NationStates Jolt Archive

... and the democrats were smearing him about his medals.

What do you think the right would do? Who I am I kidding- they would go nuts! "HOW COULD THEY SMEAR A VETERAN?" they would exclaim- "HOW CAN THEY MOCK SOMEONE'S BRAVERY!". "THEY ARE UNPATRIOTIC" the republicons would shout.

But when Republicans are running vicious smear campaigns about someone's heroism, it is not unpatriotic or vicious. sad.

... and the democrats were smearing him about his medals.

What do you think the right would do? Who I am I kidding- they would go nuts! "HOW COULD THEY SMEAR A VETERAN?" they would exclaim- "HOW CAN THEY MOCK SOMEONE'S BRAVERY!". "THEY ARE UNPATRIOTIC" the republicons would shout.

But when Republicans do it, it is none of these things.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Republicans.

.........huh?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Republicans.

Agreed. Look in a thesaurus, and you should see 'Republican' listed as one of the synonyms for hypocrite (although I dislike the Dems just as much).

green party all the way...but since that will never happen, I prefer to think "bush for ex-president" than kerry FOR president.

If Kerry was a Republican, then Bush would be a Democrat. Christ, theres no difference, people :)

If Kerry was a Republican, then Bush would be a Democrat. Christ, theres no difference, people :)

Oh, they may be similar, but it is silly to say there is no difference. Even small differences can be profound. Remember, humans and chimps are more than 99% genetically similar.

Kerry = Human

Bush = Chimp

Oh, they may be similar, but it is silly to say there is no difference. Even small differences can be profound. Remember, humans and chimps are more than 99% genetically similar.

Kerry = Human

Bush = Chimp

Not quite.

Kerry=piece of [insert word here]

Bush= same as above

Not quite.

Kerry=piece of [insert word here]

Bush= same as above


My God, I don't even want to think of what Nader would be.

My God, I don't even want to think of what Nader would be.

An even bigger piece of [insert word here].

If Kerry was a Republican, he wouldn't be such a fucking moron, and would STICK WITH ONE GODDAMN OPTION. Why is Kerry, if he was so distressed and upset about his service in the seventies, waving his service and his medals around like a twenty-inch ****?

Basing one's entire political campaign over a bullshit term in Vietnam is hardly a good base for election as President of the United fucking States of America.

And unless you're being sarcasticly ignorant, I find it necessary to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are in no way affiliated with the Republican Party. They're not FOR Bush, they're AGAINST Kerry. Hell, most of them voted for Gore in 2000.

And I wouldn't exactly be comfortable calling Republicans hypocrites. People flipped out of their socks when a man from Texas donated around $100,000 to the Swift Boat vets, but did ANYONE so much as speak of the $15 million donated to the Democratic party/MoveOn.org?

And while there is a slim chance that MoveOn.org is not affiliated with the DNC, I still expect Kerry to discourage such 527's, as Bush has done this multiple times.

Bush even INVITED KERRY TO TRY TO TEAM UP AND SHUT DOWN THE 527 GROUPS.

And what does Kerry respond with?

He sticks his fingers in his ears and says, "La la la, I can't heeeeeeeeeeeear you! ALALALALALALALALALA! What was that? I CAN'T HEAR OVER YOU BEING SUCH A STUPID HEAD!"

Kerry is nothing more than a liar and a disgrace to veterans. No man who cares more about being elected than leading a nation down the path of truth and freedom should ever, ever, EVER TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

Geez Foe Hammer, lighten up. My comparing Bush to a chimp was only a joke at then end of my post that was primarily meant to show how profound a slight difference can be.

Saying Kerry lies without any factual basis, ranting, and using the kind of language you did just makes you seem like an uptight, closed-minded, fear-mongering jerkwad.

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying what your post sounds like.

Geez Foe Hammer, lighten up. My comparing Bush to a chimp was only a joke at then end of my post that was primarily meant to show how profound a slight difference can be.

Saying Kerry lies without any factual basis, ranting, and using the kind of language you did just makes you seem like an uptight, closed-minded, fear-mongering jerkwad.

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying what your post sounds like.

I will not lighten up. You'd be surprised once you hear how many ignorant assholes/democrats play the Chimp card today.

