NationStates Jolt Archive

The newspaper is the Lone Star Iconoclast, and they endorsed Bush in 2000. The actual Kerry endorsement is here (http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm) but the page won't come up right now. My guess is that they're getting slammed with traffic and their servers have gone berserk.

But there are snippets of the endorsement here (http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002965.html#more) and here. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/28/125045/132)

Some highlights.
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.

Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

There's more. A lot more.

How much weight will this carry in Texas, or even in Crawford? Probably not much, but it's still cool to see if you're a Kerry supporter.

moded!

:D

Darn you Incertonia, I was just about to post that story!

Ah well, to add injury to insult, the economy is also dipping again.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=D85CP6680_story

Woohoo!!! *applause* *cheers* *dances around the fire fueled by Bush's failed presidency*

at least The Lone Star Iconoclast is able to admit when it has made a mistake and admit when it has been fooled.

I like how they agree with Kerrys 4-point plan as well.

Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.


The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.

<edit>

Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

<edit>

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

Sadly though, I posted this news elsewhere and got blind republicons scoffing and dismissing this story as made up. Now how does one convince republicons who have blind faith in Bush/Cheney, that this is a great show of how Bush is beginning to lose support even at his base in Texas?

Sadly though, I posted this news elsewhere and got blind republicons scoffing and dismissing this story as made up. Now how does one convince republicons who have blind faith in Bush/Cheney, that this is a great show of how Bush is beginning to lose support even at his base in Texas?
To be fair, there's little chance of Texas turning blue in this election cycle, so this story has more value as a little jab at the people who constantly try to tell us that Bush has a commanding lead nationally (when it ain't so either).

Speaking of polls, Gallup has Kerry sutting substantially into Bush's lead--and that with Gallup polling even more Republicans than they did when they gave him that ludicrous eleven point lead. Republicans were sampled at something like 42% of the electorate, a percentage they've not reached in the last fifty years at least. Bush's lead is toast, folks. Toast.

We're already seeing denial by the republicons:


A newspaper in President Bush's small adopted hometown of Crawford, Texas, has endorsed his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, for president.

In an editorial published Tuesday, the weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized President Bush's record on Iraq and the economy.

The paper, with a circulation of 425, also denounced Mr. Bush's handling of Social Security and Medicare.

It urged Texans not to rate candidates by their hometown or political party, but by where each intends to take the country.

The Lone Star Iconoclast said it had endorsed Mr. Bush in the 2000 election.

President Bush spends numerous weekends and vacations at his ranch in Crawford.

"small adopted hometown"

"circulation of 425"

linkage (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=317055C8-617B-4F8A-9A5D57841394E52D&title=Bush's%20Hometown%20Newspaper%20Endorses%20Kerry&catOID=45C9C78F-88AD-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C&categoryname=USA)

Darn Incertonia...you did beat me. Nuts.

** laughs at liberals acting as if they won the election because of some small newspaper's endorsement.

It is amazing that these liberals have been fooled by their own liberal press into beleiving that this stunt wasn't planned from the start. Isn't it just convenient that this so-called former Bush supporting newspaper decides, slightly more than a month from election day, to suddenly change sides, making headlines and catching the eye of americans everywhere?

It's sickening that liberals would have to stoop so low as to manipulate a paper in the presidents hometown, just because they think it will get Kerry a few points in the polls.

lol

it's so cute when Republicans get all flustered with worry and post nonsense.

** laughs at liberals acting as if they won the election because of some small newspaper's endorsement.

It is amazing that these liberals have been fooled by their own liberal press into beleiving that this stunt wasn't planned from the start. Isn't it just convenient that this so-called former Bush supporting newspaper decides, slightly more than a month from election day, to suddenly change sides, making headlines and catching the eye of americans everywhere?

It's sickening that liberals would have to stoop so low as to manipulate a paper in the presidents hometown, just because they think it will get Kerry a few points in the polls.

Liberals have infiltrated a small town newspaper and forced the editors to write a piece endorsing Kerry?

