Kerry honored by Vietnamese Communists

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Gee, where's the tirade on michael moore's cow pasture politicing? Kerry has his expose coming and it is validated and documented. mm intentially and admittedly assails the character of a good man. Makes my blood boil.

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:45 am

southern wrote:

do we want a confessed war criminal as President??!

how about a former (?) Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! and recovering(?) Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!? yeah, that's who we want to have their finger on the button while choking on a pretzel!

as for the (strawman's?) argument that the democrats had michael moore so its "fair" for the republicans to have SBGI, SBGI was entrusted with the PUBLIC airwaves. Not michael moore. who controls what goes into the tv programming that goes into 24% of the nation's households? at least the PUBLIC/shareholders are holding SBGI accountable for their actions as Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, and Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, and Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!. SBGI can flip-flop and backpedal like the best of them!

Then again, all this non-issue talk that we're doing is exactly what the BUSH camp wants. Who wants to talk about the issues when you can spend/bide your remaining time with spreading FUD (sure has come a long way from "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt)?

see y'all at the polls! vote early. vote late. just vote!!!

the lesser of two evils is still evil.
-- unknown attribution

registered · Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6437

oprime2001, you forgot "vote often." And, "drag out the vote."

Unlike one of our former presidents, the current president admits his PAST problems with alcohol (does anyone have proof of anything recent? If not your suggestion borders SLANDER). As for taking cocaine, this looks like a case of foreign media taking a cue from the pathetic "documentary" (more like political commercial, as the word documentary implies facts) director Michael Moore and CBS 60 Minutes producers. So-and-so claims this, and since it supports our agenda, it MUST be true - there's no need to VALIDATE it - let's give it an Oscar!

In typical fashion, Democrats make trust an issue by claiming Bush lied about Iraq, then don't want to talk about trust as an issue when it comes to Kerry and claim Republicans don't want to talk about the issues.

Since the choice is the lesser of two evils, how about a little humor:

2nd debate question: "Senator Kerry, can you look straight into the camera and give us your word that you won't raise taxes?"
Kerry: "Sure." (looks into the camera) "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Embarassed

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:40 am

Quite frankly, what they did in their youth is much less important to me than the character they show as adults. THE WMD rhetoric is a strawman argument. You make decisions based on what you're told at the moment. Right or wrong, the character of our current President is solid. He doesn't waiver. Unfortunately Mr. Kerry changes direction more often than a lost goose in a snowstorm.

Client Joined: Jan 29, 2004 Posts: 624

haha That's a good simile, lost goose in a snowstorm! Smile

Actually I think Kerry's motives are rather more sinister. I 'pologize for not one but two articles but I thought these speak to the issue of Kerry's character:

Quote:

Terrorists' candidates?

By Charles Krauthammer

Do the bad guys — the terrorists in their Afghan caves and Iraqi redoubts — want George Bush defeated in this election? Bush critics, among them the editors of the New York Times, have worked themselves into a lather over the mere suggestion that this might be so. A front-page "analysis" in The Post quoted several Republican variations of this theme — such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage saying that the terrorists in Iraq "are trying to influence the election against President Bush" — then noted that "[s]uch accusations . . . surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt."

Intimations of McCarthyism constitute a serious charge. But the charge is not remotely serious. Of course the terrorists want Bush defeated. How can anyone pretend otherwise?

Why are we collectively nervous about terrorism as the election approaches? Because, as everyone knows, there are terrorists out there who would dearly love to hit us before the election. Why? To affect it. What does that mean? Do they want to affect it randomly?

Of course not. We know the terrorists' intent and strategy. We saw it on display in Spain, where a spectacular terrorist attack three days before the national election set off the chain of events that brought down a government that had allied itself with the United States. The attack worked perfectly. Within weeks Spain had withdrawn its troops from Iraq.

Last month, terrorists set off a car bomb outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in the middle of a neck-and-neck Australian election campaign and just three days before the only televised debate between the two candidates. The prime minister, John Howard, is a staunch U.S. ally in both Afghanistan and Iraq. His opponent, Mark Latham, has pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas.