And Kerry DID indeed lie. He forged reports to gain his Bronze Star and one or more of his Purple Hearts. He also shot a child and reported it as neutralizing a hostile. And the Kerry Camp recently forged reports on Bush. Here's a hint for all you forgers, cheats and liars out there: DON'T USE A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM to forge a document supposedly written in the 70's.

I will not lighten up. You'd be surprised once you hear how many ignorant assholes/democrats play the Chimp card today.

And Kerry DID indeed lie. He forged reports to gain his Bronze Star and one or more of his Purple Hearts. He also shot a child and reported it as neutralizing a hostile. And the Kerry Camp recently forged reports on Bush. Here's a hint for all you forgers, cheats and liars out there: DON'T USE A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM to forge a document supposedly written in the 70's.Can I interest you in a top-quality tin foil hat?

He forged reports to gain his Bronze Star and one or more of his Purple Hearts. He also shot a child and reported it as neutralizing a hostile. And the Kerry Camp recently forged reports on Bush.got any evidence to back that up, or should we just accept it with blind faith?

If Kerry was a Republican, he wouldn't be such a fucking moron, and would STICK WITH ONE GODDAMN OPTION. Why is Kerry, if he was so distressed and upset about his service in the seventies, waving his service and his medals around like a twenty-inch ****? If this isn't the clearest ever demonstration of partisanism. You've just said that, merely be the virtue of his hypothetical Republicanism, Kerry would become a better person.

I will not lighten up. You'd be surprised once you hear how many ignorant assholes/democrats play the Chimp card today.

And Kerry DID indeed lie. He forged reports to gain his Bronze Star and one or more of his Purple Hearts. He also shot a child and reported it as neutralizing a hostile. And the Kerry Camp recently forged reports on Bush. Here's a hint for all you forgers, cheats and liars out there: DON'T USE A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM to forge a document supposedly written in the 70's.
1) bush DOES look like a chimp
2) the guy who believes swift boat vets against kerry are telling the truth and you are calling us ignorant?
3) bush has STILL refused to SPECIFICALLY speak out against the swift boat vets against kerry, kerry HAS said the moveon.org ads are wrong
4) you are just an ignorant hypocrite, no really "he shot a child and reported as neutralizing an enemy" BULLSHIT. why dont you do your own research isntead of listening to bullshitl ies
5) why villify kerry even IF he did forge those documetns which is complete and utter bullshit, he was NOT the senior officer, your boy thurlow was, and thurlow received a brozne star for the same god dman incident kerry did

i wish all people like you would just die, either that or i have some beach front property to sell you in north dakota

got any evidence to back that up, or should we just accept it with blind faith?
I'd be glad to. The reports on Bush that were supposedly written in the 70's were pixelated, which does not occur in typewriters, only printers. And how many printers were there in the 70's? Also, the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word, and not in 1970's printers, which explains itself. Also, a few of Kerry's COs have said that they did not write some of the things that were in the reports that they filed, and other evidence, which I'm not going to even TRY to explain to you due to your lack of many necessary skills, shows that Kerry did indeed tamper with reports.

I'd be glad to. The reports on Bush that were supposedly written in the 70's were pixelated, which does not occur in typewriters, only printers. And how many printers were there in the 70's? Also, the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word, and not in 1970's printers, which explains itself. Also, a few of Kerry's COs have said that they did not write some of the things that were in the reports that they filed, and other evidence, which I'm not going to even TRY to explain to you due to your lack of many necessary skills, shows that Kerry did indeed tamper with reports.so you show us no evidence that Kerry forged reports and no evidence that the CBS documents came from the Kerry campaign

I'd be glad to. The reports on Bush that were supposedly written in the 70's were pixelated, which does not occur in typewriters, only printers. And how many printers were there in the 70's? Also, the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word, and not in 1970's printers, which explains itself. Also, a few of Kerry's COs have said that they did not write some of the things that were in the reports that they filed, and other evidence, which I'm not going to even TRY to explain to you due to your lack of many necessary skills, shows that Kerry did indeed tamper with reports.

Well, it's a good thing that the Navy took away Kerry's medals when they recently invesntigated him...Oh wait, the U.S. Navy just confirmed that the proper procedures were used when awarding the medals. Are you calling the Navy of the United States of America a liar?

I'm sorry, but you get an F.

