be it a war or a terrorist attack!

Bush inherited a country that was going downhill. 9/11 took place that sent it out of control. Corporate Scandals rocked it more! Many industries were affected by these 2 single events.

In my opinion, Bush is one of the worst president's we've had in a very long time. I'd rather elect a can of tuna than him, because at least I know the can of tuna isn't out to screw over us middle class people. Kerry may not be the ideal man for president, but I liked him before, and I like him even more after the speech.

Didn't you middle class folks get a tax cut? I guess not since he only likes the wealthiest Americans.

Don't forget that this happened during a GOOD BUSINESS CYCLE! Businesses do have cycles you know. No President has FULL CONTROL. Events do dictate how the economy is going to go be it a war or a terrorist attack!

Bush inherited a country that was going downhill. 9/11 took place that sent it out of control. Corporate Scandals rocked it more! Many industries were affected by these 2 single events.
i like the idea that some of those heads of corporate scandals were on teh national energy comittee

Actually, it was his behavior in the debates. Lieberman was actually a good choice for VP. He was strong on most issues.

Why? Because Lieberman Supported the war then funded the troops fighting it? Yea that is a disqualification? He voted for Partial Birth Abortion? Yep another disqualification. You just don't like him because he stood by what he voted. And before anyone asks for examples, Kerry voted for the war in Iraq now he is opposed to it. Sorry, not holding water with me. Lieberman is BETTER than Kerry! If Lieberman was the candidate, I honestly do believe that he would defeat Bush. By Electing Kerry, they are hoping that he loses. Yea they wanna win, but if He wins that means Hillary won't be able to run until 2012 unless the ask Kerry not to run for a 2nd term IF he gets elected.

Okay, I'm going to address your bullshit in parts so bare with me.

1) Strong on issues in debates? Which debates were those? Certianly not the VP debates with Cheney where the most common word of the night was "I agree." And certianly not the Democratic Primary debates where he said nothing of substance he just spent all his time bashing Dean.

2) Yeah, he supported the war in Iraq. Yeah, he voted to fund it. Yeah, he voted for Partial Birth Abortion, oh wait that's a bad thing cause that was a vote to ban it. You wanna know why Kerry voted for the war first and then not the funding later? It's a long answer but I suppose I can indulge you.

Kerry voted for the war based on both the intelligence that was presented to them that turned out to be false and in the understanding that this authorization would only be used as a last means necessary, not as a primary means like it was. So Bushy boy betrayed his trust, lied to him not only about the intelligence but also said that it would be a cheap war that would be over quickly if it did happen. As a result in a vote of activism he cast a meaningless vote against the $83 billion dollars which still passed by an overwhelming margin. Had his vote mattered at any point he has come out and said "I would have cast a vote in favor of that funding."

Couldn't agree more. Our relationship with Israel is not mutually beneficial. In fact, if we didn't support israel as much as we do I am confident that the 9-11 terrorist attacks might not have happened. It's time for us to stop babying Israel and let them answer take some fucking responsibility for their atrocities.

Since when do Isreal's suicide bombers blow up Palastinian school buses? Atrocities? Isreal has no right to exist? Why are you so anti-semetic? I guess you think the holocaust was a good idea. What about the atrocities that muslim men commit against women? Why do they always recruit and brainwash young men to be bombers? Why don't the leaders pull off these attacks? Quite the

BTW nice F bomb.

Don't forget that this happened during a GOOD BUSINESS CYCLE! Businesses do have cycles you know. No President has FULL CONTROL. Events do dictate how the economy is going to go be it a war or a terrorist attack!

Bush inherited a country that was going downhill. 9/11 took place that sent it out of control. Corporate Scandals rocked it more! Many industries were affected by these 2 single events.

There are cycles and then there are all out catastrophies, and stop using 9-11 as a crutch. 9-11 just sped it to the bottom that it was already headed toward because bush couldn't get his shit passed in a democratic congress that wouldn't pass bills that bush refused to negotiate about.

:rolleyes:

Hmmm that quote from picket fenses is correct.

"'Religion is like a fart. your own smells ok but everybody else's stinks."

I have not found validity in that statement yet as I only started reading the Qur-an.

Any Muslims care to comment?

Hope you enjoy that awesome Islam. Please don't blow up that daycare center with your shoe bomb.

:eek: Profanity does not exist in the Military? :eek:

Who would have thought!

What about Gen. Patton?

He was a great general, but was a huge egomaniac, which is a serious character flaw as well.