The newspaper is suddenly a so-called former Bush supporter? Did liberals write 3 years worth of pro-Bush pieces as part of a master plan to get him right before the election?

What fantasy world do you reside? This is your proof of a liberal media? That's so sad its laughable.

What fantasy world do you reside?

Did you mean IN what fantasy world? That would have been proper grammar. But I guess we're too worried about defending our little moment of triumph against Bush to care.

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap can go and through yourselves of a cliff. Bush has done good for this country but you guys seem to ignore it because he's not some wife cheating democrat like Clinton. :sniper: Every newspaper and goverment says he was a great president :headbang: God! he supported gay people, cheated on his wife, let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him, and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst presidents.

Did you mean IN what fantasy world? That would have been proper grammar. But I guess we're too worried about defending our little moment of triumph against Bush to care.

Did your mommy say you could use the computer young lady?

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap can go and through yourselves of a cliff. Bush has done good for this country but you guys seem to ignore it because he's not some wife cheating democrat like Clinton. :sniper: Every newspaper and goverment says he was a great president :headbang: God! he supported gay people, cheated on his wife, let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him, and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst presidents.
You should be executed to keep yourself from spreading your genes. Someone as dumb as you obviously lacks a brain and should not be left free as a threat to society.

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap can go and through yourselves of a cliff. Bush has done good for this country but you guys seem to ignore it because he's not some wife cheating democrat like Clinton. :sniper: Every newspaper and goverment says he was a great president :headbang: God! he supported gay people, cheated on his wife, let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him, and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst presidents.


Careful Bunglejinx might correct your grammar.

and is Clinton running for president again? Who would'a thunk it?

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.
Propaganda of the religious right. Dismissed.

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.

You spelled "Senator" wrong.

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.

Jeez, you and your website have issues. Three quarters of the stuff in there is false, misleading, or purely unbacked opinion.

Example"
"All Mrs. Kerry's companies are offshore, but Kerry condemns this practice for others.
Never has he said he'd move all the Heinz companies back to America."

Well, you see Kerry doesn't own Heinz, and his wife doesn't have a majority stake in the company, so it's not like they could change its policies even if they wanted to.

Also, I don't know if you know this, but Ketchup is food. As such, it tends to go bad. So, for example, lets say Heinz had it's production company in Texas and it needed to ship its product to India; we'd have a problem. By the time the product got to India, it would lose some of the time you could sell it while it was still fresh. This is ineffective for the company.


Another quotation:

"Most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him as a traitor and a phony.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth speak out against Kerry's campaign for president saying that
John Kerry is not fit to be President. He's NOT!"

Let's see, how many newspapers have stated that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth lied?

The LA Times? Yup. NY Times? Yup. The Washington Post? Yup. Do you want me to continue? All three of these newspapers went through records, testimonies, and other evidence and came up with one conclusion: the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (gasp!) lied!

As for the John Kerry is not fit to be President... that's quite opinionated of you, but it's also pretty useless if you're trying to persuade me. In my opinion the sky is green! It's an opinion-- a stupid one, but an opinion nonetheless.

"The ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOHN KERRY and JOHN EDWARDS is the difference between
eating poop straight (Kerry) and eating chocolate covered poop (Edwards.)"

That's not even coherent; how old are you? 8? You eat poo!! Gross!!
Grow up.

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap can go and through yourselves of a cliff. Bush has done good for this country but you guys seem to ignore it because he's not some wife cheating democrat like Clinton. :sniper: Every newspaper and goverment says he was a great president :headbang: God! he supported gay people, cheated on his wife, let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him, and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst presidents.
I guess you didn't know this about Clinton?:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

Despite his prevaricating, his sexual misadventures and his impeachment by Congress, a remarkable 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Clinton has done his job — the best end-of-career rating of any postwar president (one point ahead of Ronald Reagan).

So if you think Bush has done well and Clinton was a piece of crap, then I guess if people picked the opposite to what you suggest, it is closer to the truth?

Have a good day.