1) bush DOES look like a chimp
OH MY GOD! YOU'VE MADE AN EXCELLENT POINT! I WILL NOW CONCEDE AND VOTE FOR KERRY BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE A HORSE AND HORSES R SO KEWL OMG I LUV HORSES!!1!!1!1

2) the guy who believes swift boat vets against kerry are telling the truth and you are calling us ignorant?
What the hell did you just say? I kindly suggest that you either proofread your rebuttals or just shut up. Also, I could say the same goddamn thing about Moveon.org and ignorance.

3) bush has STILL refused to SPECIFICALLY speak out against the swift boat vets against kerry, kerry HAS said the moveon.org ads are wrong
You're right, Bush hasn't spoken SPECIFICALLY about Swift Boat Vets. He's spoken about ALL OF THE 527 ORGANIZATIONS, you ignorant twit. Do you even know what a fucking 527 Organization is?

Whenever ignorant liberals start to get annoyingly specific, it proves that they have absolutely no basis for their rebuttals, and that they have no idea what to say.


4) you are just an ignorant hypocrite, no really "he shot a child and reported as neutralizing an enemy" BULLSHIT. why dont you do your own research isntead of listening to bullshitl ies

I'M an ignorant hypocrite? Perhaps you should read the fucking reports, you ignorant lib. I kindly suggest that you provide evidence so you don't look like an "ignorant hypocrite" as well.

5) why villify kerry even IF he did forge those documetns which is complete and utter bullshit, he was NOT the senior officer, your boy thurlow was, and thurlow received a brozne star for the same god dman incident kerry did

Well, it's right to villify Kerry because forging that document counts as fraud, and forgery if he forged his CO's signature.

i wish all people like you would just die, either that or i have some beach front property to sell you in north dakota
Way to prove yourself as the better man. "I hope you die" statements always seem to get the job done in arguments, because with us out of the way, you're all free to rest upon the warm breast of socialism.

SIEG HEIL! *_*

Well, it's a good thing that the Navy took away Kerry's medals when they recently invesntigated him...Oh wait, the U.S. Navy just confirmed that the proper procedures were used when awarding the medals. Are you calling the Navy of the United States of America a liar?

I'm sorry, but you get an F.
Oh, well it's a good thing this isn't fucking History class.

Proper procedures? Can you define/list the "Proper procedures"? And define them as loosely as possible, to give yourself room to back out of the conversation if/when you show up as a 10 on the smacktard scale.

I'd be glad to. The reports on Bush that were supposedly written in the 70's were pixelated, which does not occur in typewriters, only printers. And how many printers were there in the 70's?

Quite alot. (First Highspeed printer, 1958)
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcomputer_printers.htm


Also, the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word, and not in 1970's printers, which explains itself.

Believe it or not, people have been trying to use the same fonts for the past 3000-4000 years and then some (our modern alphabet has come down from the Ancient Phonecians). Unless you have some reason (that you can back up) that two records that are trying to use the same alphabet as everyone else shouldn't have the same quotation marks, then I believe this response supports itself.
http://www.crystalinks.com/languages2.html

Also, a few of Kerry's COs have said that they did not write some of the things that were in the reports that they filed, and other evidence, which I'm not going to even TRY to explain to you due to your lack of many necessary skills, shows that Kerry did indeed tamper with reports.

You could at least TRY to show us some evidence to back anything that you're claiming.

chalk another one up to the dipshit republican squad, welcome to my ignore list punk

Actually, very few dispute that proper procedure was used. The issue is that its irrelevant. What was disputed was whether or not he deserved the medals in the first place, and his act of discarding fake medals during anti-war protests.

Military service is irrelevant to his value as a president anyway. Its a fancy decal to obscure his dismal senate records

chalk another one up to the dipshit republican squad, welcome to my ignore list punk
What an excellent ignore reason. I'm glad to see that the right to ignore someone is used properly.

Oh, well it's a good thing this isn't fucking History class.

Proper procedures? Can you define/list the "Proper procedures"? And define them as loosely as possible, to give yourself room to back out of the conversation if/when you show up as a 10 on the smacktard scale.

I'm not the one who has to define procedures. The Navy does, and did. According to their definition, the procedures were followed, meaning that there was NO evidence of file tampering.

seriously, what are you thinking?

I'm not the one who has to define procedures. The Navy does, and did. According to their definition, the procedures were followed, meaning that there was NO evidence of file tampering.

seriously, what are you thinking?
I asked you to DEFINE THE PROCEDURES. You failed to do so, and failing to do so proves that you have no idea what the procedures were. Neither do I.

