NationStates Jolt Archive

The Truth, Vol. 1 (rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC092004W.rm)

I will be adding more videos later. If anyone has any other videos they would like to contribute, they may do so here.

The truth is a broken link? Okay. Not sure what that has to do with Kerry, but I'll go along with it for shits and giggles.

It worked for me. Maybe you don't have RealPlayer. If so, go here: http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

In the right hand column, near the top. It says Watch Now! and below are links to the video in different formats.

So let me get this straight. Because Kerry has been nuanced in his view of Hussein and has varied his opinion slightly over time as more information became available, I shouldn't vote for him, because I should vote instead for the guy who had his staff come up with every possible implausible scenario that would justify an unnecessary war, stretched our military to the breakng point, ran up massive deficits and did not make the country any safer from the threat posed by the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001, namely al Qaeda? What kind of moron are you?

I got an acne medication commercial. Are you saying Kerry supporters have bad skin?

I got an acne medication commercial. Are you saying Kerry supporters have bad skin?


..yes...Yes I am..


Incertonia: The video I showed provides the truth to the debate of whether or not Kerry is a waffler or not. In no point did it also say that he is a bad man, and that you should vote for Bush in his stead. This is not a thread to about Bush vs. Kerry, which you seem to be making it out to be. Over the next few days I will be putting up more videos to support my case. I would also appreciate it if you did not call me a moron, just because my opinion is differant than yours. I could resort to name calling purely based on the fact that I like Bush, but you don't, but I shall not step down to such levels.

Lol!!! I love you already whoever you are! ;)

You won't believe it ppl...today a guy told me the same thing at work today...that Kerry keeps on changing his outlook on things and that at least we know what Bush is going to do. *ruining the country some more*Let's be fair to Bush, he might've done some good things... Pissed off everyone in the world...done...gave tax-cuts for the rich while spending like a maniac...done...made others lose trust in America...done...ruined the economy...done...backtracked education and social programs...done...sought to destroy the environment...done. lets be honest, what good has he done for the country? I really didn't see anything that was positive. Some may argue that he unified a nation. Well the truth is that he got innocent people *children for God's sake!* killed on the other side of the world in order to do it. Yes, it united a bunch of Republicans *idiots* and other so-called patriots, but in doing so he alienated the peaceful people in the US as well. I don't get it...what are your reasons for why we should vote for Bush? Enlighten me if you will...

Oh and maybe some of you are forgetting the fact that Bush shouldn't even be the president right now!!! Have you *bush supporters* forgotten that the popular vote didn't elect Bush? Maybe during these elections, the rightful party will win.

Well...we don't know if you're a moron or not but you certainly have bad spelling. "different" not "differant"

Well...we don't know if you're a moron or not but you certainly have bad spelling. "different" not "differant"


cut me some slack, its 6AM over here and I've been awake since 11AM yesterday.. :p (edit: case and point...I put OOC parenthesis over this sentence.)

Why would I vote Bush over Kerry? I believe he is the lesser of two evils, at least in today's age. He has ushered in the War on Terror, which no matter what anyone's says, is reversible at this point and time. Kerry, is definately not the one to lead the USA into the War on Terror. Bush is a capable CiC for this job. You may say that Bush will undoubtedly cause Nuclear War, but who's to say Kerry won't?

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/funwithunclejim/bush.html

That's no excuse mister...it's past 4am here and you don't see me messing up my good, no terrific spelling. That's having skills! ;)

Anyway...back on the topic...is the *impossible* war on terrorism more important than taking care of the millions of people who inhabit this country? Btw...did you just ignore my other questions? Because leading a nation, truly leading it is not just "protecting" it. It's nurturing it and making it prosper. Bush is not doing that. Let's be honest. Please. I can see your point of view but I also cannot agree that Bush is the lesser of the two evils. I also don't like Kerry too much but in my opinion he would be better at leading the nation OVERALL not just in killing people on the other side of the world. Want to know which party's ideals I really support? Communist, socialists too. They take care of the people. and no...neither the USSR, China or Cuba were ever really Communists. *sigh* but one day it will prevail after a long transitional period as things cannot be rushed. *smile* K...going to bed now. If you want to discuss this any further and want to contact me by telegram on NS I'm either The Divine Russian Empire of Flamazon, The Flamazonian Colony of Marxinborough or The Flamazonian Colony of Altostratus. :) I love learning about other people's perspectives. K, goodnight and God bless you all.

..yes...Yes I am..


Incertonia: The video I showed provides the truth to the debate of whether or not Kerry is a waffler or not. In no point did it also say that he is a bad man, and that you should vote for Bush in his stead. This is not a thread to about Bush vs. Kerry, which you seem to be making it out to be. Over the next few days I will be putting up more videos to support my case. I would also appreciate it if you did not call me a moron, just because my opinion is differant than yours. I could resort to name calling purely based on the fact that I like Bush, but you don't, but I shall not step down to such levels.
bush is a waffler too, do you have a point?

That's no excuse mister...it's past 4am here and you don't see me messing up my good, no terrific spelling. That's having skills! ;)

Anyway...back on the topic...is the *impossible* war on terrorism more important than taking care of the millions of people who inhabit this country?
of course it is, they are rpeublicans, anyone in this country who isnt rich is lazy and not worth supporting, thats why we must install our own governments in other countries so they will judge their countrymen the same way

...And the truth shall set you free!!! (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_9016.html)

I like waffles.

I like waffles.

I do too, beats the heck out of people who can't complete full sentences doesn't it? *LOL*

I do too, beats the heck out of people who can't complete full sentences doesn't it? *LOL*

I notice you're online Steph, and since this thread is more pointless than the Los Angeles Clippers, I don't feel bad hijacking it. Say I wanted to have one of my old, old puppets resurrected. Through what channels would I go to get that accomplished?