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap can go and through yourselves of a cliff. Bush has done good for this country but you guys seem to ignore it because he's not some wife cheating democrat like Clinton. :sniper: Every newspaper and goverment says he was a great president :headbang: God! he supported gay people, cheated on his wife, let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him, and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office. In my opinion Clinton was one of the worst presidents.

Hey now.

Didn't you ask your parents before you could use the computer?

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.

All you did was post a whole page of nonsense. Perhaps if you could stick to some facts you might have a chance of being a worthy debater.

Thanks for playing though.

lol

it's so cute when Republicans get all flustered with worry and post nonsense.

I'm a republican and I'm not worried. I do believe GWB will win in '04 just the question of, By how much.

Did your mommy say you could use the computer young lady?

Did you have to sign a waver to use the computer?

I can throw them too but Insults don't help in an arguement.

let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him,

Who let Osama get away?

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/41AEF0150CDBAB75CA256C1400030863

Did you even pause to think that leaving only 15,000 troops in Afghanistan to look for Osama, while sending 150,000 troops to Iraq to get Saddam was such a dumbass move?

Especially since Saddam was so harmless to the US.

Face it my friend, Bush has failed the litmus test.

Why do people always harp on Clinton for his wife?

What's a stupider campaign?

"I was a vet in Nam!"

"I fuck my wife!"


That's right, vote Bush! He fucks his wife! Unlike Clinton. In fact, that's the new slogan. "Republicans: We fuck our wives!"

I'm a republican and I'm not worried. I do believe GWB will win in '04 just the question of, By how much.

I'm a Green Party member and I am worried - no matter who gets into office I don't trust them. Anyway, I don't know one way or another who will win because I'm not psychic... I do trust the majority of the American people will not vote for Bush just as in 2000, but I don't trust the shinanigans the Republican party will be up to as we have experienced underhanded tactics in Florida on a large scale in 2000 - so there's no telling really. Plus with a Republican company coming out with touch screen voting machines that don't leave a paper trail, and lots of problems already seen first hand with them... well we can only pray for the best.

Well, you see Kerry doesn't own Heinz, and his wife doesn't have a majority stake in the company, so it's not like they could change its policies even if they wanted to.

You must then also defend every rich stakeholder who does not have a majority in a company. If you disagree with what a company is doing, sell your shares.


Also, I don't know if you know this, but Ketchup is food. As such, it tends to go bad. So, for example, lets say Heinz had it's production company in Texas and it needed to ship its product to India; we'd have a problem. By the time the product got to India, it would lose some of the time you could sell it while it was still fresh. This is ineffective for the company.


Shelf life for ketchup is like a year.

all of you liberal, non moral, pieces of crap
ah, the epitome of "moral-ness"
a self-styled "the Almighty Derrick" calling liberals pieces of crap
jesus would smile for sure! (i bet derrick thought i was serious too)

Bush has done good for this country
i absolutely appreciate the defecit, and the world hating us, and the lost jobs


let Osama bin Laden escpe when he could have nabbed him
bush did nothing of the sort right!?
bush found bin laden just a few weeks after 9/11 after all!


and let guilty murders and rapists go on his last day in office.
as opposed to executing more people than any other governor ever...
WHAT A FORGIVING CHRISTIAN!
if only jesus was like bush...
Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site. Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.
uh...
how about you open your eyes, read a book, and learn how to create a website/journalism that people who aren't already die-hard bush heads might actually consider reading

Face it my friend, Bush has failed the litmus test.
he's not gonna know what that is...

Did you have to sign a waver to use the computer?

I can throw them too but Insults don't help in an arguement.

Why yes I did.

Also, you might have noticed there was no argument where I made that comment. Just a useless comment to point out how useless the comment I was quoting was.

You must then also defend every rich stakeholder who does not have a majority in a company. If you disagree with what a company is doing, sell your shares.



Shelf life for ketchup is like a year.


How will selling your shares change anything?

Yes, and making the trip to India would probably take a month, not a huge impact, but still declines the amount of time you have to sell the product by 1/12.

Did you mean IN what fantasy world? That would have been proper grammar. But I guess we're too worried about defending our little moment of triumph against Bush to care.

