# Democrat Race



## Bobm

Seeing as Fireball gave up in the face of logic and facts ( good move ) I thought I would put something down to keep our sleepy college kids aware of whats going on in the political process so......
DEAN VOWS TO FIGHT ON, CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN SET TO ABANDON

You know things aren't looking too good when your own campaign chairman is threatening to quit the race before you are. Such is the life of Howard Dean. Even though the guy would make a terrible President, you almost have to feel sorry for him. *The Dean fans definitely can't call their guy a quitter, that's for sure.*According to Steven Grossman, chairman of the campaign, "If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first." It turns out it won't be a far reach, as Grossman was the chairman of Kerry's 1996 Senate race. Since Dean is running 40 points behind Kerry in Wisconsin and will not win there, his campaign chairman is actually resigning.

The latest from Dr. Dean is this: "We're not dropping out after Tuesday, period." That's about as firm as you can get. Dean is probably hanging on to see if the story about Kerry's affair takes hold. The election is still months away. Anything can happen.

*Despite the Democrats' plan to front-load the primaries and get a nominee early, this is all far from over.*
NOT SO FAST, JOHN KERRY: EDWARDS TAKE OFF THE GLOVES

In an otherwise dull and boring Democratic debate last night in Wisconsin, John Edwards provided some interesting moments. With the other candidates realizing the primary was all but over, it was turning into a John Kerry love-fest. Even Dean joined in, praising Kerry.

After standing there listening to Kerry over and over talk about taking on George Bush in the general election, John Edwards finally spoke up. "Not so fast John Kerry. We're going to have an election here in Wisconsin this Tuesday. And we've got a whole group of primaries coming up. And I, for one, intend to fight for every one of those votes." It's about time somebody did something to break the monotony. *One of these guys needs to stay around long enough to see if Kerry, as Wesley Clark put it, "implodes over an intern issue."*

And then there was Al Sharpton. For someone who has no chance of winning anything (except more frequent flyer points) he had a few amusing things to say. When asked about the deficit, he said "I'm the only one in here that all my life had to deal with deficit spending. I was born in a deficit."

There are worse places to be born.

WILL THE DEMOCRATS RETRACT THEIR AWOL CLAIMS? OF COURSE NOT...

Does the information released by President Bush about his National Guard service answer all your questions? 
Yes, good 
No, why not?

Well, it turns out that doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures Democrats are using as proof that George Bush did not "show up" for his Guard duty there. The DNC is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, has recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty. He now says his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease. Now, meaning no disrespect to those and their loved ones that are grappling with this terrible condition, you have to wonder about the Democrats. Terry McAuliffe needs to check his sources a little better.

Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say that not only did he remember Bush in Alabama, but that it was Turnipseed himself that introduced the two. Oops. And really...the media is completely asleep at the switch on this one. *How many people that you saw a few times do you remember from 30 years ago? Exactly, not many. *
And what about that story from Lt. Col Bill Burkett claiming that he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and seeing it happen? Turns out that his own corroborating witness disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.

*Never let the facts get in the way of your Bush-hating.*


----------



## fireball

Yeah, the republicans seem to get alzheimers alot, after some people talk to them. Remember Regan? or not, you probably got alzheimers as well bob.

I stopped posting on the other thread for a simple reason. You can not force someone with downs syndrome to learn above their intelligence level, so I gave up on you bob. You keep posting your what ifs and the skies falling logic. You say the repulicans don't work on fear, but you live your political life by it. Oh, by the way, Clinton said he didn't recieve sex either, I guess I should start believing him. Their are still 9 months that he dissappeared in Alabama and got out on an early discharge so he could go to school instead of fight for his country. Bob, if you don't have the balls to admit that what went on with him at that time wasn't favoritism, then your life is even more worthless than I could have imagined. I am not going to sit here and waste my time debaiting people who all the sudden can remember stuff that they swore by less than two yrs ago. Money talks, suckers walk, bob. Don't be a sucker.

A little qoute with the link for you bob, these are bush's own words.



> During the Vietnam War, Guard units were rarely called up, and "the Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men," the Air National Guard says in a history posted on its Web site.
> 
> Bush acknowledged in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he had not volunteered to go to Vietnam, and he called the war a "political war." But he said he supported the government and would have gone had his Guard unit been called. "I put in my time, proudly so," he said.


Did bush admit that he called the vietnam war a "political war". That hippy peace loving doper. I can't believe we have someone in office who didn't agree with the the war in vietnam. Those are his own words Bob.

Some more for the young guys on here, so they can be enlightened to the facts and not bobs select statements.



> The White House also released previously distributed statements from Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., personnel director for the Texas Air National Guard from 1969 to 1995, who reviewed Bush's military records at the request of his campaign four years ago.
> 
> 'In terms of actually reporting for your duty, that would not be reflected on the pay notification, or pay stub.'
> 
> - DAN SMITH
> retired U.S. Army colonel
> 
> Lloyd said the review showed that Bush had "satisfactory years" for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74, "which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."
> 
> Lloyd has said Bush's early discharge was not uncommon for pilots or other crewmen who were to leave soon and had been trained on jets that had become obsolete, as was Bush's case.
> 
> But retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year military veteran, questioned the usefulness of the latest information.
> 
> "Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out," Smith said. "It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period. In terms of actually reporting for your duty, that would not be reflected on the pay notification, or pay stub."


Link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4230576/

Did you notice, that about a qtr of his report was blacked out, so no one could review the records. His criminal history was blacked out along with service duties. That would be like giving you my birth certificate with everything but my name blacked out, it only proves that it is a cover up.

And finally, the most damning evidence of all.



> Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett told CNN that in 1997, he overheard Joe Allbaugh, Bush's chief of staff while Bush was Texas governor, tell the adjutant general of the Texas National Guard to gather Bush's files and "make sure there wasn't anything there that would embarrass the governor." About 10 days later, Burkett said, he saw many of Bush's files in a trash can. (Guardsman says he saw Bush's Guard records in trash)


Seems all the wrong people remember about bush, them dang bush bashers, seems to be alot more of them then bush supporters.

Link http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS ... s.records/

Read the link bob, these allegations of record tampering have been around since 2000, when Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, brought them to light. That was 4 yrs ago bob, not just recently.


----------



## fireball

Hey bob, name the men in your unit in vietnam. If you don't remember them, then I bet you weren't even in a combat unit. You probably were a supply clerk on the coast. Don't give me that can't remember who they served with crap, you talk to most vets who served their time and they will know for sure. You talk to your old school teachers and they will remember you, I am sure, as the slow learner in the sixth grade, you did get past that grade, didn't you? Don't remember, that is the republican montra.


----------



## gandergrinder

I often wonder if both of you are blinded by your allegiance to a political party?


----------



## Bobm

I freely admitted that Bush got preferential treatment getting into the guard and I freely admit that the National Guard was widely reguarded as a safe haven for anyone my age with a low draft number. I don't think there is enough credible evidence that his records were purged or that he was awol. Although I even granted you that if it did happen it was wrong. Read the posts and loosen your undies. My whole point of round one is that we can't let this time become a political war or the same result will replay itself. Nice to talk to you again. Peace Brother.