Waffles are great with lots of strawberry syrup and melted butter.

I don't like the frozen variety, though. I prefer home-made.

So let me get this straight. Because Kerry has been nuanced in his view of Hussein and has varied his opinion slightly over time as more information became available, I shouldn't vote for him, because I should vote instead for the guy who had his staff come up with every possible implausible scenario that would justify an unnecessary war, stretched our military to the breakng point, ran up massive deficits and did not make the country any safer from the threat posed by the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001, namely al Qaeda? What kind of moron are you?
Varied slightly? Did you watch the movie at all?

of course it is, they are rpeublicans, anyone in this country who isnt rich is lazy and not worth supporting, thats why we must install our own governments in other countries so they will judge their countrymen the same way

Boy you'll believe anything the left tells you huh? I guess you didn't get a tax cut...oh wait, he gave rich people a tax cut too....bastards, they already pay most of the bills in this country, why shouldn't they pay more. They are democrats, anyone in this country who is rich got that way by stealing and manipulating the poor working class, not by hard work. Besides, this is a socialist nation right, why shouldn't the rich pay for the poor. :rolleyes:

When I was 6 years old, I believed that when I closed the door to my bedroom that the entire outside world simply vanished. I also believed that the moon followed me as I walked.

I don't believe that anymore.

This is not "flip-flopping" ... it's called "learning".

*shrug*

, anyone in this country who is rich got that way by stealing and manipulating the poor working class, not by hard work. . :rolleyes:

That is true or are you still such a lying bastard that believes that he can become really rich by just hard work.
Common boy, grow up and get serious, you don't become really rich by work but by drugs, politics, massive taxfraude (Rep.), bying and placing your politicians in congres/White house that will help your company getting even richer, white collar crime brings more money than any other form of crime.

Welcome to the world

Boy you'll believe anything the left tells you huh? I guess you didn't get a tax cut...oh wait, he gave rich people a tax cut too....bastards, they already pay most of the bills in this country, why shouldn't they pay more. They are democrats, anyone in this country who is rich got that way by stealing and manipulating the poor working class, not by hard work. Besides, this is a socialist nation right, why shouldn't the rich pay for the poor. :rolleyes:
no, i do this thing called "observing" and i dont like or trust republicans, and you muts be blind, or not ivsit message boards, the rpeublicans sit around saying all poor peopela rep oor because its their own fault

And because bacterial lifeform Grebonia asks for it :p


http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2003/waronpeas.html

To all Bush supporters:

www.warmongerer.com

Doesn't change my opinion, Bush is still worse.

Sad part is much of this tactic works ... if you repeate a lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.

I find it sad, but such is the nature of human sheep.

What am I babbling about, you may ask?

Original quote by Candidate: "I used to like beef, but now I prefer fish."

Now let's watch it progress ...

Opponent makes ad that says: "Candidate hates beef!" and makes a fun animated flash to go with it.

Supporters of Opponent spams flash animation all over the internet.

People watch. They believe Candidate hates beef. Supporters of Candidate roll their eyes.

Candidate makes official statement and shows original newsclip with his original quote.

Supporters of Opponent continue to spam flash animation all over the internet.

People watch. They still believe Candidate hates beef.

Moral: Pay attention to the candidates, not the idiotic .wmv sequences people piece together. I mean, I can make a flash movie where GWB is giving anal sex to Jenna in a 3some with Cheney .... but that doesn't make it true.

And, no, I didn't watch the .rm that started this thread. I have no reason to.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

I call that flip flopping, I dunno, call me a Liberal (Gasp! Its the L word!) But I hate our president. To the point that I can't stand watching his speeches. Why? Well, he is the worst president the supreme court has ever appointed in United States history. He has destroyed our economy, while continueing to say that it is "getting better!" He has introduced the color coded terror alert system which is bullshit, saying what will happen when it reaches orange? does the FBI truly work harder then they did before to stop terrorists? And if so, Why? aren't terrorists notorious for attacking when their least expected? Not that I support keeping the country under martial law and fear that terrorists are going to ruin our great(ly) ruined nation; nay, I hate that doctrine as well. I think they should only tell us to "be afraid" when their is significant chatter, and tell us, at least vaguely, why there issueing this warning. He has managed to pull off a lot of crap here at home without people knowing it because the "lefty" news networks only focuses on the war in Iraq. I still don't know what the hell is happening in Afghanistan. If he gets his way he is going to give more tax cuts. Which leads me to another arguement.

How the hell do tax cuts work?
Republican Theory: Tax cuts will give money to everyone in the country (sic) and then they will eventually funnel it back into the shops, and stores all across the country, which in turn will cause the stock market to rise, and the economy will become great again.

Truth: It doesn't work. We all can see it doesn't work. The government needs money too morons, that and the whole "they'll funnel it back" doctrine is idiotic. You know what'd I'd do if I got 200 dollars in the mail from our friends in the white house? Put it in a savings/checking account and keep it there till I really need it. AKA I wouldn't spend it, and I doubt many people did. Or IF they did... it was so small amount of money that instead of a lot of it going through the small sales tax (heh) to the government... guess what? It went to the big corporation people who are sitting in there easy chair getting 34,000 dollar tax refunds, as well as all the money those suckers gave them by buying there products... THATS what really happens.