In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration has pursued an aggressively militaristic foreign policy marked by religious rhetoric and ambitiously imperial declarations. Is the social and ideological base and agenda of this administration uniquely rooted in the Christian Right, neoconservatism, and the less scrupulous sections of the corporate elite, or is this simply a more crass reflection of a prevailing consensus among an American elite emboldened by the emergence of America as the world’s sole hegemon?

If you prefer clear answers in place of derogatory argument, please refer to http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/JAlam0206.htm : an interview with the unpopular media critic Noam Chomsky. Otherwise, continue with the cyber logorrhea.

Mr Chomsky is a communist. Enough said.

Since when do Isreal's suicide bombers blow up Palastinian school buses? Atrocities? Isreal has no right to exist? Why are you so anti-semetic? I guess you think the holocaust was a good idea. What about the atrocities that muslim men commit against women? Why do they always recruit and brainwash young men to be bombers? Why don't the leaders pull off these attacks? Quite the

BTW nice F bomb.

Hrmn Atrocities? Lesse, they bulldoze homes in Palestinian territory that tehy have no jurisdiction to be in and build new Israeli settlements. They kill innocents and don't allow people that need to get to hospitals past check-points. They have un-lawfully occupied that country for years at a time, and now they're building a fucking wall around palestine. Israel has a right to exist, I never said they didn't, I just said that they need to start taking some responsibility in the international community for their actions and stop using us as a human shield. And did you ever think there might be little brainwashing involved? Mebby they're just so pent up with hate because of the oppression and violence that they have lived with all their lives. If Israel stopped bulldozing and pulled out of territory that doesn't belong to them this whole thing would have been over decades ago, but no they're being stubborn about it. And I resent that you call me anti-semetic, especially because I'm half jewish.

This bit of brilliant political fertilizer has been brought to you by yet another Bush supporter who would rather throw insults than give any sort of educated opinion on the issues at hand. Thank you for once again reminding me why I left the republican party.

I thought that Kerry's speech was well thought out, well delivered, and well written. I would have liked to have heard more of how he plans to implement and pay for his programs, but that will follow in the weeks to come.

Yeah a great speech. Why didn't he talk about his record in the senate? He talks about supporting the troops, but not about his votes to cut funding for numerous military programs. Well delivered? If you like your politicians sweaty, then I guess it was.

NS seems to be full of Bush supporters. I guess the minority here are democrats.

Mose Hannibal?

Shoot I guess I need your number 1 "charter school" Rick. Just as long as you don't "soak" it to the poor.

There are cycles and then there are all out catastrophies, and stop using 9-11 as a crutch. 9-11 just sped it to the bottom that it was already headed toward because bush couldn't get his shit passed in a democratic congress that wouldn't pass bills that bush refused to negotiate about.
gotta love partisanship

And once again, the point goes zooming past while Hannibal struggles to make sense of it.

Zooming right past me! You are correct, but I guess I can blame it on Liberal public school teachers that you surely never were brainwashed by. Yes I'm a Republican lacky, even though I haven't voted for them in 16 years.

democratic congress my ass

oh sorry "Democratic Senate", you happy buddy now? The Dems had a majority until the 2002 midterm elections, it's amazing how few people knew that.

oh sorry "Democratic Senate", you happy buddy now? The Dems had a majority until the 2002 midterm elections, it's amazing how few people knew that.
yeah senatei changed my post

Wow!

Well Lads, I think the true nature is starting to appear!

What that I'm a strong anti-communist, and anti-socialist? Lads? Ok Cavendish, I'm ready for my tea. Many of your types' position on political topics make me wonder if you've dropped one too many blotters. Feelings matter to you more then common sense. Like it's so important what Europe thinks of us. Yeah I care what an inbred society thinks of my country.

I feel your pain. Help is on the way.

There are cycles and then there are all out catastrophies, and stop using 9-11 as a crutch. 9-11 just sped it to the bottom that it was already headed toward because bush couldn't get his shit passed in a democratic congress that wouldn't pass

HELLO!!!! I'm not using 9/11 as a crutch. It was a catasrophy that befell the USA. It immediately lost tens of thousands of jobs! The tourist industries suffered because no one was flying. All the industries that are connected with airlines suffered because of 9/11! That caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. I'm not using 9/11 as a crutch, i'm using it to prove that a SINGLE EVENT can cause a major upheavel in a nation's economy!

Oh Hannibal, I've been proving my points all day, while you have attempted to dodge every tough question thrown at you.