----------



## fireball

I vote for the person I think will do the best. I am anti abortion, anti welfare dependancy and anti government spending. I just call it like I see it and I see that clinton was a liar, a good statesmen and budget balancer, but a liar. I see that bush has no skills what so ever, other than trying to frighten us into buying his war. I vote pretty much 50/50 locally, as different state legislature candidiates serve different pursposes. I can gaurentee you bob has never voted down the middle on anything. He could have the grand wizard of the clan running for president and he would vote for him just becuase he was republican, cause you know he wouldn't run as a democrat. I voted for Hoavan last election...mistake, not to be made again. I voted for Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Clinton and no one for president last election, as they were both idiots, one of them just got it handed to him.

As bob posts the words that try and prove his point, what point I don't know, other than the fact we are in a presidential yr and these guys will fight tooth and nail till the one with the most money wins. Here is a statement from the same debate by dean, about bush.



> "I think George Bush has some nerve attacking anybody about special interests," the former Vermont governor said about the Bush campaign's attack on Kerry. Dean accused Bush of "systematically looting" the American treasury and giving it to special interests.


Link http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html

This is referring to the smear ads that bush has already started running against kerry, he must be afraid already, but I get a sense this is bush's life, being afraid all the time.


----------



## Bobm

There you go with the Southern ******* Grand wizard nonsense again, lighten up I'm trying to. I do vote usaually vote Republican but again if you read my previous posts I suggested voting for Bush because I favor his position in Irag but vote for the Libertarians for the Congress. Hardly a straight ticket vote. Try again , and be nice :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Oh and its common Knowledge that both Bush and Kerry and probably the rest of Congress are indebted to so called special interests that not what the republicans are saying. They are saying the Kerry is being a phony for claiming to not be. Which I guess is silly because they are all phonies about the money in politics issues, and yes I'm including my "friends" the Republicans. :roll:


----------



## gandergrinder

As a young person I find almost all politicians in our country repulsive. I can see it even at the college level how two faced things really are. Have you ever talked to people and known full well they are just telling you things you want to hear, but in the back of their mind they are thinking how they are really going to do it. Thats the feeling I get when I talk to people in the political arena.

I am actually disgusted that I have to take part in political activities however I feel it is my obligation as a citizen of this country to do so. I think many of the people my age feel this way about politics. It's hard to participate in something that you feel so far away from especially at the national level. The actions of the people elected to office often have great consequence on my life yet I have very little recourse.

I see politicians spewing misinformation on issues that are often to difficult for most of us to grasp. In the process they one side the issue down enough to play off peoples emotions making them nothing more than zombies who can no longer think freely. I know because I catch myself doing it.

I guess I find the whole process rather frustrating.


----------



## fireball

Yeah, I hear ya gander. Working for a fortune 500 company, we get smoke blown up our arses daily. We have been working 6 days a week for the last 8 months. When we had our state of the company address by the VP in charge of operations, a worker asked the question, "when will we get some time off to spend with our familys?" The answer he got was so absurd, it started laughter in the whole building. The answer was, "we understand that family is important, your family should come first. But here at (fill in the blank), we are a family as well, and we need you right now." Man, he didn't even offer to kiss us, he just told us to stay in the bent over position. If it wasn't for the money, (money is evil) I would pursue another career, but the money is to good and hopefully this new manufactoring proscess we have been implementing for the last yr starts working, instead of screwing things up. Everything was fine, until they wanted to "lean" everything out, now we can't keep parts in stock to build what we need, so we work every saturday and many work volunteer sundays. Oh well, being a college student, you will soon learn that all that glitters isn't gold.


----------



## Bobm

See fireball I knew we could agree on something, I feel the same way as your last post even though we are a small company we get the same BS family this, family that but its never sincere.

Gander Grinder, I know its frustrating but its important to be involved in politics. I was just like you when I was a kid girls, beer ect' was my focus but with the internet it doesn't really take a lot of effort to be informed. Read as much as you can stand adn don't believe anything thats not consistant with what you know to be true unless you can verify it, but try to be informed and vote your beliefs whatever they are.


----------



## Bobm

KERRY HAS TO BE KIDDING ... RIGHT?

This is oh so transparent. You've heard about that letter that John Kerry sent to President Bush, haven't you? Listen to this: Kerry wrote Bush saying "Over the last week you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation." What B.S.

What prompted this letter? A statement from Our Georgia Senator Saxby Chambless saying "When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems folks in Georgia are going to look beyond what he says and look at his voting record."

No look again at what Chambliss said:

"When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems folks in Georgia are going to look beyond what he says and look at his voting record."

And look again at what Kerry wrote to Bush:

"Over the last week you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation."

You did notice, didn't you, that Chambliss' statement made absolutely no mention whatsoever of Kerry's service in Vietnam or his speaking out against the war. Chambliss' statement was directed at Kerry's voting record. Kerry knows it, and he knows that his voting record on defense is indefensible. So ... the game plan here is to turn every single criticism of Kerry's voting record in the U.S. Senate into a slam on his service in Vietnam and his antiwar activities.

The Democrats want you to believe that if you go to Vietnam, suffer three minor wounds, two of which don't even take you off the battlefield, and then head back to the United States with four months of Vietnam service under your belt, you are forever inoculated against any charge that you have a weak voting record on national defense.

That's the Max Cleland approach. Cleland goes to Vietnam, suffers greatly as a result of an accident that did not occur in battle, and then becomes a United States Senator who believes that he can use his Vietnam service as a protective cloak while voting repeatedly against homeland security measures until government employee unions are satisfied that they will be essentially running the show. If your political opponent happens to mention this pandering to government employee unions, you are assailing his patriotism.

If you have any rational and logical thought capabilities at all 
you can easily see how John Kerry formulated his game plan for seeking the presidency.

When Kerry first started dreaming of a run for the candidacy he knew that he had some pretty tough things to overcome. His protests against the Vietnam war were going to be somewhat of a problem at a time when American soldiers are fighting terrorism abroad. Kerry knew that his Vietnam protests problem would be compounded by his association with Jane Fonda and the statements he made to congress about the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam. He also knew he would have a problem with that event staged for the media where he claimed to throw his Vietnam medals over a fence at the Capitol. (It was later revealed that Kerry actually kept his medals, but threw away the medals of another Vietnam vet.).

Then there was Kerry's voting record in the Senate. It wasn't exactly the voting record one would want to bring to a campaign at a time when America is fighting a war against terrorism. Kerry has voted against almost every new Pentagon weapons program since he was sworn in. He voted against pushing Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991 and voted against continued funding of our efforts in Iraq in 2003. 
Antiwar protests --- an association with Jane Fonda --- slandering American soldiers --- propping up Saddam --- an anti-military voting record --- plus a record in Vietnam that isn't quite as gleaming as the media portrays ... all campaign problems to be dealt with.

So ... here's the plan:

First you start bringing up your service in Vietnam in every single campaign appearance. Every single time you open your mouth before a group of people you mention that "Oh, by the way, I served in Vietnam."

After virtually every American with a television set knows full well that you served in Vietnam, you send your myrmidons out to question Bush's service in the National Guard. Democratic party hacks and operatives are enlisted to use terms like "AWOL" and "deserter" in describing Bush's service. All the while you pretend to take the high road by staying above the fray, though you do make a public statement that equates service in the National Guard with dodging the draft.