So, now that I've gone off on a tyraid, is there anything else you republicans would like to argue about?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

I call that flip flopping, I dunno, call me a Liberal (Gasp! Its the L word!) But I hate our president. To the point that I can't stand watching his speeches. Why? Well, he is the worst president the supreme court has ever appointed in United States history. He has destroyed our economy, while continueing to say that it is "getting better!" He has introduced the color coded terror alert system which is bullshit, saying what will happen when it reaches orange? does the FBI truly work harder then they did before to stop terrorists? And if so, Why? aren't terrorists notorious for attacking when their least expected? Not that I support keeping the country under martial law and fear that terrorists are going to ruin our great(ly) ruined nation; nay, I hate that doctrine as well. I think they should only tell us to "be afraid" when their is significant chatter, and tell us, at least vaguely, why there issueing this warning. He has managed to pull off a lot of crap here at home without people knowing it because the "lefty" news networks only focuses on the war in Iraq. I still don't know what the hell is happening in Afghanistan. If he gets his way he is going to give more tax cuts. Which leads me to another arguement.

How the hell do tax cuts work?
Republican Theory: Tax cuts will give money to everyone in the country (sic) and then they will eventually funnel it back into the shops, and stores all across the country, which in turn will cause the stock market to rise, and the economy will become great again.

Truth: It doesn't work. We all can see it doesn't work. The government needs money too morons, that and the whole "they'll funnel it back" doctrine is idiotic. You know what'd I'd do if I got 200 dollars in the mail from our friends in the white house? Put it in a savings/checking account and keep it there till I really need it. AKA I wouldn't spend it, and I doubt many people did. Or IF they did... it was so small amount of money that instead of a lot of it going through the small sales tax (heh) to the government... guess what? It went to the big corporation people who are sitting in there easy chair getting 34,000 dollar tax refunds, as well as all the money those suckers gave them by buying there products... THATS what really happens.

So, now that I've gone off on a tyraid, is there anything else you republicans would like to argue about?

Has the USA been attacked by terrorists since 9/11? I haven't seen another attack on US soil, have you. I guess you really think Kerry is going to fight terrorism, and not treat it like a law enforcement issue.

Has the USA been attacked by terrorists since 9/11? I haven't seen another attack on US soil, have you.

The Anthrax mailer.

So, you're voting for Kerry now, right?

Besides, why come all the way to the U.S. when you can play Jihad Light in Karbala?

So let me get this straight. Because Kerry has been nuanced in his view of Hussein and has varied his opinion slightly over time as more information became available, I shouldn't vote for him, because I should vote instead for the guy who had his staff come up with every possible implausible scenario that would justify an unnecessary war, stretched our military to the breakng point, ran up massive deficits and did not make the country any safer from the threat posed by the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001, namely al Qaeda? What kind of moron are you?

Thank you. For the price of the war in Iraq, we could gave instead gotten...

25 000 more Special Forces

40 000 more GIs

100 000 more policemen

Equipped all passenger liners with anti-missile countermeasures

Finished rebuilding Afghanistan

Converted large portions of Afghanistan's opium fields to grains and vegetables

Quadrupled our diplomatic presence in the Middle East

And properly funded the Port Security Program.

All of these. Combined. And all we would have had to sacrifice to have this is 14 000 dead bodies, 900+ of them American.

Has the USA been attacked by terrorists since 9/11? I haven't seen another attack on US soil, have you. I guess you really think Kerry is going to fight terrorism, and not treat it like a law enforcement issue.
when was the last attack on the continental US before 9/11.. i rest my case

So let me get this straight. Because Kerry has been nuanced in his view of Hussein and has varied his opinion slightly over time as more information became available, I shouldn't vote for him, because I should vote instead for the guy who had his staff come up with every possible implausible scenario that would justify an unnecessary war, stretched our military to the breakng point, ran up massive deficits and did not make the country any safer from the threat posed by the people who attacked us on 9/11/2001, namely al Qaeda? What kind of moron are you?
Wow, is it possible for you to post without insulting people? Nuanced? Flip-Flopper of the highest degree is more like it. The guy is a political weather vane, changing with the political winds. Don't be his enabler. Call him on his lies.

The Anthrax mailer.

So, you're voting for Kerry now, right?

It was never proven what those mailers were all about. Maybe a hoax?

It was never proven what those mailers were all about. Maybe a hoax?
ahh, of course, some silly lab assistants for a chemist are sitting around snickering right now because they got away with the anthrax and ricin mailings

It was never proven what those mailers were all about. Maybe a hoax?

Um, real anthrax that kills several people cannot be a hoax. No matter how you slice it. Assassination attempts on two senators == not hoax.. (There have been hoax anthrax mailing before and since - quite often against abortion clinics. There's also quite an interesting story revolving around a purported ricin letter sent to Bill Frist, that never seemed to travel through the mail.)

Yes, it was never proven what those mailers were all about - because of the failures of the people Bush appointed. That doesn't mean they weren't terrorism, they were. There is no possible way that our ignorance of the senders of these letters can be a point in Bush's favor.

Thank you. For the price of the war in Iraq, we could gave instead gotten...

25 000 more Special Forces

40 000 more GIs

100 000 more policemen

Equipped all passenger liners with anti-missile countermeasures

Finished rebuilding Afghanistan

Converted large portions of Afghanistan's opium fields to grains and vegetables

Quadrupled our diplomatic presence in the Middle East

And properly funded the Port Security Program.

All of these. Combined. And all we would have had to sacrifice to have this is 14 000 dead bodies, 900+ of them American.

Without the invasion of Iraq, I don't see what why we would have needed, or even wanted the first three items.

The remaining items may be worthwhile, but they are preventative measures for small stakes. We are safer for one fewer country with a WMD program. Failing to act while North Korea built theirs was quite a big enough mistake already.

We are safer for one fewer country with a WMD program.

You're a couple of revisions behind; the operative explanation is that Saddam had the desire and intent to restart his WMD program.

So if North Korea - and Pakistan - are more dangerous than Iraq was in 2002 (and I think we all agree with that), how can we be safer than we would have been if those threats had been addressed?

Because those horses are already out of the barn and can't reasonably be addressed without running a good chance of getting American troops vaporized.

The sane way of dealing with upstart rogue states is before they can nuke you when you have a position of dominance, not afterwards when they are a genuine threat.