Actually, proper grammar would go both ways. While your way may be more descriptive, it is an unnecessary redundancy to use the word "in" when the word "what" suffices as instruction to the reader of the intent of the question.

In what fantasy world do you reside---both the words what and in set the context of the question.

What fantasy world do you reside---only the word what sets the context. However, the intent is still easily readable.

So Bungle, should you desire further grammatical lessons about things you should have learned in 6th grade, feel free to inquire. I guess you're too worried about Bush's fall from grace to understand?

Did you mean IN what fantasy world? That would have been proper grammar. But I guess we're too worried about defending our little moment of triumph against Bush to care.
Did anyone else find it funny but also kinda of sad that Bunglejinx, when asked a question felt the need to focus on one very minor grammatical error (which is allowed in spoken conversation and I think forums could arguably be considered as such) rather than answer said question.
I thought his website was funny. He tells us to 'read without bias', but calls Kerry a SINator and his supporters DEMONcrats. Very droll Bungle. It must have taken you a long time to come up with those bon mots.
Actually his web site is worth reading if you want cheering up. Here's a quote:
JFK was killed because he refused to set up FEMA for the NWO. An alliance of wealthy intl bankers, secret societies and mafia want American economy destroyed. The NWO are the New World Order, Illuminati, Communists, DaVinci Code, Carlyle group, Shadow Government, antichrist, those who rule the world NOW, and have since the Clinton presidency.
Kerry-Edwards are BOTH part of this evil empire!
Here I was thinking the NWO were a gangsta rap band in the early 90's with Easy E and Ice Cube in it. ;)

(In the voice of Howard Cosell)

...and the Freepers are just taking a horrible beating here. They looks as dazed and confused as George Bush does when faced with a quadratic equation. In all my years as a commentator, I have never seen such a violent beat down. The Freepers completely left their guard down with their unfounded and unsupported accusations and as a consequence they are pushed against the ropes and are possed of a complete and utter inability to defend themselves with anything resembling a valid argument. Oh the humanity.

Remember, Pauli the Political Parrot says, "Awwwwk, remember kids, throwing the first stone for letting Osama get away makes Jesus cry and makes you look like a political hack. Awwwwk!"

(In the voice of Howard Cosell)

...and the Freepers are just taking a horrible beating here. They looks as dazed and confused as George Bush does when faced with a quadratic equation. In all my years as a commentator, I have never seen such a violent beat down. The Freepers completely left their guard down with their unfounded and unsupported accusations and as a consequence they are pushed against the ropes and are possed of a complete and utter inability to defend themselves with anything resembling a valid argument. Oh the humanity.

Remember, Pauli the Political Parrot says, "Awwwwk, remember kids, throwing the first stone for letting Osama get away makes Jesus cry and makes you look like a political hack. Awwwwk!"
Tell it like it is Howard!! Although I offer one suggestion for change:

They look as dazed and confused as George Bush does when faced with making a decision when America was "under attack" on 9/11.

Insert music: "Should I stay or should I go now?"

Enough of this nonsense. It's time you guys open your eyes, and look at my web site (http://www.revlu.com/kerry.html). Read that and try to tell me that you would still vote for Kerry.
You link in your website Fox NEWs with has bias and you say it will tell you truth?
While the rest of your post was lies that is just not right. How can you be wrong 100% of time, I thought that was impossible?

And why do you take Rove's words over Kerry campaign's?

If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray
and seek My face and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS
then will I hear from heaven and will FORGIVE THEIR SIN and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 - WHAT DO YOU THINK GOD MEANS BY THIS?
He means The Church is polluted with sins, do not care about and reach out to others,
they are selfish, and shepherds who do not preach against SIN!


Then you use God as a weapon? Shame, shame upon you! How dare you invoke his name with your lies! Do ye dare test the Lord thy God! When thy bowels quake and they liver splinters then you will realize the error of your words! Repent, thy hypocrit, repent for YOUR day of wrath will come!
Sorry, got carried away, heh.