OK ... the stage is set. You are a Vietnam hero ... and Bush, having hidden in the Air National Guard, is essentially a glorified draft dodger. Now every single time your protests, your association with Fonda, your lies about American soldiers in Vietnam, your strongly anti-military voting record in the Senate, and your absurd idea that terrorism is a law enforcement, not a military problem is brought up, you can bellow that a man who didn't serve in Vietnam is challenging the patriotism of a man who did.

Do you want to see the Kerry game plan in action? Just this weekend Kerry told reporters "I don't know what it is that the Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

*See how easy it is? His anti-defense voting record means nothing. *His vote against continued funding for our troops in Iraq means nothing. His vote against pushing Saddam out of Kuwait ..... all of this doesn't matter because HE served in Vietnam and the people who are criticizing his votes didn't.

Thankfully, the Bush campaign folks aren't going to be intimidated by this "You can't criticize me, I served in Vietnam" tactic. Yesterday the Bush campaign responded to Kerry's absurd and transparent letter: "Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or your military service, but your votes and statements on issues now facing our country. Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the war on terror."

Just watch the campaign, my friends ... and see how well the Kerry strategy works. The media will love it and will prop it up until they look ridiculous doing so. I hope Kerry Beats Edwards because Edwards has got some sensible things to say when he gives speeches.


----------



## Bobm

If I were John Edwards, I would definitely stay in the race.

JOHN KERRY ... DEFENSE STALWART.

*DO YOU KNOW *that John Kerry voted against most of the weapons programs that are being used by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Do you want a list? Of course you do. So ... here we go with a list of some of the weapons programs that John Kerry opposed while serving in the U.S. Senate: (Remember now ... John Kerry says that this review of his voting record in the Senate is "attacking his patriotism.")

The B-1 bomber.
The B-2 bomber.
The F-15 Eagle tactical fighter
The F-14D Tomcat fighter
The AH-64 Apache Helicopter
The AV-8B Harrier "jump" jet
The Patriot Missile
The Aegis air-defense system
The Trident missile

Kerry also sought to reduce the funding for procurement of the following:

The M1 Abrams tank
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The Tomahawk cruise missile
The F-16 Falcon fighter/attack jet

Now ... don't you wonder just how our military would have handled things in Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq without these weapons programs? And you want this man to be our Commander in Chief? I sure hope not.


----------



## Fetch

Here Bob analyze this & give me a report why it can't work ???

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PlanB_contents.htm

and part 2

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m127 ... icle.jhtml


----------



## Old Hunter

Bobm Whatever the subject from dogs to political opinions I cant find one thing that I dissagree with you on.


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm

I know how the liberals would handle the terrorists. We would be on our knees apologizing for our existence.

Some of these liberals are kind, good hearted people. I think the world of some of them, but they feel, they don't think, and there is the very scary problem. Well Bob lets hope there is enough of us to keep America safe for another four years. When the danger is past then we can take their candidates serious again------maybe.


----------



## Bobm

NO MORE MR. NICE GUY: PRESIDENT BUSH STRIKES BACK

After weeks of the Kerry campaign's attacks going unanswered, President Bush finally took off the gloves and let him have it. Welcome to Campaign 2004. It's about time.

Speaking at the Republican Governor's Association reception in Washington, Bush responded to weeks of attacks from John Kerry. "The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one Senator from Massachusetts," said the president to loud applause. *It's long past time somebody exposed John Kerry's ever-changing positions. Where he stands depends on the audience. What a fraud.*
Here's an idea! How about John Kerry debating himself? :lol:

The president also took issue with the Democrats when it comes to national security, which is, by far, the most important issue this election year. He defended his decision to invade Iraq by saying "no friend or enemy today doubts the word of the United States. Our opponents say they approve of bold action in the world, but only if no other government disagrees. They now agree that the world is better off with Saddam out of power. They just didn't support removing Saddam from power." And then, in what could have easily been the line of the night: "Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election ," and the crowd just roared. Of course, before the invasion , Saddam won re-election with 99.9% of the vote. We haven't dug up the 0.1% that voted for somebody else yet.

This is why this election is so important...the choice is clear. You can keep a president who believes that Islamic terrorism must by exterminated by any means necessary and will go to any length to protect the safety and security of the United States, or, you can vote for John Kerry, who believes terrorism is a law enforcement problem.
*The stakes have never been higher*.

JOHN KERRY STILL THINKS HIS VOTING RECORD IS OFF-LIMITS

Senator John Kerry continues to whine about the Republicans "attacking his patriotism" just because they question the votes he made in the Senate on national security. What a hypocrite....at the same time he is attacking the Bush record, he is saying that attacking his own record is an attack on his patriotism because "that's the game they play." What game are you playing, Senator?
Kerry says he will not allow questions about his commitment to defense to be raised by Republicans who never fought in a war. Oh..I get it. If you didn't fight in a war, specifically the Vietnam war, you have no right to question Kerry's voting record. What a complete load of BS. This seems to be the Democrats' strategy this year: Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. It's all Kerry talks about. Doesn't the Kerry campaign realize that Americans are more concerned about the war we're currently fighting than the one that ended 30 years ago? Apparently not.

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot shot back: "Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism. We have praised repeatedly his patriotism." Kerry was asked for examples of the Bush administration attacking his patriotism, and he said that the Bush campaign plans to question his outspoken opposition to the war after he returned. "That reflects on the service." No, it doesn't. *Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam on The Mall in Washington with Jane Fonda.* :******:


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman you're right if the liberals get in control we would be on our Knees and Islamic terrorists would behead us!
Old hunter thanks but surely you'll find something :lol: 
Fetch I 'll try and read that thing this weekend I had to drive for 13 hrs to see a customer today and I'm pooped. good night


----------



## Bobm

10 states go to the polls on Tuesday for the "Super Tuesday" primary, and so that means we got treated to yet another debate last night. In addition to it just being the same old same old, it was outright boring. The Democrats really need to do a better job keeping their audiences awake.

John Edwards made his pitch that he was the better candidate because of his blue-collar roots. Apparently only he can know the pain of poor people. Yeah --- right.

John Kerry? He seems is running for the President of Vietnam. *Kerry tells us that he has the background to serve in office because--why else, you guessed it--he served in Vietnam.* Kerry is also running ads in Tuesday's primary states that start out with a picture of a young Lt. Kerry in Vietnam. *I guess he's hoping people will forget his 20-year voting record afterward.*

Edwards again said that he would not go negative in the debate, but there was an interesting moment when the candidates were pressed on the issue of the death penalty. Kerry said that he opposed the death penalty except for terrorists, then went on to say that the death penalty has compromised America's civility as a nation. That's interesting...will we be compromising our civility when we execute Osama Bin Laden? Nobody asked that one. Edwards supports the death penalty.

Kerry was asked why he now says that gay marriage should be up to the states, but voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage act that would have done that very thing. He said his views on the law's constitutionality were "incorrect." This is an interesting new tactic we'll probably hear more about as Kerry's record is examined. Essentially he is saying "I was wrong then, but I'm right now." *He really could debate himself.* :lol:

Oh..and no Democratic debate would be complete without a funny line from Al Sharpton...so here it is. About gay marriage, Sharpton said: "The issue is not who you go to bed with. The issue is whether either of you have a job when you get up in the morning."

The next debate is Sunday night in New York.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

I think we need to start a new forum called Bobm's Soapbox or Bobm and Fireball's Perpetual Debate Forum.