I like waffles.
me too. Not so sure about wafflers, though. Hm....Presidents. I don't care, I'm fleeing to Canada.

I like waffles.

I like waffles too. and Pie.

Without the invasion of Iraq, I don't see what why we would have needed, or even wanted the first three items.

The remaining items may be worthwhile, but they are preventative measures for small stakes. We are safer for one fewer country with a WMD program. Failing to act while North Korea built theirs was quite a big enough mistake already.
the first TWO would be uneeded, the 4th is irrelevant, the REST are of fairly measurable importance

Because those horses are already out of the barn and can't reasonably be addressed without running a good chance of getting American troops vaporized.

The sane way of dealing with upstart rogue states is before they can nuke you when you have a position of dominance, not afterwards when they are a genuine threat.

Well, that's a positive attitude - I happen to think that diplomatic pressure and economic factors can influence the behavior of countries. You don't think it's a problem, though, that the country most responsible for nuclear proliferation - and not unlikely source of nuclear weapons for Islamist terrorists - is a "major non-NATO ally" that we're giving boatloads of money to?

After all, the ISI set up the Taliban, who sheltered Al-Qaeda, who...

(BTW, if Iraq wasn't a threat to us at the time, reference the thread about the war being illegal.)

Has the USA been attacked by terrorists since 9/11?... and this rock protects me against tigers.

How do you know it works?

Do you see any tigers around here?

... and this rock protects me against tigers.

How do you know it works?

Do you see any tigers around here?
I'll give you five dollars for that rock!!!

don't do it! i'll give you a spoon that protects against rhinos

Because those horses are already out of the barn and can't reasonably be addressed without running a good chance of getting American troops vaporized.

The sane way of dealing with upstart rogue states is before they can nuke you when you have a position of dominance, not afterwards when they are a genuine threat.

So we should pick up and invade Iran? Or Syria? Or perhaps even Saudi Arabia, who, by the way, actually DID have ties to Osama Bin Laden, and is the homeland of the Bin Laden family. Or better yet, we should invade France, because its an upstart rogue nation who is threatening our economy with these so called "French" fries. And they have WMD's! And they hate us! And their France for god's sake, we go in, they surrender, we go out with our heads in the clouds cause god blessed the evangelical states of america to victory once more!

Alright, rants behind me, that sort of thinking will cause WW3. Thats sort of like saying "we have to kill people who are showing murderess tendencies because they MAY murder someone down the road of their life."
If someone came up to you, and said that to your child, you'd tend to get pissed and want to kill them back for it, would you not? And their neighbors who see this would hide their children away, and secretly start to hate the government, and want to possibly overthrow it right? Thats sort of the worlds reaction to Bush's "Preemptive Wars are best!" bullshit. If you have a reason for war, for god sakes tell us already! Without the smoke screens. Without the blotted words. Without the fuzzy print. Without the "I take that back's." And definitely without the excuses of "god told me too!" or "Cheney told me too!"

So all in all the whole arguement that "we should kill people who might be dangerous down the road." is all a crock of shit used to get at what matters most to Bush. Black Gold... or what dem "west texas girls, just like me" say down south "Texas Tea."

So we should pick up and invade Iran? Or Syria? Or perhaps even Saudi Arabia
If other means fail, yes.

A Glimpse of What Life Might be Like Under John Kerry

August 14, 2004
by Ray Blumhorst

What would life be like under a John Kerry regime? Some aspects of policies under a Kerry administration appeared to be in clear display earlier this week in the behavior and words of his supporters on the streets of a little town in California called Santa Monica. Santa Monica is well known for its liberal politics and the predominately liberal lifestyles of its inhabitants. Thursday, August 12, 2004 President George W. Bush came to Santa Monica airport for a political fund raising event, and was greeted there by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other Bush supporters. I did not personally see President Bush, although at one point, from my vantage point, I did see cars come to a stop on the inland bound side of Ocean Park Blvd. At the same time all the cars were absent from the ocean bound side of Ocean Park Blvd. A few minutes later an excited lady ran back to us saying, “I saw him,” and “He had his window down and waved to me.” It was our President she was referring to. That was pretty much the political highlight of the afternoon, but by no means was it the only political event worth noting.

At 2:45 P.M. in the afternoon I arrived near the beginning of the re-elect President George W. Bush rally. There were already some people with signs on the street corner of Ocean Park and 31st so I drove a short block to pay parking and hurried back to join the throng of Bush supporters already there. There were some Kerry supporters across the street, but all in all things were polite and civil, that is, until some Kerry supporters decided to come to our location and start standing in front of our signs with their signs vilifying the president. The leader of the Bush supporters decided at that point to led us to the east, although I was not pleased that we had ceded the spot where traffic heading inland would first see the rally. As the afternoon wore on, the intolerant and abusive character of many of the Kerry supporters (and some people driving by) began to come out like exorcised demons out of the head of a possessed person. It was not an easy afternoon to be a Bush supporter, but I wouldn’t have missed the opportunity for the world.

Over the course of the afternoon Bush supporters in Santa Monica were spit at, jostled, cursed at, gestured to obscenely, heckled, bullied, shouted at, lied to, and otherwise abused. I did not observe anything like that from the Bush supporters. It struck me at one point, that for a city that so prides itself on tolerance there really wasn’t much just a tyranny expressed in irrational “Bush hating” contained in their own one sided views. There group certainly didn’t appear to be any kind of a tent, big or otherwise, that was welcome or inclusive to the people they were prejudging and excluding with a furious anger and hatred. Signs and placards vilifying President Bush where prominent among the Kerry supporters everywhere and in my opinion expressed there biased perception of reality more than an objective and factual assessment of all factors making up current and historical events in our world.