The terrorists may be medieval primitives, but they know about cell phones and the Internet and fuel-laden commercial airliners. They also know about elections. Their obvious objective is to drive from power those governments most deeply involved in the war against them — in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. The point is not only to radically alter an enemy nation's foreign policy — as in Spain — but to deter any other government contemplating similar support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

But Spain and Australia — Britain, with Tony Blair up for reelection next year, will surely be next — are merely supporting actors. The real prize is America. An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, preemptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terrorism, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds.

Does this mean that the bad guys want Kerry to win? Michael Kinsley with his usual drollery ridicules the idea by conjuring up the image of Osama bin Laden, "as he sits in his cave studying materials from the League of Women Voters," deciding to cast his absentee ballot for the Democrats.

The point, of course, is that the terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush. He could be running against a moose, and bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi would be for the moose.

How to elect the moose? A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

It is still prudent to be on high alert at home, because it is not wise to bank on the political sophistication of the enemy. The enemy is nonetheless far more likely to understand that the way to bring down Bush is not by attack at home but by debilitating guerrilla war abroad, namely in Iraq. Hence the escalation of bloodshed by Zarqawi and Co. It is not just aimed at intimidating Iraqis and preventing the Iraqi election. It is aimed at demoralizing Americans and affecting the American election.

The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry, convince it that the war cannot be won, and ultimately encourage it to reject the administration that brought the war upon them and that is the more unequivocal about seeing it through.

It is perfectly true, as Bush critics constantly point out, that many millions around the world — from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street — dislike Bush and want to see him defeated. It is ridiculous to pretend that bin Laden, Zarqawi and the other barbarians are not among them.

http://jewishworldreview.com/1004/krauthammer2004_10_11.php3

Ah yes... Tet offensive then and now. And just as then Kerry is once again appeasing and giving aid to the enemy while American forces are in harm's way...

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:00 pm

Quote:

Thomas Sowell

ABC News or ABC spin

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | As if Dan Rather's use of forged documents to try to discredit President Bush shortly before the election was not enough of a clue to the mainstream media's political agenda, ABC News has now joined CBS News in the political spin game.

What ABC News has done was too elaborate to be called a "mistake." Now that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have become too well known for the mainstream media to continue ignoring them, ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel has broadcast its "investigation" of one of the Swift Boat veterans' charges against John Kerry.

The charge was that Kerry received a medal for an incident in Vietnam that he falsely reported. How did ABC's Nightline try to establish the truth? Interview crew members who were on Kerry's boat at the time? No! Interview veterans who were in other boats near John Kerry's boat at the time? No!

Nightline went to Vietnam to interview people whom they had been told were among the Communist guerrillas involved in the disputed incident.

It would be an unwarranted insult to Ted Koppel's intelligence to believe that he does not understand the unreliability of what is said publicly by people living in a totalitarian society, especially when it is said in the presence of a Communist official who took Nightline to the people who were to be interviewed.

What is the Communist government's stake in all this?

In recent years, high officials of the Vietnamese government have openly admitted that they were losing the Vietnam war on the battlefields but hung on, waiting for a political victory, based on their belief that the anti-war movement in the United States would eventually force American withdrawal.

When much of the American media became part of the anti-war movement, the gamble obviously paid off. One of the Vietnamese Communists' museums pays tribute to the American anti-war movement in general and features a picture of John Kerry in particular.

Against that background, how surprising is it that what was said in the interview backed up John Kerry's version of the disputed incident? Yet Ted Koppel described the people interviewed as "witnesses" who "have no particular axe to grind."

The clincher, according to Mr. Koppel, is that the interviewee's version of what happened matches the combat report and the official Navy citation with the medal. Surely ABC News knows that the combat report was written by John Kerry and that the Navy citation was based on what Kerry said in his report.

Nevertheless, according to Koppel, John Kerry's awards "should have been the most unassailable part of Kerry's record."

This kind of reasoning reminded me of an episode in a New York department store some years ago when I bought a sweater and gave the sales lady a credit card. She pointed out that there was no signature on the back of the card.

After I signed the credit card in her presence and then signed the bill, she compared the two signatures that she had just seen me write and, since they matched, it was OK with her. But at least she didn't say that this procedure was "unassailable."

Who would have dreamed that ABC News would compare what Kerry said in his report with what was said in a citation based on that report and find it convincing that they matched?