Bobm said:


> This, the big new increase for the arts, the prescription drug benefit ect. I am not voting republican this year and believe me I'm one of the most conservative people you can meet. I' ve voted republican for thirty plus years. I don't like kerry or any of the Dems either but I can't really tell the difference from the republican and the Dems they all buy votes anyway they can. Their only real interest is staying in office. I have many staunch republican friends that feel the same way. I think we have another one term president, At least I hope so.


I liked you better this way Bobm. :beer:

RC


----------



## Bobm

I thought I was being pretty evenhanded. Just giving everybody up dates. :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Realizing it's Tuesday or bust, John Edwards went on the offensive in Sunday's debate in New York. Up to this point, John Edwards was promising not to go negative and to keep a positive message. Trailing in most polls, the Senator from North Carolina is realizing that desperate times call for desperate measures.

Sitting on the moderating panel was none other than big-time liberal Dan Rather. Should have made things easy with old reliable throwing softball questions, but it didn't work out that way. Edwards called out Kerry for proposing more government spending than he could pay for. Kerry questioned Edwards claim to being an outsider, pointing out that he had been in the Senate for the last 5 years. He has a point...Edwards is a multi-millionaire trial lawyer who is getting 50% of his campaign contributions from--you guessed it-- trial lawyers. *Sounds like the common man to me.*
And of course, just like all the other debates, Al Sharpton did not disappoint. He got into it with Rather, complaining that he wasn't getting enough speaking time. Sharpton said he would not "sit here and be window dressing." Kerry got in a zinger of his own. When asked by Edwards "do you believe we are going to change this country out of Washington D.C.?," Kerry answered yes, because that's where Congress and the White House is. Nice comeback.


----------



## Bobm

A $290,000 question for Edwards

March 1, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Sen. John Edwards got through last Thursday night's debate in Los Angeles, as he has his entire presidential campaign, without being asked an embarrassing question. How can he explain setting up a dummy corporation to avoid paying an estimated $290,000 in Medicare taxes in the two years before he ran for the Senate? It would be an embarrassing question for a self-described populist inveighing against privileges for the rich and powerful.

There were plenty of opportunities for Sen. John Kerry to bring this up during the debate's extended discussion of health care. Some of Kerry's key advisers worked on the 1998 North Carolina Senate campaign won by Edwards, when this issue was raised. But with Kerry on the brink of collecting a majority of delegates to guarantee the Democratic presidential nomination, he does not want to risk trouble with negative campaigning against his sole remaining serious opponent.

However, it is inconceivable that President Bush's crack researchers are not aware of the massive tax loophole utilized by Edwards


----------



## Old Hunter

This is going to be a hot one.


----------



## Bobm

Jpohyn Kerry has said over and over again that he thinks that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Well, just wait until you hear what he would do with the war on terror if he is elected president. This man is absolutely frightening.

Rather than continue the policy of destroying terrorists and the nations that harbor them, Kerry has said he would abandon the President's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for the actions of the Bush administration. *This is why this man must not be elected president, ever. *In a speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry called the war on terror "the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Apparently he would rather return us to the do-nothing appeasement of terrorists that was the policy under Bill Clinton. Remember, Osama Bin Laden was offered to the United States on a silver platter and the Clinton administration said no. What would John Kerry do to prevent another 9/11?

For example, Iran is known to be harboring top Al-Qaeda operatives. According to an Iranian dissident, *the hard-line clerics in Iran fear George Bush, but are rooting for John Kerry.*

If you are actually bright enough to understand that Islamic Jihadists have vowed to do everything they can to destroy all in the world that is not Muslim ... and that includes America ... and have promised to kill as many Americans as they can, wherever they can find them, then you are bright enough to understand what is at stake in November.

Here is the election in a nutshell:

*Islamic terrorists have pledged to see you dead, and your country destroyed*. Who do you want to put in charge of making sure this doesn't happen?

(A) A man who wants to send the FBI and other law enforcement agencies out there to find these terrorists, and then turn them over to an international court to be tried; or,

(B) A man who wants to send the U.S. military to search for these terrorists and to kill them before they kill us.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## MSG Rude

Vote (B)


----------



## Bobm

Well ... the battle now seems to be joined. *The most liberal Senator in the United States Senate, the most liberal Senator from Massachusetts, is going to be the Democratic nominee.* ????? What could they be thinking ?????Today John Edwards will drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination. He will then wait patiently for the call from Kerry to be his vice-Presidential nominee. Never, in modern history, have the Democrats crowned their prince this early in an open primary season.

This campaign has a long way to go ... and many things will become known about John Kerry that aren't known right now. Perhaps, though, you would like to respond to just a few thoughts:

The choice here is going to be crystal clear. It's a choice between a man who believes in the sovereignty of the United States, and a man who seeks to subordinate the sovereignty of the United States to the authority of the United Nations. It will be a choice between a man who wants to treat Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and one who wants to treat it as a war. A choice between a man who wants to arrest Islamic terrorists and send them before international courts for trial, and a man who wants to send the U.S. Marines to find these terrorists and kill them. We'll have a choice between a man who respects the men and women of our armed forces, and a man who called them killers and rapists even while they were still dying in the jungles of Vietnam.

*John Kerry seems to think that his four months of service in Vietnam inoculates him against any criticism of his defense-related voting record during his 19 years in the U.S. Senate*.  John Kerry will say that anyone who criticizes that voting record is attacking his patriotism. Only the type of mind that would vote for a Democrat would believe that.

Democrats ran to the polls and voted for Kerry largely for one reason and one reason only: because they hate Bush. Propelled solely by this hatred, they probably haven't stopped for just a minute to consider exactly what they are voting for. They got what they wanted, a front-loaded primary process where the nominee was chosen in six weeks. Now they can "get Bush." The only problem? Most Democrats have no idea what they voted for. We get to spend the next 8 months reminding them.

Do they know that John Kerry considers the war on terror a mistake? Do they realize that he believes terrorism is "a law enforcement problem?" Are they aware that Kerry has flip-flopped on every major issue? Is their hatred of Bush so all-consuming that they are blind to the issues the country faces? Do they realize John Kerry would raise their taxes? Increase the deficit? Probably not. It's all about hating Bush. Facts don't matter and neither does the future of the country. It's all emotionally-based.
But that's why we call them liberals.

With the nominee no longer uncertain, it will be interesting to see if the media picks apart Kerry's record. He has 19 years worth of votes to explain. And what about all of the campaign contributions? We've already had a few of those scandals surface. They seemed to have been swept under the rug and explained away by the Vietnam magic wand. That's what Kerry does if you back him into a corner on an issue, he reminds you of his service in Vietnam.

It's going to be an incredible eight months. Kerry Might win! Unbelievably only 6% of the country currently thinks terroism is the most important issue facing this country.
The media lies about the jobs issue might well succeed, its going to be interesting thats for sure.


----------



## Bobm

John Kerry has been running on his war record in a vastly more blatant way than previous candidates have done (George Bush the Elder, for example, or Bob Dole), he has opened the door for those who are qualified to express their views on his Vietnam record - both while he was there and after he returned.

One man with exceptional qualifications in that regard is retired Army Col. Glenn Lackey, who also knows something about life in the verbal combat zone known as Capitol Hill, where he served a stint as Chief of Staff for a Member of Congress.

Before that Lackey not only spent combat time in Vietnam, but also in Somalia and the Gulf War.