What tough questions? I'm waiting. Nice to see your education is finally paying off on some silly little website. I hope I don't bother you, you pinko.

I would go back and explain it to you, as you seem to miss every single point that anyone happens to bring up to you, but I JUST learned from your last post to me that you are unworthy of a response. Good luck

Why am I unworthy? Is it because I believe in personal independance, I don't believe in socialism, liberalism, islam, hyphenated americans, john f-ing kerry (who served in vietnam so you know), or democans and republicrats. I am totally unworthy.

What tough questions? I'm waiting. Nice to see your education is finally paying off on some silly little website. I hope I don't bother you, you pinko.

Ok Hannibal, I've held my tongue long enough! Stop with the name calling please. It doesn't help an arguement and it just makes people mad! Not only that, it doesn't make you any smarter, just the opposite infact.

Ok Hannibal, I've held my tongue long enough! Stop with the name calling please. It doesn't help an arguement and it just makes people mad! Not only that, it doesn't make you any smarter, just the opposite infact.
He gives us shit about using profanity but it is okay for him to hurl insults, sounds like a double standard to me.

Red diaper doper babies? I have to question the sanity of anyone who quotes that draft-dodging, woman-hating scumbag Michael (Weiner) Savage.

I don't care for Savage, but I like that quote it seems to fit most of you dirty footed, tree hugging, crybaby liberals.

Kerry nailed it.. and what is better is the next time the republicans try to go negative, the democrats can go SEE! Brilliant. He has made it so that if the republicans try any games that aren't the issues, they will look bad. Talk about the issues.. cause that's what the Democrats are doing! A perfect 10 for John Kerry.. I knew he had it in him! Yay!

Any republican who bad mouths Kerry will now only prove Kerry's point! :cool:

Why should we (republicans) stop bad-mouthing Kerry while you (democrats) go off and insult the president.

Wow!

I tried to listen to Savage once but I felt my IQ starting to drop so I changed it quick.

Hmmmm HannibalSmith?

That costs you in the credibility department.

I lose credibility because I read his book? I read Al Gore's and Bill Clinton's, does that give me more credibility? BTW I was one of 5 people to buy Al Gore's book. Savage is not on any of the stations I get here in Montana.

What that I'm a strong anti-communist, and anti-socialist? Lads? Ok Cavendish, I'm ready for my tea. Many of your types' position on political topics make me wonder if you've dropped one too many blotters. Feelings matter to you more then common sense. Like it's so important what Europe thinks of us. Yeah I care what an inbred society thinks of my country.

I feel your pain. Help is on the way.

Hey Hannibal, I agree 100%

Why should we (republicans) stop bad-mouthing Kerry while you (democrats) go off and insult the president.

Insult? We mostly only hammer him on the issues and the fact that he lied to the faces of the american people, though I must admit there are occasional "monkey" comments but sometimes we have no control over that so feel free to call kerry a walking skelliton if necessary.

I guess that's why Hannibal has been taking these breaks frm posting--he needs to get more material from Savage.

An amusing aside about Savege--he recently said that he spits on people with honorary degrees. From Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_07_25_atrios_archive.html#109120186222911588)

:D

Actually, unlike you I have more important stuff to do then stay on my butt at the computer all day. For instance earning money, shooting animals, providing for my family, having a life. BTW do you even have a job? Have you done anything constructive with your life, or have you dedicated your life to spewing your socialist rhetoric on this silly site? I only get 3 radio stations here, two are country, and one is newsradio/sports. I guess Hank Williams Sr. is brainwashing me.

Insult? We mostly only hammer him on the issues and the fact that he lied to the faces of the american people, though I must admit there are occasional "monkey" comments but sometimes we have no control over that so feel free to call kerry a walking skelliton if necessary.

Issues... like the one about him "misleading the nation". Sure, if you want to discredit not only our intelligence agencies, but also Britains and Russias. Not to mention the 30 nations that joined our coalition because they also thought that Iraq was a threat. Issues like this are what you liberals try to attack Bush on.

Issues... like the one about him "misleading the nation". Sure, if you want to discredit not only our intelligence agencies, but also Britains and Russias. Not to mention the 30 nations that joined our coalition because they also thought that Iraq was a threat. Issues like this are what you liberals try to attack Bush on.
i dotn know what the other nations thought, bush has the idiots in this nation convinced that the attack on iraq was a part of the war on terror

btw, its funny how this evolved from a post about kerry's speech