To answer your post: His people are those with his name. The Lord said, name your church after me and it will be by my name. If your church is named after Moses than it is his church, but if it is after me than it is my church.
So Christians are who he means.
Thus we can replace MY name with Chriatians.
" If those christians will humble themselves and pray
and seek My face and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS
then will I hear from heaven and will FORGIVE THEIR SIN and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 - WHAT DO YOU THINK GOD MEANS BY THIS?
God is saying Christians perverted his words and lessons. While not all are bad, many have turned from his path. If they turn from their wicked ways he will forgve them and heal the land.

I would not want to be those guys.

So are you scared yet? Your own words sealed you in!

The page is finally up--you can get the whole thing here (http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm).

More highlights.
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

There's still lots more. This is one of the most cogent deconstructions of a candidate I have ever seen, and it's from the President's own back yard. Yep, it's from a small paper, and it will likely not change the outcome in the state where it is published, or perhaps even in the community where it is read, but it is a proud shout of defiance to the wider world.

The page is finally up--you can get the whole thing here (http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm).

More highlights.


There's still lots more. This is one of the most cogent deconstructions of a candidate I have ever seen, and it's from the President's own back yard. Yep, it's from a small paper, and it will likely not change the outcome in the state where it is published, or perhaps even in the community where it is read, but it is a proud shout of defiance to the wider world.
As Bruce willis would say so eloquently in Diehard.....

yippee kay ay mofo :eek:

The page is finally up--you can get the whole thing here (http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm).

More highlights.


There's still lots more. This is one of the most cogent deconstructions of a candidate I have ever seen, and it's from the President's own back yard. Yep, it's from a small paper, and it will likely not change the outcome in the state where it is published, or perhaps even in the community where it is read, but it is a proud shout of defiance to the wider world.
It is blatant dissent. Emperor Bush being questioned. *GASP!!!*
The publisher of that paper needs to watch out that he is not put into Guantanamo Bay on grounds of being a suspected terrorist or enemy of democracy. Patriot Act makes judical miracles happen.

How will selling your shares change anything?

Yes, and making the trip to India would probably take a month, not a huge impact, but still declines the amount of time you have to sell the product by 1/12.

Selling your shares causes the price to drop. With the number of shares she owns, it would plummet. When the equity drops, the value of the firm drops, and the business risk goes up.

Secondly, would you be comfortable owning shares in a company that was engaged in something you disproved of?

Anything that takes 11 months to turn-over is garbage. They just wouldn't make as much. Problem solved.

I don't have a problem with Heinz by the way. Just thought the other guy in the argument could use a hand.

Selling your shares causes the price to drop. With the number of shares she owns, it would plummet. When the equity drops, the value of the firm drops, and the business risk goes up.

Secondly, would you be comfortable owning shares in a company that was engaged in something you disproved of?

Anything that takes 11 months to turn-over is garbage. They just wouldn't make as much. Problem solved.

I don't have a problem with Heinz by the way. Just thought the other guy in the argument could use a hand.


I sincerly doubt the stock price would plummet, especially if financial analysis on Heinz shows that it will continue to be profitable. All that would happen is that some other rich person would buy them and make money off of it. Still, the point stands, it doesn't matter whether you sell it or not, it doesn't do anything. I could understand selling your stocks if Heinz was committing slave acts or supporting a cruel dictatorship, but having factories in other countries?

Sure, they wouldn't produce as much, but it wouldn't be as profitable. The overhead of shipping things oversea for a product as small as ketchup would probably be a large margin of cost, and thus, makes little sense. The same is true of soda and other small items that aren't expensive.

Here I was thinking the NWO were a gangsta rap band in the early 90's with Easy E and Ice Cube in it. ;)

No, that was NWA. The NWO was a wrestling offshoot of the WCW that was a pathetic attempt to turn Hulk Hogan into a 'bad guy'.

Did anyone else find it funny but also kinda of sad that Bunglejinx, when asked a question felt the need to focus on one very minor grammatical error (which is allowed in spoken conversation and I think forums could arguably be considered as such) rather than answer said question.