Recently, Lackey decided to express his thoughts on Kerry's public record, and being a very direct kind of guy, did it directly, by writing the following letter to Kerry, which I thought might interest readers of this space:

Dear Mr. Kerry;

After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, you testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents you say you witnessed: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Viet Nam."

Spread that on a farmer's field where it will do some good. I spent a year there in 1968-69 in a combat arms unit. I was a Field Artillery Forward Observer in an Infantry company and I saw combat every day until I was wounded. When I returned from the hospital, I was assigned to an artillery battery. I saw brave men fight and die; I saw brave, good men pass out all their rations to hungry kids, build churches and schools, donate to orphanages, cry silently at the sight of villagers slaughtered by North Vietnamese, but I never saw anything approaching the war crimes that you happened to witness as your boat sped by villages on the river bank. If you witnessed atrocities and did not report them, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. If you lied, you are simply unfit for leadership at any level. The most serious incident I witnessed was a young sergeant who grabbed the arm of a Vietnamese woman during a village search. An older, more experienced noncommissioned officer knocked the sergeant to the ground and told him, somewhat forcefully, that that woman was someone's mother and would be treated with respect. That's it, Kerry, that's my confession - I didn't report the incident.

I have children, and my children have children. They will, perhaps, stumble upon your words, much as one might stumble upon a pile of dog droppings. I do not relish the thought of having to explain that your "experiences" are either a bald-faced lie, or you belong to that less-than-1% of Viet Nam veterans who committed war crimes/atrocities. Either way, your words do great harm to the institution of the Senate, my home state of Massachusetts, the Armed Services in which I proudly served for 27 years, and the very country that you aspire to lead.

Is it true that you single-handedly prevented a vote on a Senate version of H.R. 2833, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2001 - a bill that passed the House by a vote of 410-1? There are many who believe that our failure to speak decisively on that issue cost the lives of thousands of Montagnard tribesman in Viet Nam. Where do you stand on H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003? Will you support a parallel bill in the Senate? Is it true that you served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs and in that role you fought hard to limit the expenditure of funds to investigate sightings or search for remains? You have, I believe, been a steadfast, staunch and vocal advocate for normalizing relations with Viet Nam. Could it be that your beloved first cousin, Mr. Forbes, CEO of Colliers International, recently signed a contract with Hanoi worth billions of dollars? Any truth to the rumor that you didn't really fling your "hard-earned" military medals over the White House fence in a juvenile fit of pique as you say you did, but rather, you threw your roommate's medals instead?

I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and your, sir, are no war hero.

-- Glenn Lackey


----------



## Bobm

I present to you the lead paragraph in an article which appears in today's edition of The Independent from London:

"If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide."

Now ... just why is this? You can search the newspapers and the Internet for commentary by a lot of people a whole lot smarter than me who are adept at using the language of international diplomacy who present all sorts of complex reasons why the "world" would elect John Kerry.

No flowery, pretentious language here. I can 'splain this to you without trying to impress you with multisyllabic words and complex thoughts difficult to absorb. It's just this simple: *These people would vote for Kerry because he would weaken us and empower them.*

The United States is the most powerful nation in the world .... culturally, politically, economically, and militarily. The U.S. is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. You may not like that ... and many people in other countries certainly don't like it ... but it is reality.

Question: You do understand, don't you, that some nation is going to dominate the world. Some way, some how, through force, sheer size, happenstance or the mere operation of the laws of nature, some nation is going to dominate. It cannot be any other way. As long as there are nations it will be completely impossible for this world to exist without the dominating influence of one of those nations or one culture. If you aren't happy that the United States just happens to be that nation right now, tell me -- which nation would you chose?
So ... the United States dominates, and much of the rest of the world, especially the Euro-weenies, don't like it one little bit. These people think that the United States simply should not have the right to exercise its power, to use its military superiority, without their permission! How dare George Bush not seek the express approval of the United Nations before he takes actions which he believes necessary to protect his people and his nation? How dare George Bush not seek European approval of every element of his plan to attack and destroy international Islamic terrorism?

Why would John Kerry win a world-wide election for president of the United States? The rest of the world would like to see a weaker America. The weaker we are, the stronger they can become. The less our influence, the greater is theirs. The rest of the world would like to see America grovel at their feet for permission to use our military in our own self defense, to protect Americans and American interests across the globe. The rest of the world wants to see America engage in a glorified international game of "Mommy May I?", with the useless United Nations as the mommy. And --- you know what? John Kerry is ready to give the rest of the world exactly what it wants. Kerry has been hammering Bush for what Kerry believes to be his foreign policy failures. What failures? The failure to get the permission of the rest of the world for every action he takes in the international theatre. *John Kerry wants to subordinate the sovereignty of the United States to the authority of the United Nations and the international community, and the international community loves him for it.*
I want you to go back to that lead paragraph in the Independent article again. There's some nuance in that writing that has been bothering me, and I think I've figured it out. The paragraph reference "the fifty states and the District of Columbia." No reference to the United States. Why couldn't that paragraph read "If the human race as a whole, rather than the citizens of the United States, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide." Well, if the goal is to weaken the 800 pound gorilla, why even mention that it exists?


----------



## Bobm

Here, then, since John Edwards was too polite to mention them (though President Bush won't be), is a guide to some of Kerry's reversals on substantive issues. This list doesn't include quickly withdrawn gaffes, such as Kerry's recent suggestion (retracted after an uproar from Jewish groups) that he might make James Baker or Jimmy Carter his Middle East envoy. 
It doesn't include long-renounced youthful indiscretions, such as his proposal after returning from Vietnam to eliminate most of the CIA. It doesn't include less clear-cut sins of omission and opportunism, such as his stirring denunciations of companies caught in accounting frauds, even though he supported a 1995 law protecting those companies from liability. 
And it doesn't include the inevitable fund-raising hypocrisies that accompany all modern campaigns, such as his donations from some of the "Benedict Arnold" companies he routinely rips on the trail, or his bundling of contributions from special interests despite his high-minded rejection of PAC money. Even so, the list is long, and it isn't all-inclusive. Kerry's supporters cite his reversals as evidence of the senator's capacity for nuance and complexity, growth and change. His critics say they represent a fundamental lack of principles. Either way, we'll be hearing a lot about them over the next eight months. And I love that :beer:

Kerry's Original Position VS. Kerry's Revised Position 
*Welfare Reform * 
In 1988, Sen. Kerry voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me." 
During his 1996 re-election campaign, when his Republican challenger, Gov. William Weld, was calling him soft on welfare, Kerry voted for the much stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law. 
*Mandatory Minimums *
In 1993 and 1994, the senator from liberal Massachusetts voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining in an impassioned speech that long sentences for some dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it is sad."( I happen to agree with Kerry on this one,WOW!) He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense and would just create turf battles between federal and local prosecutors. 
Today, presidential candidate Kerry strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors. 
*Affirmative Action *I
In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency." 
Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside. 
*Death Penalty *
During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States. 
Today Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists. 
*Education Reform *
In a 1998 policy speech the Boston Globe described as "a dramatic break from Democratic dogma," Kerry challenged teachers unions by proposing to gut their tenure and seniority systems, giving principals far more power to hire and fire unqualified or unmotivated teachers. 
Today, Kerry once again espouses pure Democratic dogma on education. His Web site pledges to "stop blaming and start supporting public school educators," vowing to give them "better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors." It doesn't mention seniority or tenure. 
*Double Taxation *
In December 2002, Kerry broke with Democratic dogma yet again in a Cleveland speech, calling for the abolition of the unfair "double taxation" of stock dividends in order to promote more investment and more accurate valuations of companies. 
Five weeks later, after President Bush proposed a second round of tax cuts that included an end to this double taxation, Kerry changed his tune. He voted against the dividend tax cuts that were ultimately enacted by Congress and now hopes to roll them back as president, along with Bush's other tax cuts for upper-income Americans. 
*Gas Taxation *
In 1994, when the Concord Coalition gave Kerry a failing rating for his deficit reduction votes, he complained that he should have gotten credit for supporting a 50-cent increase in the gas tax. 
Today he no longer supports any increase in the gas tax. 
*Social Security *
During the 1996 campaign, Kerry said the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them." 
Kerry no longer wants to mess with Social Security. "John Kerry will never balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," his Web site promises. 
*Trade * 
Kerry has been a consistent supporter of free trade deals, and as late as December, when reporters asked if there was any issue on which he was prepared to disagree with Democratic interest groups, Kerry replied: "Trade." Slate editor Jacob Weisberg came away impressed by the depth of Kerry's commitment to the issue: "Unlike Edwards, he supports international trade agreements without qualification." 
But that was three months ago!  In recent weeks, when Kerry has talked trade, he has talked nothing but qualification, calling for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," claiming to agree completely with the protectionist Edwards on trade issues, and vowing to "put teeth" into environmental and labor restrictions in agreements like NAFTA. :lol:
Interesting stuff isn't it?


----------



## Bobm

Keep a sharp eye on the upcoming Bush campaign ads. My guess is that you will probably not see any new Bush campaign ads with any pictures relating to the Islamic* terrorist attacks of 9/11. *Is there anything wrong with those images? Of course not. The Bush presidency is defined by the events of 9/11 and what happened afterward. The Democrats know this .. and it doesn't make them happy.* They would much rather define the Bush presidency with their skewed view of our economy (Democrats say it's bad, it's not) and the jobs picture (Again, Democrats say it's bad ... and again, it's not.) The Democratic game plan was brilliant. They knew the ads with the images of 9/11 were coming ... so they lined up their personal lapdog, Harold Schaitberger, the president of the largest firefighter's union, and a few widows of 9/11 firefighters who also happened to be Democratic activists to scream in outrage as soon as the ads hit. The Democrats knew that their media fellow travelers would jump right in ... and ohhhh did they!

Rightly ignoring the calls of a pro-Kerry firefighters union and some victims' families, the Bush/Cheney campaign has said not only are they not pulling the ads, they're not changing them either. As you can imagine, this doesn't sit well with the pantywaists on the left. Too bad. As much as the Democrats are trying to bury 9/11 as if it never happened, somebody needs to remind people of that day. *Great ... it's about time we had a little backbone from the Bush people. Given the whining and complaining from the Democrats and the media, you would have thought President Bush was running ads on TV showing the clubbing of baby seals. *

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said "This is an entirely appropriate effort on our part, we believe, to recall a memory and to recognize what it is that it's going to take in terms of leadership to lead the war on terror." *Right on target, because remember: under a President Kerry, there would be no war on terror. And that, more than anything else, is why John Kerry must be kept as far away from the Oval Office as possible.*

This time they're not caving in.

Or are they?

OK ... so they're going to keep these ads running. In fact, I saw one of them on CNN this morning. My guess, though, is that you won't see any new Bush ads which remind Americans of 9/11. Running the ad they've already created is one thing ... creating more is another. We'll see if I'm right ... but for now, I think the Democrats are raising a victory toast.


----------



## Bobm

What does John Kerry stand for? This is now the political parlor game of the election season upon us. Of course, what doesn't John Kerry stand for?

There may be something purely comic in the anecdote about the *Kerry constituent who, in 1991, received two letters from the Massachusetts senator, nine days apart, the first opposing the Gulf War, the second supporting it.* But this anecdote is as good a metaphor as any for Kerry's stands on significant issues. *In January, for example, he was castigating President Bush for his "exaggeration" of the terrorist threat *-- a point on which John Edwards, his erstwhile rival, saw fit to take him to task. *In February, Kerry was still castigating Bush -- but this time for having mustered an inadequate response to the same terrorist threat. *"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror," Kerry said. "I believe he's done too little."

More amazing than the policy shifts that occur a month or days apart are the shifts that are little more than a jot of punctuation. Last fall, Kerry explained his decision to oppose the president's plan to fund the post-liberation reconstruction of Iraq: *"I voted against that $87 billion in Washington yesterday," Kerry said. "But let me make it clear, I am for winning the war in Iraq.*" Translation: I don't want to support the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq, but I want to stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Sometimes Kerry's position depends on who's listening. *An Arab-American audience *in Michigan last fall heard all about how Israel's security is just "another barrier to peace." *As Kerry put it, *"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the Green Line -- cutting deep into Palestinian areas. *We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security *over the long term, increase the hardships to Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

In the run-up to Super Tuesday -- which included *a primary in notably Jewish New York -- Kerry spoke out of a different side of his mouth. "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense*," he said. "No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel."

Kerry would go on to tell the New York Daily News that the old "barrier to peace" routine was "a not very artfully drawn paragraph" that reflected "the rush of the campaign." Rush of the campaign, sure -- *from one political audience to another.*
One belief John Kerry has held consistently is multilateralism. (No wonder the only mention of "war" in his Super Tuesday speech -- besides HoWARd Dean, John EdWARds, and Republican reWARds to the rich -- concerned a "pledge to rejoin the community of nations" to achieve "final victory in the war on terror.") *To John Kerry, alliances not blessed by the United Nations -- such as the one that liberated 25 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship -- don't rate, while unilateralism is burn-at-the-stake heresy.*

*Or is it? *Having heard Kerry's critique of the Bush administration's Haiti actions, the Daily News also reported that *Kerry said his administration would have given the rebels a 48-hour ultimatum to come up with a peaceful agreement. "Otherwise," Kerry was quoted as saying, "we're coming in."*

Otherwise we're coming in? "I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international force, *I'd do it unilaterally," Kerry explained. *Maybe it's that old rush of the campaign again. Or maybe Kerry reserves the right to act unilaterally in all cases outside America's strategic interests. 
Kerry said on Super Tuesday: "When I first led veterans to the Mall here in Washington to stop the Vietnam War ... it was a time when millions of Americans could not trust or believe what their leaders were telling them ... Now, today, many Americans are once again wondering if they can trust and believe the leadership of our country."

*Senator Flip-Flop is one to talk.*


----------



## Bobm

Have you seen those images on television yesterday? Did you see those trains in Spain blown to bits? *Now ... can you picture that same scene somewhere in the United States ... maybe in the Northeast corridor or in Chicago where tens of thousands of people commute by rail?*

So, you think this election is about jobs and health care? There are about 200 people in Spain who will no longer benefit from any health care, and another 1200 who probably won't be going to work for today .. or for a while ... or maybe never. Is Al-Qaeda back? Maybe they never left! The supposedly peaceful religion of Islam has struck again, brutally murdering 192 people, and wounding more than 1200. If you think the war on terror isn't important, then it's time to get your head out of the sand, or whatever dark region you have it stored.