John Kerry is a liar, fair and simple. He lied to the protestors, he lied to America by stating that he is disgraced by his service, and the war crimes that he commited, and confessed to. Now he embraces his "glorious" service. A war criminal and a liar is not a man fit to lead the United States of America.

Read Zell Miller's speech. Zell Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
Since you are most likely too ignorant to find it yourself, I have found it for you:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man.

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family -- they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also.

Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush. Funny thing is, Zell made a speech for Clinton saying it is his grandchildren he thinks about when supporting Clinton

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley.

Our country was not yet at war but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue. Too bad Bush doesn't feel the same way

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter. see above

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief. No, it's being torn apart and made weaker BECAUSE of the Commander-in-Chief

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny. exactly why we want Bush out

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. and thus far, they are right

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators. how about calling a vet a traitor?

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers. what about Vietnam?

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. and it is the freedom of the press whose job it is to make sure those soldiers are not misued by those who would seek to expand America's power by unjust means

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. and to restrict those rights is to demean the sacrifice of the soldiers

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag. those coffins the Bush administration refuses to let be seen, because he doesn't want Americans thinking about the lives this war has cost?

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.any soldier, no matter how honoralbe, can be misused by those in power, such as what Bush has done

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. Everyone share some blame, it is infantile to deny such

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.no, we just don't believe that agitating a powderkeg is a good idea

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. unless you count Bush and his administration

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror. as did cheney and many other republicans

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.you're not going to find facts here

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom. Kerry didn't oppose the B-1 per se, it's more complex than that, as is everything in Congress. Kerry voted for a bill that included, as just one of it's points, the lowering of funding for ADDITIONAL B-1's

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.ditto

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.Cheney too

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.ditto

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against. cheney cheney cheney

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs? we could cut our military spending in half and still spend more than any other country

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.yes, but 5 minutes of misrepresentation, exaggeration, and invective can't

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside. and if you can't believe Kerry's enemies as to what his votes mean, who can you believe?

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.no, he hasn't

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide. now you're just being silly, Zell

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.to Halliburton, maybe?

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. As a war protestor, Kerry blamed our military.wow Zell, even you can't read? That's NOT what Kerry said

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far-away.it wasn't Kerry's vote to deny the body armor. The Republican appropriations bill passed AGAINST Kerry's vote, and guess what? The soldiers didn't get their armor. Looks like Kerry was right again

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.I thought Bush didn't do new strategies?

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.well, Bush isn't going to root out terrorists, because that's too hard, but he will attack a sorely overmatched country! Now watch this drive!

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.I guess that's why we got Osama...wait a minute!

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.failing that, he'll just make a lot of money for his oil and energy buddies

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.Better we have a confused President?

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. translation: he paid me off

I am moved by the respect he shows the First Lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.Bush just thinks God is indifferent to the rest of the world

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.and Bush's deeds have been horrendous

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.did you try knocking on his head, Zell?

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted, self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

Red added by me

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)

I asked you to DEFINE THE PROCEDURES. You failed to do so, and failing to do so proves that you have no idea what the procedures were. Neither do I.I asked you to provide evidence to back up your accusations toward John Kerry. You failed to do so, and failing to do so proves that you have no idea of what is happening in the world beyond the talking points that George W Bush and Ann Coulter tell you

I'm afraid I must back down from this debate/argument/flamefest now, as I have more important things to attend to, such as a job, a girlfriend, and college classes to study for.

Here are my closing points:

-The Swift Boat vets are 250 guys who served with Kerry, and when 250 guys with a consistent story go up against 1 guy with a constantly-changing story, the 250 are probably telling the truth.

-Those 250 veterans in the Swift Boat Vets range in rank all the way up to Rear Admiral.

-The 'Republican operative' backing the swift veterans contributed all of a hundred grand, while George Soros is a registered Democrat who's pumping $20 million into moveon.org and ACT. Where is all the partisan manipulation money coming from?

-The guys who actually back Kerry have never served with him for more than three weeks. Not one.

-There is a difference between an alphabet and a typeface.

-The Roman alphabet certainly existed in the 1970's, but the Times New Roman typeface did not.

-I've never seen a typewriter that uses any font but Courier.

-You are all idiotic, ignorant Libs.

Special Thanks:
Sirithil (Menelmacar): Provided me with the closing points after looking through this conversation. Helluva birthday present!