Was I correct or not? Thank you.


Here I was thinking the NWO were a gangsta rap band in the early 90's with Easy E and Ice Cube in it. ;)

And you'd just as soon have us beleive that Bush and Cheney are in league with a conservative media and oil companies to spread propoganda and wars around the world for private profits. I guess the fact that the Iraq invasion happened right after 9/11 was a coincidence then? No terrorists to fight or anything?

The attempts were amusing, if a bit futile. I've heard the scrutiny and general sweeping accusations against my site, but when pressed for evidence, the accusations came up short. I shouldn't have been surprised that the liberals would become so outraged and feel the instant need to tear down every word of mine, just because it doesn't bow to every whim of their vicious agenda.

Here's a quote from a republicon defending Bush:


Economy: Doing fine. Putting the Clinton recession behind us.
Iraq: Shame Europeans want all Iraqis to die just to prove Bush wrong.
Afghanistan: See "Iraq", above.
Job creation: Fine. I see Help Wanted signs everywhere.
Federal deficits: I don't see Ted Kennedy giving up his pork (or his whiskey) to cut it.
Homeland Security: A joke, but anything else gets you accused of racism (imagine that!)
State of the military: Doing much better in the aftermath of Clinton's assault on them.

And you'd just as soon have us beleive that Bush and Cheney are in league with a conservative media and oil companies to spread propoganda and wars around the world for private profits. I guess the fact that the Iraq invasion happened right after 9/11 was a coincidence then? No terrorists to fight or anything?

I wouldn't. Not all of us Bush bashers need to come to grandiose conclusions of machiavellian conspiracy to dislike the guy the way you seem to need to with Kerry.

One, the invasion of Iraq did not happen 'right after 9/11'. Unless you are judging time on some cosmic scale. It happened 2 years later, under the guise of a 'clear and present danger'. While there were certainly terrorists in the country (hell, Saddam regularly paid for terrorist acts inside of Israel), I would like you to count how many of those involved with 9/11 were Iraqi or had ties to it's government.

I'll give you a hint on that number, your brain is obviously taxed from all the X-files you must watch. It's Zero. Compare that to the number of Saudis, 15 (of 19), and I don't need some conspiracy to dislike the presidents direction when pointing his guns.

It is far more plausible for me to simply think of him as inept than to try and build some fairy castle of interwoven conspiracies.

The simple truth is:

He told us there were weapons of mass distruction. There weren't
He told us there were ties to Al Qaeda linking them to 9/11. There weren't
He told us there would be international involvement. There wasn't.
He told us they would welcome us with parades. They didn't
He told us he wouldn't use our troops for nation building. He did.
He told us he was a uniter, not a divider. Politics is more divisive than ever.
He told us he would get the people responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden is still out there
He told us we would be safer after the war. Terrorism numbers and recruitment is at an all time high.
He told us the economy is getting better. Waffling is the more correct term.
He told us he would protect our jobs. Jobs are leaving at a stagerring rate.
He told us he was fiscally responsible. Record Deficits and climbing Debt are not responsible

Whether the things he told us were lies, spin, or just his own stupidity matters not. I don't need some conspiracy as an excuse. I need a president capable of telling me truth, or at least one with the balls to stand up and say, "I know I told you this other thing before, but I was wrong. No matter the reason for me being wrong, it's on my head." Because, quite frankly, that is the only honorable thing to do.

The newspaper is the Lone Star Iconoclast, and they endorsed Bush in 2000. The actual Kerry endorsement is here (http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm) but the page won't come up right now. My guess is that they're getting slammed with traffic and their servers have gone berserk.

But there are snippets of the endorsement here (http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002965.html#more) and here. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/28/125045/132)

Some highlights.


There's more. A lot more.

How much weight will this carry in Texas, or even in Crawford? Probably not much, but it's still cool to see if you're a Kerry supporter.

Speaking as a resident of Texas, almost none. To say that the Iconoclast is a widespread publication would be akin to saying that my cell phone is a hat.