Unless you have been living under a rock, by now you have heard what happened. 10 backpack bombs exploded within a 15-minute span, starting at about 7:40am yesterday aboard commuter trains. Police also detonated three more bombs. *A stolen van was found near Madrid containing seven detonators and an Arabic tape with Koran verses on it*. The Spanish government initially pointed the finger at a separatist group, but then a letter was faxed to Reuters by an Al-Qaeda-backed group. They referred to the attack as "operation death trains." The attack occurred 911 days after September 11th. Another letter was faxed to the Associated Press office in Cairo warning that America was next. That's right; Al-Qaeda says America is next.

*You have a role to play here. You have a decision to make ... and that decision will be made on November 2nd. You will decide who is going to lead this country in this time of peril .. this era of Islamic terrorism*. Maybe you'll want to chose someone who has proven that he will use the American military and whatever resources are available to him to hunt these terrorists down and kill them. Or maybe you'll want to chose the man who says that this is all a law enforcement problem; someone who, if he does manage to catch these Islamic predators with his glorified police force, will then turn them over to some international tribunal for trial. As the great Og Mandino once said, "Use wisely your power of choice."

Who do you think the thousands of people who have died at the hands of Al-Qaeda would choose? And who do you think the Al Qaeda supporters and sympathizers in the United States will chose?

And who do you think Susan Lindauer would chose? Who is Susan Lindauer? Read on ........

ALLEGED IRAQI SPY ONLY WORKED FOR DEMOCRATS

.... apparently Susan Lindauer is a spy.

You may have heard about this story involving a woman arrested yesterday for allegedly spying for Iraq, both before and after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. That's Susan Lindauer, and she has quite a history. She has worked for four members of Congress, Fortune, U.S. News and World Report, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Iraqi intelligence service. That's quite a resume. That's how it's being reported by the media, but let's look a little bit closer, shall we?

It turns out the four members of Congress that she worked for were all Democrats. She worked for some of them for a short time, and one says she doesn't remember her. Fine. But it's interesting how the media is not really reporting that she only worked for Democrats. The AP story initially reported that they were only "members of Congress." The party affiliation of those members wasn't mentioned. There is, though, one newspaper out there will name names, and that is The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In today's AJC you'll see a headline which reads "Accused Spy is Cousin of Bush Staffer." Here we have someone who has worked for four congressional Democrats .. and ONLY congressional Democrats ... and our local leftist rag identifies her as the cousin of a Bush staffer. *Anyone who doesn't believe the media is biased needs their head examined.*
Can you imagine if she had only worked for Republicans? The media would be spinning on its eyebrows and demanding accountability, wondering what it all meant, and writing endless columns about spies working in the Republican party. Interesting how the news gets reported these days, isn't it?

Oh and by the way...when are we going to start executing people for treason?


----------



## headhunter

BOBM, thanks for posting ......Don't worry, (no matter what fireball/cootkiller say) CHUCKLE,.....people read and listen to the posts you put out there. I appreciate the "jab'" in the ribs you create when you do what you do so well.......thanks for the "down home common sense".

...... ND elected Dorgan/Conrad (D) ONLY because of PURE political BS. The older generation got scared by the "If you vote Republican you'll never get your SS..blah blah pukin blah.....) and (the younger generation) .............the farmers who......well, got a point!!! (My hypocracy only goes so far Wyatt) Although I am in the AG sector I vote against my own pay raise because I vote for Morals/freedom/Religion/defense instead of publicaly funded programs and BS and the party that brings our country down.

If it wasn't for the twisted up Ag subsidies dependency act , ND would ALWAYS vote Republican. That is the party ND values revolve around. PERIOD.....Don't even try argue that one !! Just like TX or MT or WY or GA. Conservative is KING. Liberals need not apply in the Heartland. And yes, that is a fact, Jack.


----------



## zogman

I got this from my cousin's wife in Californa :beer: 
Hat's off to me :beer: This is my first cut and paste. Fetch beware! :thumb: And who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks :withstupid:

Don't forget: John Kerry is strong on defense

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Ages anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the Battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs. He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut
the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want? I HOPE Not!


----------



## Plainsman

Bobm, I too find your posts informative. I watch more news than any other form of television, but don't have time to stay as informed as I would like. You may enjoy a site called factcheck.com I check it regularly. They refuted Kerry's add about troops loosing benefits under Bush. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that many of us appreciate your efforts. Thanks.


----------



## Bobm

Yet more evidence today that the *standard-bearer for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has absolutely no political so*ul, and just makes things up as he goes along. Today's installment? The war in Iraq. Now, you know that Kerry has been both for the war, against the war, for it again, sort of against it and then for it again. What you may not know is just how ready he was a few years ago to do just what he criticizes President Bush of doing.

Speaking on CNN's "Crossfire" on November 12, 1997,* Kerry criticized the United Nations, France and Russia for not being tougher on Iraq. Not only that ... he even pointed out that the Clinton administration didn't need UN approval to act on Iraq. [/b]"The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests." He also went on to criticize the French for not being more helpful, and said that the issue wasn't just about weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq's breach of agreements. In other words, he said the same things then that the Bush administration has been saying all along. Holding Saddam Hussein accountable is only a good idea if there's a Democrat in the White House.

It's too bad for the Democrats that Kerry already has the nomination sewed up. They rushed the process, and now they've wound up with a lemon and no return policy. I guess they can always vote for Nader.

By the way ... a great line from the Bush camp over the weekend. sKerry, as you know, is challenging Bush to a series of monthly debates leading to the election. :lol: Bush officials said that perhaps it might be a good idea for Kerry to finish debating himself before he tries to take on the president.

:lol: :lol:*


----------



## Bobm

With gasoline prices near $2 a gallon in some parts of the country, drivers and businesses are understandably edgy. Rising gasoline prices reduce disposable income and make transportation, which impacts nearly every sector of the economy, more expensive. If gas prices get too high, it will adversely affect economic growth and slow down job creation.

Future gasoline prices will depend on many factors, including the scheduled production cutbacks by OPEC, which in large part are the direct consequence of the decline in the value of the dollar. Oil is priced in dollars, and when the dollar depreciates, the real value of oil declines to producers who must sell the commodity for dollars in global markets.

To maintain the purchasing power of a barrel of oil priced in depreciating dollars, producers must earn more dollars per barrel. It's as simple as that.

Because of its strong connection to the economy, the price of oil at the pump could become a prominent issue in the coming presidential campaign. This raises obvious questions: *where do the two candidates stand on gas tax increases?*
*Sen. John Kerry, D-Ma., has left no doubt where he stands. He wants to make gasoline more expensive by raising taxes and imposing misguided environmental policies that increase fuel costs even more.* Kerry believes these costs can be offset by a massive increase in the mandated fuel economy of automobiles, which he and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would impose by new legislation they have introduced. By some estimates, the Kerry-McCain legislation raising the Corporate Average Fuel Economy efficiency standards of vehicles would destroy 450,000 jobs, boost the sticker price of cars and do little to reduce imports of foreign oil.

*President Bush opposes increases in both federal gas taxes and so-called fuel efficiency standards*. Despite heavy pressure from the Congress, Bush continues to resist attempts in the Congress to increase federal gas taxes to pay for the swollen transportation reauthorization bill currently making its way to his desk. By threatening to veto that bill, he not only drew a line on spending increases (the Senate bill would add another $10 billion a year to deficit spending during the next decade), he also put a stop - for the time being - to the $125 billion gas-tax hike that many members of the House, including some Republican members and the Republican chairman of the Transportation Committee, want to impose on motorists. :******: You just can't trust anyone in congress on either side of the aisle,bastards!