Everything about the Nightline program reeked of contrived "ambush journalism," to ambush John O'Neill with the words of Vietnamese villagers who were put on the program before him, and thereby exonerate John Kerry from O'Neill's charges.

If this program were a serious attempt to get at the truth, it would hardly have completely ignored all those Americans who were on the scene during the disputed incident and instead go to the other side of the world to talk with people in a Communist country with a Communist official present.

Other boats from John Kerry's unit fought that day in the same vicinity. Even with the best of intentions, the Vietnamese villagers interviewed on Nightline had no way of knowing which of the many Americans who opened fire that day 35 years ago was John Kerry. The Americans in that unit knew — but they were not interviewed on Nightline.

That is what stamps this as spin, rather than news.

Do media elites think we are all fools? Probably.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html

So Kerry assisted an enemy and America lost the war, and now he is trying the same ploy with Iraq. Is that a definition of treason or not?

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:39 pm

Iran, part of Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! and U.S. State Department-designated Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, wants George W. Bush to be re-elected. Shocked

See: Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, and Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!. All Bush needs is an endorsement from North Korea, and he's got a hat trick of endorsements from the Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! -- assuming Iraq gives an implicit endorsement.

Raven wrote:

Quite frankly, what they did in their youth is much less important to me than the character they show as adults.

If the federal government can consider an 18-year old an adult, George W. Bush was certainly an adult ( Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!) when he was arrested, and he pleaded gulity to DUI (doesn't that make him a convicted criminal << even of only a misdeamenor?). Or is it only the things that you do after you are 30 years old that count?

kguske wrote:

your suggestion borders SLANDER

Technically, the word that you are looking for is Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!. Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! is "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation." Anyways, I did not claim that W is currently an alcoholic/drug addict. I merely suggested the possibility that a former addict might relapse.
From Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Quote:

In general, relapse after treatment of addictive behavior is very high, 50% to 90% (Brownell, Marlatt, Lichtenstein & Wilson, 1986). Two thirds to 3/4's of drug and alcohol abusers relapse within three months after treatment (Chiazzi, 1989). In one study, less than 10% of treated alcoholics abstained for two years (Armor, Polich, & Stambul, 1978).

Furthermore, according to a study by the NIH Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!,

Quote:

Addiction to alcohol or other drugs (AODs) is a complex problem determined by multiple factors, including psychological and physiological components. Stress is considered a major contributor to the initiation and continuation of AOD use as well as to relapse. Many studies that have demonstrated an association between AOD use and stress have been unable to establish a causal relationship between the two. However, stress and the body’s response to it most likely play a role in the vulnerability to initial AOD use, initiation of AOD abuse treatment, and relapse in recovering AOD users.

I would certainly consider the Office of the President of the United States of America as a stressful position.

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:07 pm

Especially for those with NO experience at governing, such as JFK. Surely you don't consider 20 years of non-accomplishment in the US Senate a suitable background for a man or woman who would be President? Bush has had six years experience as Governor of Texas and four years experience as US President, with four more to come, so I don't think he is guzzling vodka from a hidden bottle to relieve the stress of governing. How like the Democrats, btw, to cast aspersions against a man who once drank excessively but no longer does so. Is it, then, OK to term Teddy Kennedy a non-recovered alcoholic since he clearly still drinks to excess? As for Bush's use of cocaine, who among us Americans will cast the first stone in the area of drug use? Wasn't it Kerry and his sixties confreres who coined the phrase 'Turn on, tune in, drop out'? They weren't talking about milk and cookies. Smile

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:34 pm

Bush never dishonored his country, plain and simple. Clinton smoked pot and cigars. One he didn't inhale and the other he did. JFK committed adultery over and over while serving as President. Bush has not done any of this. He is an honorable man and he has never sided with communism or those that do. I don't give a care for the political party. I don't want a man that has had contempt for our country like Kerry has serving as Commander in Chief.

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:45 pm

Who would've thought that the party of Bill Clinton would attack Republicans and Bush on character? Need we change the quote to "There are lies, d*** lies, and Democrites"?

oprime2001, since you merely suggested it (not surprising that you didn't have the conviction to merely state it since there is lack of evidence to which you can link), splitting hairs over whether it borders slander or libel is nonsensical. I appreciate the correction, but wonder why you didn't respond to my statement regarding trust. I noticed that you brought up the subject of WMD and lying, then claimed that Republicans wanted to discuss that and not the "real" issues.