Speaking as a resident of Texas, almost none. To say that the Iconoclast is a widespread publication would be akin to saying that my cell phone is a hat.
Oh so true. A few more details have come up...from a blog I frequently read, comes the following: (Note: emphasis and boldface added by me)
One of the big stories this week was the endorsement of Kerry by the Lone Star Iconoclast. It was news only because this small paper, started in 2000, is from Crawford, Texas - George W. Bush's hometown.

I do not believe the national media mentioned any information regarding the publisher of the paper and co-author of the piece in question, but the San Antonio News-Express does in this excellent followup (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA093004.1A.crawford.d0640b14.html) to the story.

W. Leon Smith publishes the Iconoclast as well as the Clifton Record and the Bosque Globe. He is also the mayor (Democrat) of Clifton and twice ran for the Texas House, unsuccessfully, also as a Democrat.

I'm not insinuating that his political affiliation disqualifies him from reporting the news or even from criticizing the current President. His reputation as a newspaperman should be based upon his ability to report the news. His opinion pieces are expected to present his own opinion, and they do. Here is his quote in the SA Express News:

"We're just trying to point out the direction the country's going in, and it's not good."

Sounds like opinion to me. I am also looking at the direction the country is going and I find the outlook very positive. Taxes are down; wealth and home ownership is up. Terror attacks are down as is unemployment. The Iraq situation is tough right now but I believe we are making a difference there and will prevail through our strength and compassion.

The original Iconoclast article was held up as evidence that anti-Bush sentiment run everywhere, even in Crawford, Texas. What they missed was the local response to the op-ed. The popular Crawford Coffee Station no longer carries the paper. One day after the article ran, more than a dozen readers had canceled their subscriptions and six advertisers had abandoned the weekly.

The publisher understands that it may get worse and fears that the paper may even go under. I'm sure he knew that before he wrote the article. What amazes me is his response to the criticism he is receiving:

"It really appears to be me that we no longer live in an open society. When you get to the point where you can't express an opinion, then you're in trouble."

Contrary to his grandiose statement, Smith is completely free to express his opinion. He even has a platform where his opinion has a greater play than most of us. It is ironic that he feels as if expressing his opinion is endangered because his readers have expressed their own, by issuing a complaint about the article or canceling their subscriptions.

An open society is a great thing. It is a place were people are free to express their own opinions. It is a place where individuals are free to purchase the goods and services they choose. If Crawford residents were required to buy Mr. Smith's paper despite their own disdain for the content, then I would have to concur that we no longer live in an open society.

I don't see where Mr. Smith's free speech has been suppressed. The national media has made sure that his original op-ed was read from sea to shining sea. His frustration is not that his own voice is being stifled, but that others are being heard.
This oughta bring some needed perspective to the issue.

Aw, Panhandlia--you forgot the most important perspective. The same paper endorsed Bush in 2000, and now thinks they made a mistake in that decision. But you just love grasping at that bias straw, don't you?

Aw, Panhandlia--you forgot the most important perspective. The same paper endorsed Bush in 2000, and now thinks they made a mistake in that decision. But you just love grasping at that bias straw, don't you?
Big deal. How many people who voted for Gore in 2000 have gone on the record thanking God for Bush being President on 9/11? (Answer: more than you think...starting with Ed Koch and Zell Miller.)

Join the rest of us in 2004. So what if that inky-dinky paper endorsed Bush in 2000 and now endorses Kerry? I'll tell you...suddenly their circulation has dwindled, the locals aren't buying the paper, and the advertisers have withdrawn their support. So, it seems to me that the people of Crawford have spoken with their wallets. Also notice, the guy who wrote that endorsement doesn't even live in Crawford, and yet pretends to speak for the people of Crawford, and to dictate how the people of Crawford ought to vote. And, since he is a Dim, of course he would endorse Kerry...no, wait, a lot of registered Democrat public figures have already endorsed Bush.

What's next for the Crawford Iconoclast...an expose of Bush's National Guard service????