At one point, a lady standing next to me said, “You know, I don’t see a single American flag on their side, and we have hundreds over here.” Later, another lady bravely went to the other side and inquired about this. She came back and told us that one person had told her, “We are ashamed of America, and its role in the world under George W. Bush.” The answer didn’t surprise me much, because on the other side of the street (Kerry supporters) used hundreds and hundreds of square yards of material with “pink” as the background color for their banners. In fact, a huge pink banner hung on the store front of one of the buildings across the street, and I seem to recall it said something in protest to the war in Iraq. This on a day when our valiant military where very evidently in harms way in Iraq. The site sickened me as I thought, “That’s going to be a motivation and great aid and comfort to our enemy. My initial impression was that these people appeared to be the same type of people (war protesters) who motivated, aided and comforted the enemy when I was in Vietnam. Even though the pink color so evident in the Kerry supporter ranks may have been a color being used by some feminist group, I couldn’t help but wonder if the true colors of their ideology (communist/socialist) weren’t really coming out. A brave bicyclist had passed the entire assembly about an hour into the rally holding a sign that said, LIBERATE the People’s Republic of Santa Monica!”

Sometimes unexpected events happen in settings such as this so I would be remiss if I did not mention a moment when one of the leaders of the Republican rally came to me impromptu and said, “I need you to clear a path for the baby.” At first it struck me as an odd thing to say, but when I turned around, there before my eyes was a tiny little baby, being pushed in her stroller by her Father. My heart melted, and I was honored. I turned around, put my Bush/Chenny placard in front of me and said in a polite and assertive voice, “Make a hole; baby coming through.” I was happy to reach the Republican crowd, where people at least showed some respect for the rights of all others. I looked at the beautiful little darling in her pink outfit and thought, “Your safe now.” As I looked at the crowd across the street, raging in violent hatred, the thought also crossed my mind, “There’s the abortion crowd that’s contributed to the murders of millions and millions of innocent babies. Thank God this little baby has been completely born. They’ll have a lot more trouble murdering her now.”

Going on four hours into the rally, nerves were beginning to fray on both sides of the crowd, and given the unstable nature exhibited by the Kerry supporters to begin with, our leader decided, “We’ll soon be calling it for the night,” especially since one Kerry supporter was stalking around the assemblage of Bush supporters and repeatedly shouting, “F_ _ k Bush!” Several men pointed out to him that there were children present, and asked him to cease his profanity, but the raving Kerry supporter would not stop swearing(tolerance in action again). Finally, after terrorizing a number of women and children, the Santa Monica police held open the barricade tape, and ordered him to the Kerry supporter side.

It was near the end of the day that I had the distinguished honor of standing next to a Vietnam veteran who was also Vietnamese by birth. He spoke in broken English still. As I shook his hand and said welcome I felt a tinge of pride to be standing next to him.

By this time in the rally there were two lines of Santa Monica police between the Bush and Kerry supporters. It appeared to me that the Kerry supporters were being allowed to roam freely where they chose, walking and standing in the street at times, while the Bush supporters were ordered back further from the street and treated more assertively. It appears the Santa Monica police know the majority of the people in Santa Monica who pay their salaries are liberal Kerry supporters. ...so much for enforcing free speech equally in Santa Monica.

As I stood next to my newly found buddy wearing the little yellow and red striped flag (symbolizing the fallen nation of South Vietnam) I began to speak in the direction of the Kerry supporters across the street, separated only by the Santa Monica police lines.

I had three service ribbons and two service medals on my chest, but I pointed to the place where one was missing and said.

“I’ve lost this one somewhere over the years, and since it was awarded by the now fallen nation of South Vietnam, it’s irreplaceable. I was in the combat zone up by the DMZ serving on the USS Valley Forge, LPH-8 in December of 68 during the Tet offensive, when LBJ acquiesced to the war protesters in America and called a “cease fire” to the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail. Our dead and wounded doubled. On one occasion I may have saved the life of a Marine who was drowning in his own blood from his wounds, but I don’t know if he made it. Today as Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq, Hanoi John Kerry’s picture hangs in the war museum in Hanoi (Ho Chi Minh city) for his service to North Vietnam in defeating America. John Kerry disserved America then, but he especially disserved our military personnel who were then fighting and dying for their country. John Kerry worked hard to help America lose South Vietnam, motivate our enemy, and increase American casualties. Will some soldier, fighting today in Iraq, some day have to point to a missing medal on his/her chest and say, “Hanoi John Kerry lost Iraq after we won militarily, thereby, once again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just as he helped to do in Vietnam after the Tet offensive in 68? John Kerry and his war protesting ilk politically lost South Vietnam. If John Kerry is elected President, we’ll be lucky if we don’t lose America to Islamic fundamentalists who’ll bomb us in our sleep, or in our streets, or in our work places.”

At one point my friend next to me joined in, “John Kerry helped lose South Vietnam. John Kerry lost my home.”

As I trailed our group heading back to our cars I hated to leave, but our leader told us that the Santa Monica police were going to start cuffing people (no doubt Republicans to protect them from the hostile Kerry supporters who as I mentioned before, predominantly pay their salaries). Near the end of the Republican lines stood another Vietnamese man finely and honorably dressed in his camouflage, ARVN uniform. Our eyes met momentarily. I pointed to my service ribbons and medals, and said, “Welcome, I’m happy you came today.” “I’m honored to be here,” was his reply. “It is an honor to support our great President, I replied.” Of such was the disparity between the Bush and Kerry supporters in Santa Monica, Thursday, 8-12-04. How much less tolerant will “the tyrannical tolerant” Kerry regime be if he is elected president 11-02-04? I cringe at the thought.

http://www.smmirror.com/volume6/issue9/images1/anti_bush/anti_bush4.jpg

http://www.smmirror.com/volume6/issue9/images1/anti_bush/anti_bush3.jpg

http://www.smmirror.com/volume6/issue9/images1/anti_bush/anti_bush6.jpg

http://www.smmirror.com/volume6/issue9/images1/anti_bush/anti_bush2.jpg

Kerry may have supported a war in Iraq, but I don't think he'd support bombing the hell out of innocent people to secure American interests in Iraqi oil.

look propaganda propaganda *dives into a bunker*

Look guys, if we just get it together and burn America all the worlds problems will be solved. Do your part and start burning your local Republican. Once they're gone we can move down to the Southern states and start burning them. Then...well i'm sure you get the picture. It's a brilliant idea.