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find one study somewhere that says 2/3 to 3/4 of Vietnam-era Purple Heart winners have psychological problems (my personal experience with relatives who legitimately earned that medal supports that, but I wouldn't claim that as a scientific study), and probably another study that the majority of Vietnam war protestors have used illegal drugs. Would that prove anything about Sen. Kerry? Of course not, as there is no evidence to support that - just as there is no evidence to support your suggestion that Bush is still abusing alcohol or cocaine - stressful job or not. Please, tell me you don't believe everything you read in the NY Times or Washington Post or watch on 60 Minutes or Fox News.

As for endorsements by Iran (did they endorse Jimmy Carter, too?), actions are more important than words. Where is the link to the museum in Iran honoring Bush? Did the FORMER dictator of Iraq build any statues to Bush? Did you see the murals allowed by Saddam commemorating 9/11?

Joke break (if you think someone is fanatical about something, tell a joke opposing that and see if his/her pupils contract):
Reporter: Sen. Kerry, given your anti-US, I mean, anti-Vietnam war, activities, and your rating as one of the most liberal Congresspersons, would you support legalizing marijuana?
Kerry: Well, I toked for it before I toked against it.

Southern, I think you may be giving Sen. Kerry too much credit (or, at least, you are, as oprime2001 put it, almost committing libel). I doubt he intended to aid the enemy either in North Vietnam or the Middle East. I'd say he was simply trying to further his own career without regards to the impact. Just what we need as the leader of the free world!

Let's see:
Democrat Truman commits troops to Korea.
Democrat Kennedy commits troops to Bay of Pigs, Cuba, but changes his mind, leaving our allies to be slaughtered (I guess he, too, voted for it before voting against it).
Democrat Johnson commits troops to Vietnam.
Democrat Carter fails to commit troops to Iran, so Ross Perot pre-empts him and the UN.
Republican Reagan commits troops to Grenada and Panama.
Republican Bush I commits troops to Iraq.
Democrat Clinton commits aerial bombing of northern African chemical plant in response to terrorist attacks on US troops [edit] and Somalia [/edit].
Republican Bush II commits troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.
- is there a pattern there? Let the spin begin...

It's great that we are still, for the most part - as long as we don't disagree with NY-LA-SF media elite or Bill O'Reilly, able to speak freely about our government and leaders. If you look hard enough (and the Internet obviously makes it MUCH harder, but much easier to find the BS), you can find objective facts. Unfortunately, it seems many are content with a Matrix-like existence where the facts are irrelevant, so you usually have to weed through a lot of biased information from all sides to find the truth. Well, we can try...

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:50 pm

I think that the issues are all but lost from here on out its all about taking the gloves off.

The race is close no one can argue that. Close races bring out all the skeletons and I'm sure we haven't heard the worst of it yet. Since early on Kerry refused to be agressive in his campaign now we'll see if he can truely stand under fire.

Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:33 pm

kguske, me commit libel agin Senator Kerry? Never, never! The facts suffice! I don't have to make up nuttin!

Sells PC To Pay For Divorce Joined: Posts: 5661

Just a reflection of fundrasing.......

Wanna laugh....?

Ehhh no im not for kerry... Smile

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:12 pm

Thank you, hitwalker, thank you so much! Really needed that jolt of humor. Smile

I'm telling you, these American political campaigns get more 'n more dreary and divisive all the time. Makes me want to find a nice den deep in the snow and pull the snow over me and just sleep hahaha

Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:12 pm

Another item:

Quote:

Yasser Arafat Endorses Kerry
That's right, another exemplary world leader has endorsed John Kerry.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is hoping John Kerry wins the presidential election in November, several Palestinian leaders told WorldNetDaily.
...
"The president [Arafat] is frustrated with Bush's policies," he said. "The president [Arafat] thinks Kerry will be much better for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of a Palestinian state."
I can see a new line of Kerry bumper stickers now... "Terrorists for Kerry"

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/002483.html

So can I... hey, if the Vietcong like him why not Arafat whose terrorist minions have murdered Americans in Gaza, and didn't his subjects, oops, people celebrate after the horrific events of 9-11?