Foe Hammer: Continued to kick ignorant Lib ass through thick and thin, I have always stood by myself since I met myself back in the summer of '83. I will never forget me, buddy.

Ahh yes. Call the Liberals names because we have some 'distressing' views on key social issues. Don't take things out of the context they were ment to be in chum. Ooooh. 250 guys serving on one swift boat... wow. Thats a tightly packed swift boat. Unless of course... it was in a squadron with other swift boats... oh! Wait, there swift boat veterans... that means virtue of that, they can comment on John Kerry's campaign!

Oh yeah. I suppose serving three weeks in a war with some folks means absolutly nothing.

Theres a reason 4 months of vietnam service is more important then 4 months of corresponding National Guard service. You don't have the risk of being shot by the NVA in North Dakota.

I'm not saying Kerry's perfect alright. The guy did do some questionable things. But... looking at a record of 20 years or so in the Senate, and 5 years as a trial lawyer, compared to the CEO of a couple of oil company's and the GM of a baseball team... oh yeah, and Governer of Texas... I think one guy has some more political experience.

Anywho. My two cents. Vote Kerry. :)

Ahh yes. Call the Liberals names because we have some 'distressing' views on key social issues. Don't take things out of the context they were ment to be in chum. Ooooh. 250 guys serving on one swift boat... wow. Thats a tightly packed swift boat. Unless of course... it was in a squadron with other swift boats... oh! Wait, there swift boat veterans... that means virtue of that, they can comment on John Kerry's campaign!

Oh yeah. I suppose serving three weeks in a war with some folks means absolutly nothing.

Theres a reason 4 months of vietnam service is more important then 4 months of corresponding National Guard service. You don't have the risk of being shot by the NVA in North Dakota.

I'm not saying Kerry's perfect alright. The guy did do some questionable things. But... looking at a record of 20 years or so in the Senate, and 5 years as a trial lawyer, compared to the CEO of a couple of oil company's and the GM of a baseball team... oh yeah, and Governer of Texas... I think one guy has some more political experience.

Anywho. My two cents. Vote Kerry. :)

Well of course it was a squadron. Swift Boats never travel alone. They're like Armored Cavalry. A lone Swift Boat scurrying down a river screams "SHOOT AT ME! I'M WEAK!"

Well of course it was a squadron. Swift Boats never travel alone. They're like Armored Cavalry. A lone Swift Boat scurrying down a river screams "SHOOT AT ME! I'M WEAK!"

o.O

Corennia, you forgot your /sarcasm tag. Just to make it a lil' more obvious to...<.< some people. ^_^

Anyway, haven't the Swift Boat Vets been debunked many many threads ago? I remember reading that thread a while ago... I guess I'll go looking to see if I can find it. Not doing anything else sooooo!

Holy FUCKING shit.

You believe the goddamn swifties?

Just...go away. You FUCKING IDIOT, go away. Those fools have been disproven so many times that it's not even funny anymore. Really. Just shut up and go away. You're stupid.

about the NatGuard forgeries. I don't think anyone is doubting that they are forged, what we're doubting is that they originate from the Kerry Camp. Think about it, a novice could tell that there is something very fishy about the way they look, and if a person had seen a cross-sampling of typewriter pages, they would dismiss it as bogus.


So where DO the documents come from? One projected answer is none other than lord of lies and Winner of the Annual Evil Genius and Sneaky Ass Bastard awards, Karl Rove. The docs look real enough with a cursory inspection, but a close inspection reveals them to be bunk. Also, it would be worthy to note that O'Reily defended Rather on the issue, which breaks some Law, I'm certain. Apologies, it's 2:11 here and I'm not exactly, well, coherent or lucid. So, it could be postulated that Karl Rove planted the Docs for Ratherites to find, and then give it to him, who would report about it, and then Rove could discredit him

Holy FUCKING shit.

You believe the goddamn swifties?

Just...go away. You FUCKING IDIOT, go away. Those fools have been disproven so many times that it's not even funny anymore. Really. Just shut up and go away. You're stupid.[/sarcasm]


There, all fixed. Now you don't look like a dumbass.

If you're still going on about the Swift Boat ads...I think McCain's call on the president to condemn them is reason enough to discredit them...considering McCain is actively campaigning for Bush, his voice carries more weight.

Or perhaps McCain doesn't know what he's talking about.

Carry on.

-The guys who actually back Kerry have never served with him for more than three weeks. Not one.