Kerry may have supported a war in Iraq, but I don't think he'd support bombing the hell out of innocent people to secure American interests in Iraqi oil.
Phew, neither does Bush.

Wow, is it possible for you to post without insulting people? Nuanced? Flip-Flopper of the highest degree is more like it. The guy is a political weather vane, changing with the political winds. Don't be his enabler. Call him on his lies. I guess you didn't see the link to all of the Bush flip flops?

Phew, neither does Bush.


Could have fooled me. Or are the thousands of dead Iraqi's just made up?

Could have fooled me. Or are the thousands of dead Iraqi's just made up?
Nope, Iraqis are dead alright. That dosen't mean that they were "Bombed the hell out of to secure American interests in Iraqi oil."

At 2:45 P.M. in the afternoon

As oppossed to 2:45 P.M. in the morning?

Could have fooled me. Or are the thousands of dead Iraqi's just made up?

Innocents killed in the line of fire has been commonplace throughout every war ever on the face of this Earth. To defend your points by saying that innocent Iraqi's were killed during the Iraq War is moot. At least America doesn't intentionally target school buses full of children.

A few thoudand dead innocents to secure the freedom of millions of innocents is a sacrifice any of us should be willing to make.

There were a bunch of protesters, and some people spoke. Actually, this has nothing to do with Kerry, but if I tack his name onto it, maybe people will hate him and won't vote for him...and then my evil plan will all come together! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, dude? If you're going to say "This is what America will be like under Kerry!" ...You MIGHT wanna actually...you know...mention something he does. Or did. Or just something about him period.

...A few thoudand dead innocents to secure the freedom of millions of innocents is a sacrifice any of us should be willing to make.
How incredibly arrogant.

And incorrect. Unavoidable civilian casualties are one thing. That thousands (nice of you to denigrate the dead to "a few thousand") have died and any semblance of Iraqi society has been obliterated just so W. could avenge his daddy is disgusting.

Bush & Co. thoroughly mishandled the Iraqi invasion and in so doing have placed the U.S. and its allies in greater danger of attack from al-Qaeda.

How incredibly arrogant.

And incorrect. Unavoidable civilian casualties are one thing. That thousands (nice of you to denigrate the dead to "a few thousand") have died and any semblance of Iraqi society has been obliterated just so W. could avenge his daddy is disgusting.

Bush & Co. thoroughly mishandled the Iraqi invasion and in so doing have placed the U.S. and its allies in greater danger of attack from al-Qaeda.
Interesting. Got any proof to show that the invasion was carried out to avenge George Bush Sr.?

Interesting. Got any proof to show that the invasion was carried out to avenge George Bush Sr.?

"[Saddam] tried to kill my daddy."

That phrase showed up in several of of Bush's fall '02 speeches, until his handlers shut it down in favor of something a little less petty.

The war wasn't carried out by Bush to avenge his father. It was carried out for several other reasons. Iraq's strategic geographic location can be used to carry out operations against Iran or Syria. And Iraq has a lot of oil. The US tries to give us illusions of democracy while the rich are buying out politicians and exploiting the poor for their own gain. :upyours:

Ummm...anything with RNC (Republican National Committee) in the URL should _never_ be confused for the truth (the same goes for DNC).

This is a partisan jab, nothing more.

Well, it's 2:30am, I'm tired, bored - scrolling along the boards. Then I find an intelligent political thread, something that's not boiled down to name-calling, to the degredation of someone who doesn't share someone else's beliefs. I Congratulate you all, I wish other threads discussing Politics could share this attribute.

Though I do have one comment (Edit: Ok, it's more than one comment) to make towards JParkerstan for his statement:

Look guys, if we just get it together and burn America all the worlds problems will be solved. Do your part and start burning your local Republican. Once they're gone we can move down to the Southern states and start burning them. Then...well i'm sure you get the picture. It's a brilliant idea.

Burning america? Improbable. That would destroy the enviroment most of us are screaming "Bush is destroying" (including myself).

Killing a Republican? Why, that's like killing for not being on your side. Just like Bush's ideaology of, "You're for us, or against us."

Southern State burning? Same thing as my first statement. Not to mention, your little statement on destroying the Southern States is like a Republican advocating the destruction of Iraq.

Which brings me to the moral of this entire little ramble. When fighting monsters, be careful not to become one. Don't generalize every Republican, nor use the same tactics to defeat the bad ones as they do to defeat everyone else. Merely because it's worded dfiferently, doesn't mean they don't share the same outcome.

Perhaps instead of going on a major America-Burning, work on taking out the real problem...those who are creating the injusticies everyone is complaining of. Surely, a big bon fire party is nice, but when the ashes settle, it's just another excuse for War.

I've watched the video.
So where exactly is the flip-flop?
Some quotes from the vid:
July 29 2004:
"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war"
Notice the word mislead
So the Bush-Administration didn't lie about WMDs, huh?

23 September, 2001
"There is evidence that Saddam has used WMDs against his own people"
Well, that's true isn't it? the Kurddish uprising in 1991 for example.