What's next for the Crawford Iconoclast...an expose of Bush's National Guard service????
Not much left to expose is there? Let's see--Daddy got him in ahead of other more qualified applicants. He failed to take a mandatory physical and got suspended from flight status--for reasons never disclosed. He has gaps in his service record, and he resigned early because he said he wouldn't have time to fulfill his commitment (not an option for current Guardsmen in Iraq, I might add). That about covers it, I think--the high points anyway.

Not much left to expose is there? Let's see--Daddy got him in ahead of other more qualified applicants. He failed to take a mandatory physical and got suspended from flight status--for reasons never disclosed. He has gaps in his service record, and he resigned early because he said he wouldn't have time to fulfill his commitment (not an option for current Guardsmen in Iraq, I might add). That about covers it, I think--the high points anyway.
Yawn. Nothing like beating a dead horse. Whatever floats your boat. Nice to see you avoid the reference to the big-name Dems who are voting for Bush...let's see, how many big-name Republicans voting for Kerry...there's that RINO senator from somewhere in the Northeast...and that's it.

Also nice to see you skip the facts about W. Leon Smith's background. I guess it's too bothersome for you to try to defend. But who cares, after all, the people of Crawford do have the last word, and they have spoken.

Yawn. Nothing like beating a dead horse. Whatever floats your boat. Nice to see you avoid the reference to the big-name Dems who are voting for Bush...let's see, how many big-name Republicans voting for Kerry...there's that RINO senator from somewhere in the Northeast...and that's it.

Also nice to see you skip the facts about W. Leon Smith's background. I guess it's too bothersome for you to try to defend. But who cares, after all, the people of Crawford do have the last word, and they have spoken.Well, you've got two, and we've got Chaffee, as you mentioned, and John Eisenhower, Ike's son, Ron Reagan Jr. and who knows how many others out there. And by the way--I'd hardly call either Zell Miller or Ed Koch a big name Democrat. One's been out of public life for 15 years and the other has been a DINO longer than Chaffee has been.

As to Smith's background, what of it? He's a Democrat who supported a Republican four years ago because the Republican sold himself as a moderate when in fact he was a radical. He's seen the error of his ways. What's your problem with that? I never suggested that either Crawford or Texas were going to suddenly become Democratic strongholds--in fact, I suggested the opposite. So what point exactly are you trying to make here?

Big deal. How many people who voted for Gore in 2000 have gone on the record thanking God for Bush being President on 9/11? (Answer: more than you think...starting with Ed Koch and Zell Miller.)

Join the rest of us in 2004. So what if that inky-dinky paper endorsed Bush in 2000 and now endorses Kerry? I'll tell you...suddenly their circulation has dwindled, the locals aren't buying the paper, and the advertisers have withdrawn their support. So, it seems to me that the people of Crawford have spoken with their wallets. Also notice, the guy who wrote that endorsement doesn't even live in Crawford, and yet pretends to speak for the people of Crawford, and to dictate how the people of Crawford ought to vote. And, since he is a Dim, of course he would endorse Kerry...no, wait, a lot of registered Democrat public figures have already endorsed Bush.

What's next for the Crawford Iconoclast...an expose of Bush's National Guard service????
Well I will give the guy credit for exercising his right to free speech and if everyone in America did business only with fellow Democrats or Republicans can you imagine the state of your economy?

Your use of the word "dictate" is an inappropriate choice of word, and overly dramatic? Does the fact that the writer endorses a candidate suggest that he is a dictator?

** laughs at liberals acting as if they won the election because of some small newspaper's endorsement.

It is amazing that these liberals have been fooled by their own liberal press into beleiving that this stunt wasn't planned from the start. Isn't it just convenient that this so-called former Bush supporting newspaper decides, slightly more than a month from election day, to suddenly change sides, making headlines and catching the eye of americans everywhere?

It's sickening that liberals would have to stoop so low as to manipulate a paper in the presidents hometown, just because they think it will get Kerry a few points in the polls.

HHAHAHA Oh lord thats funny, a Republican critisizing Libertarians for media manipulation, oh thats friggin rich!