So we can't believe them. Better to beleve people who never served with Kerry, huh? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

BTW the anti-Kerry 527s have raised about $10 million, while the anti-Bush 527s have raised $130 million.
So why do you think (opps sorry you don't. You just follow what Fox News tells you ;) ) Bush wants all 527s closed down? Because he's a decent guy, worried about the negative effect they have, Or because the Swifties have spent all their money and there's only the anti-Bush 527s left. Which is the more politically prudent answer?


-The Roman alphabet certainly existed in the 1970's, but the Times New Roman typeface did not.

-I've never seen a typewriter that uses any font but Courier.

Funny that. Someone should mention it to the Times newspaper in London which has been using it for 150 years.
While you're telling the Times they're liars for using a font 150 years before it was invented, take some time to also level the same charge at IBM and the military who were producing and using (respectively) typewriters with the Times font on them since the early 60s.

I will stand behind my creed until the day I die, maybe a few days after...

lol.



I seriously hope people are getting it...*sigh*

Red added by me
(in response to the Zell Miller speech)




Hmmm...I like your version of the speech better, Gymoor.

How can anyone take Zell seriously? Here's a guy that when asked a simple question (albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek) about his speech ("Do you seriously believe Kerry would equip our troops with spitballs?") became so enraged and psychotic, he started shouting that he wished he was in the studio to slap the interviewer's face and wished America still allowed duelling (to the death) so he could teach the interviewer a lesson. And if you saw the interview, you would have seen that Zell wasn't making a joke.
That's gone beyond irrational. It's not even run-of-the-mill crazy. That's 'crazier than a box of starved weasels' crazy.

How can anyone take Zell seriously? Here's a guy that when asked a simple question (albeit a bit tongue-in-cheek) about his speech ("Do you seriously believe Kerry would equip our troops with spitballs?") became so enraged and psychotic, he started shouting that he wished he was in the studio to slap the interviewer's face and wished America still allowed duelling (to the death) so he could teach the interviewer a lesson. And if you saw the interview, you would have seen that Zell wasn't making a joke.
That's gone beyond irrational. It's not even run-of-the-mill crazy. That's 'crazier than a box of starved weasels' crazy.




Southern Democrats are the craziest bastards you'll probably ever meet...

So we can't believe them. Better to beleve people who never served with Kerry, huh? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

BTW the anti-Kerry 527s have raised about $10 million, while the anti-Bush 527s have raised $130 million.
So why do you think (opps sorry you don't. You just follow what Fox News tells you ;) ) Bush wants all 527s closed down? Because he's a decent guy, worried about the negative effect they have, Or because the Swifties have spent all their money and there's only the anti-Bush 527s left. Which is the more politically prudent answer?


Funny that. Someone should mention it to the Times newspaper in London which has been using it for 150 years.
While you're telling the Times they're liars for using a font 150 years before it was invented, take some time to also level the same charge at IBM and the military who were producing and using (respectively) typewriters with the Times font on them since the early 60s.

Would you like to show some facts? Or shall I just take your word for it? And nice comeback by telling me that I don't think. That really clears up alot. Yes, I'm sure every Republican is a mindless drone of Fox News. At least, that's what John Kerry, Lord, Master and Furher of the Jackasses tells you. ;)
*_* SIEG-HEIL MEINE LEHRE KERRY! :P
Okay, now I'm out of this argument for good. If I stay around too long, I might get hit with a few more MoveOn.org "facts".

Time for multiple sources.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/navydocuments26.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4434514,00.html
Official navy documents support John Kerry and contradict SBVT.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/ginsberg.swiftboat/
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040824/D84LT65O0.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/25/politics/main638542.shtml
Two members of SBVT were Bush campaign workers until they got caught.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/535240.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972744320.html?oneclick=true
George Elliott, a top member of SBVT, was saying the opposite of what he's saying now from 1969 to 2003.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=61
$200,000 donated to SBVT from a financier of Bush and other Republicans.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
And two overall kills, the second of which has many more sources

Time for multiple sources.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/navydocuments26.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4434514,00.html
Official navy documents support John Kerry and contradict SBVT.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/ginsberg.swiftboat/
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040824/D84LT65O0.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/25/politics/main638542.shtml
Two members of SBVT were Bush campaign workers until they got caught.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-12-kerry-vietnam_x.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/535240.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/20/1092972744320.html?oneclick=true
George Elliott, a top member of SBVT, was saying the opposite of what he's saying now from 1969 to 2003.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527events.asp?orgid=61
$200,000 donated to SBVT from a financier of Bush and other Republicans.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/
And two overall kills, the second of which has many more sources

remember kids, Republicans and hard information don't mix.