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:50 pm

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1647

Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:29 pm

Funny!

Regular Joined: Jun 09, 2004 Posts: 79

Someone asked why vote for an unknown like Kerry. The answer is because I know who Bush is. I may not know for sure what Kerry will do, but I certainly do know what Bush will do. I know more young men and women will die in the "War of Bush." I know he will look out for big business and won't give a care about me. (I don't have any oil.) And I expect the war will move on to Iran.

Someone mentioned Clintons lies. As is stated in an email going around, "No One Died When Clinton Lied."

I am just curious to know how many of you who think Bush is such an "honorable man"...

How many of you have sons, daughters, husbands or wives in Iraq? How many of your relatives and friends have lost their limbs or lives in Iraq?

How many of you will be able to say "oh, well" when you or a family member gets cancer from the MTBE carcinogen in gasoline and can't sue the big oil companies who know its danger, because of Bush's energy bill?

How many of you really think an amendment to the Constitution is going to change anything? Do you think it will stop homosexuality? Do you think it will accomplish anything other than making these people believe that a bunch of religious holier-than-thous are determined to take away what God gave everyone - free will?

How many of you believe it is okay for someone who says he is a "born again Christian" to have a relationship with someone who says he is the Messiah; Jesus Christ got it wrong and he is here to make it right?

How many of you think it is a shame that people voluntarily engage in homosexual acts but there is nothing wrong with raping and sodomizing prisoners? How many of you believe Bush had nothing to do with the torture of these prisoners?

How many of you really think it's honorable for people to lose their jobs simply because they disagree with Bush or oppose the war?

How many of you who are so convinced this war is the right thing are willing to go to Iraq and fight and die for Bush's oil?

How many...?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:55 am

First, your reason for voting for Kerry is what got the poor people of Cuba a dictator for the last 60 years. Batista is bad, and the unknown Castro is promising us the world, so let's get him.

Next, your accusations about Bush's war for oil, homosexuality, religion and jobs are based on emotion - not fact. In the absence of fact, you can only use emotional arguments about poor women, children, sons and daughters dying in Iraq, and the horrible right-wing born-again Christian who rapes and sodomizes prisoners. Even though Clinton's lies about Lewinsky didn't kill anyone, what about Somalia? Apply the same emotional argument there. How many...?

If you cannot base a decision on a Presidential candidate's history, you must be able to trust a his words and ability to make decisions. What makes Bush honorable? By asking that, you imply that he is dishonorable without offering any evidence. But he hasn't had sex with one of his employees in the Oval Office. He didn't LIE under oath. He didn't run away to Canada to avoid being drafted for a war started by a Democrat. And he didn't ask for a Purple Heart because he cut his finger, then threaten to throw the medal away and accuse his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes and tell emotional stories about his Christmas memories in Cambodia that have since proven to be incorrect - with facts. And, much to the chagrin of Democrats looking to get rid of him, he doesn't change his mind with the wind or international opinion polls when it comes to fighting our enemies. That WILL get OUR people killed.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:52 am

What world are you living in?

It is fact that innocent women and children are being killed in Iraq every day, yet this country says the number is unimportant. Where's the Christian moral in that? Even American soldiers have told stories of how they have been ordered to attack automobiles and buildings supposedly filled with explosives, only to find they just killed people on their way to work or children outside, and there were no explosives.

Now perhaps you are one of the many people in this country who have the attitude that there is no such thing an an "innocent" person in Iraq. It just amazes me how people who call themselves Christians, followers of Christ's teachings, can approve of the horrible things going on. We heard over and over about Saddam and his torture and rape camps. It seems for Americans, it is okay to rape and sodomize prisoners in front of their children, but those homosexuals need to be stopped. Get the beam out of your own eye!

Just a coincidence that when the war started, the only thing being guarded were the oil fields... or have you forgotten how all the artifacts mysteriously ended up in the U.S.? And why do you think the military bases are buing built?... So we can get out and leave Iraq to the Iraqis?