11 December 2001
"He is, and has acted like a terrorist...I think we should put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I even criticised the Clinton Admin for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence of Sept. 11."
Can you see anywhere in that speech that he's advocating going to war with Iraq? I can't. Pressure on doesn't neccessarily mean invading (not unless you're GWB). It might possibly mean further weapons inspection you know.
Can you see anywhere in that speech that he's claiming Saddam had a hand in 9/11? I can't.
Has Saddam acted like a terrorist? Yes.

December 14 2001:
"I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan. I think the President's made it clear, I think we've made it clear. Terrorism is a global menace, it's a scourge. And it's absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, with Saddam Hussein."
Now is he advocating invading Iraq here? Once again, unless you're GWB, 'keep the pressure on' DOESN'T just mean invading! It could possibly mean something else - weapons inspections, sanctions, etc etc.

1/5/2002:
Interviewer: "Do you think the problem we have with Iraq is real? Can it be reduced to a diplomatic problem. Can we get this guy to accept the weapons inspection and bypass a war with Iraq?"
"Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself as buying time and playing a game in my judgement. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is YES."
cut..
"Spet 11? That's changed the dynamic of this country and it's changed peoples perceptions of what people are willing to do."
So he's advocating going through the full UN process of weapons inspection BEFORE the use of force. Hmmm....that's certainly much different to his above statements isn't it?
Oh look, he's said that 9/11 has changed people's perceptions. Maybe that means it's changed his perceptions of what other people (and countries) are willing to do.


May 22 2002:
"I think we've all reached a judgement that obviously the United States has to protect it's national interests and we have to do what we think is right."
So once again, I have to ask: Where is the flip-flop? Is he advocating invading Iraq in this statement? Protecting it's national interests DOESN'T just mean invading a country (unless you're GWB).

July 29 2002
'I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq...Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the UN in 1991"
So he's saying he supports the idea of getting rid of Saddam. Gee lets look thru all the other quotes so far - in any of them does he say he wants Saddam to stay? Nooooooo.
But is he agreeing with the way the admin went about it? By lying to the American public? Refer to the first quote:
"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war"
Oh no, wait! I see a flip-flop! Look! Kerry described Hussein as a "renegade and outlaw" in July 2002 and as a "terrorist" December 2001. BIG change in opinion.

September 6 2002
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the US, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
Well let's look at this shall we? In all the above quotes did Kerry ever say he was against the removal of Hussein. NO.
In all the above quotes, does Kerry reinforce the position of using full international pressure on Hussein before any possible invasion? YES.
In this quote, does he advocate using full international pressure on Hussein before any possible invasion? YES.
Hey perhaps here he meant after going thru all the necessary UN channels, not circumventing them entirely and lying to the American public.

September 16 2002:
"I wold disagree with Senator John McCain that it's the actual WMDs that he may use against us. It's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait, or a miscalculation about the Kurds, or a miscalculation about Iran, or particularly Israel. Those are the things that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the US. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."
So at this particular point, when there was still uncertainly as to Iraq's WMD stocks, Kerry was worried about the stability of the region, Saddam attacking and oppressing his own people and importantly keeping Israel out of it (Because lets face it: Israel, if attacked, using a nuke against an Islamic country must be a fairly big worry for the US). He was also worried that Saddam, if he had WMDs might sell them to terrorist groups.
So where's the flip-flop?

September 17 2002:
"But the President has always had the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country."
Ok, so he supports the right of the President to protect the country.

May 3 2003:
"I said at the time, that I would have preferred to have given Diplomacy a greater opportunity. But I think it was the right decision to disarm Hussein and when the President made the decision, I supported him. And I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Right so he wanted more Diplomatic pressure put on Saddam before anythig else is done. Do any of the above quotes support this? Oh looky here! ALL of them do!
Then when Bush made the decision to go to war, Kerry supported him. Now isn't that something you should do: Support your country when it engages in war with another. That's the patriotic thing to do, right?
This is the closest that I can see from these quotes as a flip-flop. He was hesistant about invading Iraq, repeatedly stating the need to apply diplomatic pressure and fulfil UN resolutions before the use of any force. When the use of force was applied, he supported it.
Hardly a flip flop

October 12 2003:
"But the President and his advisors did not do anything correctly in the walk-up to the war. They rushed to war, they were intent on war, they did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been doing inspections even today."
:sigh: Now let's go thru all these quotes again. Anyway does Kerry recommend following international procedure before the use of force. YES.


Finally (I'm getting bored, and realise that this will do nothing but get me flamed):
February 2 1998
"There is a disconect between the threat Hussein presents to the World and what we are at the moment talking about doing...Then we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy."
Interviewer: "And does that mean ground troops?"
"I personally am prepared...If that's what it is meant. He can rebuild both Chemical and Biological. And every indication is that he will, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he willl seek to do that. So we will not eleiminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack...I believe he is the kind of threat that has been described. I believe that in the post-Cold War period, this issue of poliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein is critical. It has implications for Ghadafi, for Sudan, for other countries in the World."
Interviewer: "Senator Kerry, you're way ahead of the Commander-in-Chief in this regard."
"I'm way ahead of the Commander-in-Chief, and probably I'm way ahead of my colleagues, and certainly much of the country, but I believe this. I believe that he has used these weapons before, he has invaded another country, he views himself as a modern day Nebacanezzar, he wants to continue to play the uniting critical role in that part of the world. I think we have to stand up to that."

So let's see: In 1998, he wanted Hussein disarmed. He wanted full sanctions and the weapons inspectors do their job. He viewed him as a threat to the stability of the region.
In 2001, he wanted Hussein disarmed. He wanted full sanctions and the weapons inspectors do their job.He viewed him as a threat to the stability of the region.
In 2002, he wanted Hussein disarmed. He wanted full sanctions and the weapons inspectors do their job. He viewed him as a threat to the stability of the region.
In 2002 he supported the war in Iraq.
Now he's saying that the Bush admin didn't do enough to allow the full sanctions and weapons inspectors do their job.
My GOD!!! What a flip-flopper!