I don't have to imagine. John Kerry is a Republican as far as policy goes.

John Kerry is a liar, fair and simple. He lied to the protestors, he lied to America by stating that he is disgraced by his service, and the war crimes that he commited, and confessed to. Now he embraces his "glorious" service. A war criminal and a liar is not a man fit to lead the United States of America.

George W. Bush is a liar, fair and simple. He lied to Americans, he lied to the world, he lied to the United Nations by stating that Iraq had banned weapons when he knew he had no real evidence, and that an UN weapons inspection had turned up nothing, and subsequently, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html) the final verdict of the team that was sent in to look for them is that they weren't there and Saddam didn't have them. He lied about Saddam Hussein's connections to Al-Qaeda, which never existed, while coddling the Saud royal family, whose regime makes Saddam Hussein's look like a pillar of civil rights and whose theocratic policies have contributed much more to the terrorist threat than Saddam's secular policies ever did.

It was those lies that led to John Kerry casting the vote that he's being attacked for now. It was those lies that led to an illegal war, and it is because of those lies thousands of Iraqis are dead, that over a thousand American soldiers are dead, that numerous foreign civillians have been taken hostage and, for the most part, killed.

Now he embraces his "success" in the "war on terror". A war criminal and a liar is not fit to lead the United States of America.

It's very disturbing that anything negative about Kerry is sensationalised but the obvious negatives about Bush are not. And when anything reflects badly on Bush, like the national guard records, the American media lets the Repubs explain it away while not giving the same opportunity to the Democrats. Either that, or the Democrats are awful at media and publicity. How else can you explain that although most Americans agree with the Democrats, the Republicans control the government?

Vote Kerry, save the world from Bush's meglomaniac designs

Ahem. "If John Kerry were a Republican…"

I'd be glad to. The reports on Bush that were supposedly written in the 70's were pixelated, which does not occur in typewriters, only printers. And how many printers were there in the 70's? Also, the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word, and not in 1970's printers, which explains itself. Also, a few of Kerry's COs have said that they did not write some of the things that were in the reports that they filed, and other evidence, which I'm not going to even TRY to explain to you due to your lack of many necessary skills, shows that Kerry did indeed tamper with reports.

pixelated? Please define the word "pixelated". In the 1970s there were all kinds of printers, many of which eg golf-ball used printing heads that were in effect electronic typewriters and therefore would be indistinguishable from typewritten documents as far as "pixelation" of the letters is concerned.

However, line printers with dot-matrix lettering (huge pixels, often a 10 by 16 or similar sized grid per letter) were very common indeed in the 1970s. You may remember then green and white lined continuous feed paper they printed on, with the wholes punched down the side. Not only that, but dot matrix electric typewriters were also available, so a typewritten document could have pixelated type.

If you mean that the type on the disputed document was laser or bubble jet printed, you don't need to examine the pixellation to see that, it's obvious to the naked eye of anyone who has worked with a typewriter, laser printer and bubble jet printer, which is pretty much any office worker over the age of 40.

Furthermore, "the quotation marks were those used in Microsoft word". Do you mean what bill refers to as "smart quotes", ones which face in towards the quoted text so that opening quotes and closing quotes differ? Have you seen this document? If so can I have a copy, because I'd like to see smart quotes printed with a dot matrix printer. It isn't just the generating program that controls the printer output you see, the printer itself has a hand in it. And I'd like also to see your evidence that no font with differentiated opening and closing double quotation marks was available in the 1970s.

Furthermore, since the documents had been faxed at least once, is it any wonder why they would look like they had been done on a printer?

Perhaps your source saw the originals? You know, the originals NO ONE in the media has seen yet? The originals which, if dating techniques were used on the ink and papaer, would conclusively end the argument one way or the other?

Hmmm?

Stereotypical modern Republicans scare me.


I'm that specific because really Republicans aren't evil. Plenty of fantastic presidents were Republicans (Abraham Lincoln, just for one), and, hey, Democrats and Republicans are really only different in their policies. Either way America's still a Democracy.