You know, long before most people in America ever heard of Osama Bin Laden, he explained in a news interview why he was going to kill civilians in America and not just soldiers and leaders. I believe his words were something to the effect of... "if you could have seen all the babies with their heads cut off..."

Now Mr. Bush has created thousands of Osama Bin Ladens. Ask yourself what you would do if your family and friends were being slaughtered all around you. You'd pick up a gun and fight, too. That's what the war in Iraq has accomplished.

And what about the thousands of American soldiers who have been mamed, only to return home and be "treated like dogs" as they have reported in numerous interviews. It seems that once they can no longer fight in this man's war, they are useless.

Why is it you, like many other people who appear to be brainwashed by Bush simply because he claims to be a Christian, have to resort to statements like your comment about "emotion" yet you refuse to answer the questions? Are your sons and daughters in Iraq? If this is an honorable man and a necessary war and we are justified in killing Iraqi civilians and raping, torturing and killing prisoners, I hope you are encouraging your loved ones to sign up. When will you quit your job and go? Help make America a better, safer place?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:26 am

Quote:

Next, your accusations about Bush's war for oil, homosexuality, religion and jobs are based on emotion - not fact.

Fact: This war is about oil.
Evidence: Human beings are being treated much worse in other nations but we ignore their pleas for help. No oil under their feet.

Fact: Republicans support the military Don't ask Don't tell policy and Mr Busch went so far as to use it in the last campaign. Busch policy is anti gay whether you view it as proactive or not.

Fact: Busch allows his Christian beliefs to influence his political decisions. His reelection relies heavily on grabbing some Born Again Christian Democrats from the religious right. (See Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota campaign visits by Republican heavy hitters).

Fact: There are less jobs and the jobs that are being created have significantly less wages and benefits. Most heavily hit have been in the middle working class manufacturing industry. (Out sourced? I think so.)

I'm not trying to pick a bone with ya kguske but I do have to agree with Amber's remark "What world are you living in? ".

Amber you seem hung up on this Rape & Sodomy thing whats up with that? "raping, torturing and killing prisoners" I haven't seen any evidence to support this to what are you referring to? The humiliation tactics they used to break down those POW's that someone was stupid enough to take pictures of ?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:45 am

Back on topic Kerry honored.

This isn't exactly breaking news. There are hordes of people who got caught up in the hippie movement in the "Summer of Love". Most of them haven't been honored by anyone. In fact many go out of their way to hide this chapter in their lives from their children and grandchildren today.

Was Kerry wrong to participate in that rediculous presentation? Of course he was. But I'd like to think that he at least left the door open for dialog with the communists. Which could become a huge advantage in the future nuclear disarmament talks with the North Korean whacko's.

I said it more then once its just a shame the Democrats didn't have anyone besides Kerry willing risk their political career against the Busch machine.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:54 am

If your a Right Wing Religious whacko ask yourself this, "Has Busch been pandering to me to get my vote since he came into office?".

If the answer is yes (which I think it is) then do you not find it suspicious? I find it to be extremely suspicious that Busch talks to God. Does he see stupid people too? Or er I mean dead people? Oh no thas right they mostly vote Democratic ROTFL

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:04 am

Here's one (while I'm insulting everyone) for the Black Christians out there.
Is the republican party really color blind? Or have they been pandering to get your votes out one side and cutting quality of life on the other?

To all the upper middle class queers. Do you and/or your gay children not love our country as much as the white/black christians? Do they not bleed the same blood types as the white/black middle class christian children?

Should you and/or your children not be allowed to protect and defend our nation without having to hide in a closet?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:14 am

Let's talk about the draft.
Why hasn't Busch activated the draft?

Would it not give relief to our sons and daughters who are being forced to re up when they have already done their tour of duty and paid any debt owed to our nation?

Would it not take young men and women out of the high risk environment of the inner city and give them a chance to grow up before they get caught up in the drugs and violence that seem to be eating them up.

Nope Busch won't activate the draft because he knows its political suicide. Just bringing back registration raised more then eyebrows back in the early 80's.

That and the military doesn't want them anyway. They want the educated middle class to join todays modern armed forces. They don't want to spend time teaching soldiers to read and use modern electronics. So now they come with this selective draft. WTF is this BS?