In fact watching that vid a few times, the only thing you can say he flipped on was his silly "I voted for the 87 Billion then against it" statement. For this he should be (and has) ridiculed by comedians. But to constantly say he's a 'Flip-flop'? That is just lying. It's churlish and rather pathetic.

Well...we don't know if you're a moron or not but you certainly have bad spelling. "different" not "differant"

We don't know if you're a moron or not but can you speak Vietnamese? Dumbo!

Political quiz:

1) Which candidate received nearly $1 million from donors connected with both Citigroup Inc. and the National Association of Realtors?

2) Which candidate is a multi-millionaire?

3) Which candidate owns:
Between $1000 and $15000 worth of Intel and Microsoft stock?
Between $15000 and $50000 worth of Proctor and Gamble stock?

4) Which candidate has promised to:
a - Spend tax money to create new jobs?
b - Spend tax money to collect data on everyone in order to find terrorists?
c - Pay for health care for uninsured children with tax money?
d -Dramatically increase federal funding for colleges, senior high schools, and elementary schools?
e - Support creation of a single head for all intelligence agencies?
f - Continue a US military presence in Iraq until Iraq is a stable democracy?
g - Continue the failing war on drugs?
h - Impose tariffs as a solution to jobs moving overseas?

5) Which candidate supports not allowing homosexuals to marry?

6) Which candidate's father:
Flew airplanes during W.W.II?
Worked in the foreign service as a diplomat?

7) Which candidate belonged to the elite, secret "Skull and Bones" club at Yale?

8) Which candidate supports extending the assault weapons ban

The answer is Both candidates

Interesting. Got any proof to show that the invasion was carried out to avenge George Bush Sr.?

It's possible, I mean you got any proof that the war was carried out because Saddam had WMD or was any type of threat to America? No, you don't!

It's possible, I mean you got any proof that the war was carried out because Saddam had WMD or was any type of threat to America? No, you don't!
Well, that was the given reason. It seems a bit silly to go believing anything but the given reason(s) unless you have a reason to.

Well, that was the given reason. It seems a bit silly to go believing anything but the given reason(s) unless you have a reason to.

Yes, I would agree, it's silly to believe any thing that comes from this administration. Given the "given" reasons were lies!

Yes, I would agree, it's silly to believe any thing that comes from this administration. Given the "given" reasons were lies!
You can't say that because we don't know (what the reason is), it is (another reason), its a "fallacy of ignorance". The fact that the reason we invaded Iraq, to get rid of their WMDs, didn't turn out to be what we thought it would be does not mean that the reason we went into Iraq wasn't that to get rid of their WMDs.

You can't say that because we don't know (what the reason is), it is (another reason), its a "fallacy of ignorance". The fact that the reason we invaded Iraq, to get rid of their WMDs, didn't turn out to be what we thought it would be does not mean that the reason we went into Iraq wasn't that to get rid of their WMDs.

No, but it means you invaded Iraq on false premises.

No, but it means you invaded Iraq on false premises.
And I don't see how thats relevant at all to the discussion. False premises in regards to WMD? Yes, technically. That dosen't change the fact that we invaded based on WMD.

Political quiz:

1) Which candidate received nearly $1 million from donors connected with both Citigroup Inc. and the National Association of Realtors?

2) Which candidate is a multi-millionaire?

3) Which candidate owns:
Between $1000 and $15000 worth of Intel and Microsoft stock?
Between $15000 and $50000 worth of Proctor and Gamble stock?

4) Which candidate has promised to:
a - Spend tax money to create new jobs?
b - Spend tax money to collect data on everyone in order to find terrorists?
c - Pay for health care for uninsured children with tax money?
d -Dramatically increase federal funding for colleges, senior high schools, and elementary schools?
e - Support creation of a single head for all intelligence agencies?
f - Continue a US military presence in Iraq until Iraq is a stable democracy?
g - Continue the failing war on drugs?
h - Impose tariffs as a solution to jobs moving overseas?

5) Which candidate supports not allowing homosexuals to marry?

6) Which candidate's father:
Flew airplanes during W.W.II?
Worked in the foreign service as a diplomat?

7) Which candidate belonged to the elite, secret "Skull and Bones" club at Yale?

8) Which candidate supports extending the assault weapons ban

The answer is Both candidates

Bush wants to end ban he said one time.

And I don't see how thats relevant at all to the discussion. False premises in regards to WMD? Yes, technically. That dosen't change the fact that we invaded based on WMD.
So if I steal your stuff and I tell you its for charity and you let me go (maybe you had a heart) and find out that I didn't give any to charity. Didn't I steal your stuff for charity?
According to you I still did.

So if I steal your stuff and I tell you its for charity and you let me go (maybe you had a heart) and find out that I didn't give any to charity. Didn't I steal your stuff for charity?
According to you I still did.
Yeah you did. Your motive was to give it to charity, and you tried to (even if you mistakenly didn't), you stole it for the purpose of giving it to charity.

The Truth, Vol. 1 (rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC092004W.rm)

I will be adding more videos later. If anyone has any other videos they would like to contribute, they may do so here.
Truth must not be a registered protocol coming from Republicans.

Bush wants to end ban he said one time.

They both do, Bush wants to let the bill run out.

Political quiz:
5) Which candidate supports not allowing homosexuals to marry?
The answer is Both candidates
Actually, Kerry supports civil unions with the same rights as marriage, without the label of marriage. It may be a lame middle ground attempt, but don't try to mislead by omitting information; it's insulting.

Actually, Kerry supports civil unions with the same rights as marriage, without the label of marriage. It may be a lame middle ground attempt, but don't try to mislead by omitting information; it's insulting.

Civil unions are not the same as marriage gg next map