Just not with Bush. If we were let the current Republican party do whatever they wanted they'd be like Nazis. As far as I'm concerned they care very little for us.


Does the argument really need to go on? Do we really think the crazy Bush nuts will listen to reason? I don't want to spoil the fun (if anyone's having any fun, that is). I'm just curious. I wonder why they believe all the garbage they hear. Why anyone would believe things like that. It's so insane. Do the lunatic Bush lovers really think the Republicans believe the lies themselves? Maybe it's just that they can make some moving speeches. It really is like the Nazis, only the Germans were in a way justified because of the terrible situation they were in. They wanted to place the blame on someone. I wonder why anyone would believe Iraq was justified.

I don't mean to blather on like a fool, I really am curious. If any Republicans out there feel they can answer my questions, feel free... or Democrats, for that matter. Anarchists, whoever, I just want to know why people think such crazy things.


Of course, Kerry's not exactly perfect either... he certainly beats Bush, but my family was hoping Edwards would be president. At least being vice president will give him experience-if Bush loses, that is.



Politics are just so silly. I bet chimps laugh at us when we're not looking.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about - http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/hastert.remark/index.html

The Democrats have GOT to jump on this guy and wipe the floor with him for saying that. They've got to take what they've already said keep at it, attack him with it. Connect it to Bush - if the Republican leaders say such things, what business do they have being in government? They need to absolutely pound him for saying that and portray him as a divisive fearmonger. But will they? I doubt it. They want to take the high road, but nice guys lose in American politics.

Oh come on, Bush and Kerry might as well run on the same ticket.

Would you like to show some facts? Or shall I just take your word for it? And nice comeback by telling me that I don't think. That really clears up alot. Yes, I'm sure every Republican is a mindless drone of Fox News. At least, that's what John Kerry, Lord, Master and Furher of the Jackasses tells you. ;)
*_* SIEG-HEIL MEINE LEHRE KERRY! :P
Okay, now I'm out of this argument for good. If I stay around too long, I might get hit with a few more MoveOn.org "facts".
Actually I'm a bit embarassed about replying cause I made a few errors in my first post. Which proves once again you shouldn't reply when half-asleep.
But since you asked nicely, I will give you some references:
527 groups:
The Center for Responsive Politics monitors campaign contributions and it has estimated that 527s have raised more than $165 million this year. Democratic-leaning 527 groups have raised about $148 million of that, Republican-leaning groups the rest.
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/civics6_20040906.htm
I apologise. I got it wrong. I said the Dem 527's had raised $130million, but in fact it's $148 million. Whoops.

As for Bush being concerned about all 527 groups:
President Bush's campaign filed a lawsuit yesterday that accuses advocacy groups that support Democratic nominee John F. Kerry of "massive" and "ongoing" violations of election laws and seeks an emergency court order to stop their activities.
Bush's campaign complained in the suit that at least five Democratic-leaning fundraising organizations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54455-2004Sep1.html

Times New Roman Font:
Times New Roman first appeared in 1932 in The Times of London newspaper, for which it was designed. It has subsequently become one of the world's most successful type creations.
http://simplythebest.net/fonts/fonts/times_new_roman.html
I said 150 years, but it's only 72 years. :( Though in my defence, the Times has been around for over 150 years.
Still the Times New Roman typeface was around in the 60s and 70s (and 30s and 40s and 50s), which refutes your claim about it not existing then.

As for the way the memos were typed:
But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.
Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.
....
In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.
http://philosophy.thereitis.org/displayarticle702.html
True, this doesn't prove they weren't forgeries. However it does show that all the apparent discrepancies were available on widely-used typewriters at that time. So more investigation into aspects other than proportional typespacing and superscripted 'th' needs to be done if you want to say they're forgeries.

Now, is there anything else you'd like to me to help you with? ;)

It makes me wonder about the whole forged documents thing, is that if someone was going to forge a damning letter that would obviously be leapt upon by the crazed media in the States, and obviously be vetted very carefully by dozens of experts. So why didn't they just use an old 70s typewriter? I'm sure you can still find one round if you look. In yard sales, back rooms of newspaper offices etc etc.
Occams razor would suggest this to be the simpliest and likliest option.

Off the topic a bit but check this site out:
http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp
An obvious anti-bush site, but if you scroll down to almost the end of the page, you'll see Kerry's application to go to Vietnam and Bush's request not to. Rather humourous juxtaposition I thought.