By digging in his heals on the highway reauthorization bill, President Bush not only draws a sharp distinction between himself and Sen. Kerry - who sits on the Senate Transportation Committee, supported the bill in Committee and announced that had he attended the full Senate vote he would have voted yea - Bush also has positioned himself to propose a bold new reform to federal highway programs.

Despite spending huge sums of money motorists pay in gasoline taxes, federal transportation programs*, which cost $37 billion in 2004, *fail to deliver the essentials of what motorists deserve in return for the fuel taxes they pay Uncle Sam: less congestion, greater mobility, improved safety, lower pollution and higher road quality. They have instead turned into the world's greatest pork barrel.


----------



## Bobm

This is going to be a common theme throughout this election, and the Bush campaign needs to seize on this right away. Not only does the Democratic nominee for president switch positions as he sees fit, but *Senator John Kerry just tells outright lies*. That's right; when the truth doesn't suit his purpose, he just concocts something that does. Do you think the mainstream media would let a Republican get away with something like that? Of course not.

Today's tall tale centers on none other than the brutal communist dictator 90 miles off the Florida coast, Cuban President Fidel Castro. While pandering for Hispanic votes in Sunday's Miami Herald, *Kerry said *"I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world. And *I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation* to be tough on companies that deal with him" Sounds like pretty much the same thing as President Bush, right? Well, the newspaper did a little digging, and once again, Kerry's past comes back to haunt him.

*It turns out that Senator John Kerry actually voted against the Helms-Burton legislation*. Never let the facts get in the way of good campaigning, right? Let's just see if the media calls Kerry out on this one at his next press conference.

I doubt it.

Oh ... and while we're at it. *Yet another Kerry lie*. This one is about that continuing brouhaha over Kerry's statement that he met with foreign leaders who told him that they wanted him to beat Bush. Kerry's statement was recorded --- yes, recorded --- by a Boston Globe reporter handling pool coverage. Well ... this is turning into a problem for Kerry for two reasons. First, nobody seems to remember when he has met with any foreign leaders.  Second, he refuses to share with us the names of these foreign leaders he's been talking too.

Now it seems that sKerry wants to change his story. At a recent meeting with campaign donors sKerry was challenged about his statement that he had met with these mysterious foreign leaders. Kerry's respose? "I never said that. What I said was that I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States."

Seems like Mr. sKerry has a problem! Here's this tape recording where Kerry clearly says "met," and there's Kerry saying "I never said that!" :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm

It was okay when John Kerry could say that foreign leaders supported him over President Bush, because it suited his political purpose. Now that one of these "foreign leaders" have stepped forward, Senator Flip-Flop is singing a different tune. Sounds like a familiar refrain, doesn't it? *What a phony.*
Yesterday, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite, said that he was endorsing John Kerry for president of the United States. It took all of the three seconds for the Kerry campaign to issue a statement rejecting the endorsement, and saying this: "It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements." Excuse me? Oh really...well how about just a while ago when Kerry was saying that leaders of other countries had said they supported him? You see, when it comes to Kerry and his crew, the truth is only useful if it serves a purpose.

*What a crooked, lying bunch*.

*"REPUBLICAN" ???*JOHN MCCAIN STICKS UP FOR JOHN KERRY

Arizona Senator and liberal media darling John McCain, who never met a camera he didn't like, has now said that John Kerry is not weak on defense. When asked about Vice President Cheney's assertion that John Kerry was a threat to national security, McCain said "I don't think that. John Kerry is a good and decent man." *This coming from someone who supposedly supports the re-election of the Bush-Cheney ticket?*

This along with McCain saying the other day he would entertain the idea of being on a ticket with John Kerry, along with his disastrous support of the anti-free speech campaign finance reform makes you wonder just whose side this guy is on. *He is acting like the Kerry campaign is not attacking the president at all, which couldn't be further from the truth. *

McCain has said that he intends to campaign for President Bush and Vice President Cheney. *I guess he forgot to mention they would have to bend over and grab the ankles first.*


----------



## Bobm

Well, the media is serving up more fuel for the "Bush lied" crowd. Today's installment comes courtesy of disgruntled former White House employee Richard Clarke who is (surprise!) hawking a book. Clarke was an anti-terrorism advisor for Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. When the current President Bush took office, Clarke was stripped of his cabinet-level rank. I am sure that has nothing to do with any of this. Sure.

Clarke claims he was all but told by the President to manufacture a link between between 9/11 and Iraq. The White House claims they have no evidence the conversation ever took place. Here's a newsflash: people lie ... and people lie to sell books. Clarke also claims to have been repeatedly ignored while trying to warn about Al-Qaeda, and says the administration wasn't doing enough on terrorism. Riiight.

*All it takes is a little digging to realize this is nothing more than a partisan attack from a bitter Democrat. *It turns out Clarke is close to Rand Beers, who is advising the Kerry campaign. Of course, you'll never hear the mainstream media report that. And if Mr. Clarke was so concerned about national security, terrorism, and the administration's handling of it, then why did he wait until now to tell everybody about it?

Maybe because his book is coming out???????


----------



## Bobm

Ever since the National Journal rated Senator John Kerry more liberal than Ted Kennedy, *the Kerry campaign has been running as fast as it can away from the liberal label*. :lol: And that has some liberals wondering just why Kerry is so ashamed of his record. After all, that's their guy, so what's his problem?
In an open letter to John Kerry, the ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite accuses John Kerry of lacking the courage of his convictions, and says Kerry needs to explain his positions and stop running from his record.  This is so much fun to watch. :beer: *If Kerry thinks "liberal" is a dirty word, then how is that supposed to make all of his friends feel?*
Appearing on Sunday's 'Meet the Press' *Senator Edward Kennedy waffled (as he always does) when asked directly* if he thought John Kerry was a liberal, saying "labels don't make a lot of sense." Of course, labels only make a lot of sense when they're talking about the "right-wing attack machine."
Still more than 7 months to go...can you imagine how nasty and fun this campaign is going to get?

Here the link to the letter from Cronkite to Senator FLIP FLOP

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 ... 71,00.html
I Love it :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Fetch

Bob you have to quit this talking to yourself  & even worse is answering yourself :idiot:

We may pass a law making phyc evaluations part of getting a license & you maybe in a heap o trouble :roll: :gag: :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Fetch

Now Fetch I have enjoyed you posts for about a year now, and admire your spunk. You just have to be a conservative or your going to disappoint me terribly. What about the second amendment? What about the welfare state we are becoming? What about all these panty waist that want to appease the terrorists? I'm with Israel, dead terrorists don't kill innocent people. If you walk into a bar and you know two guys standing there, one is a very peaceful fellow, and the other will kick your behind with little provocation. Which one are you going to give any crap. Yup, same with these terrorists. Whinny little UN lovers give provocation to these cowards. Oh oh, I had only planned on the first two sentences. Anyway Fletch good evening to you, and put your mind to what kind of decoys will work best for terrorists. Oh that last statement --- hard to leave alone.


----------



## Fetch

I'd kill em all (terrorists) & let the religious fight over if it was right or wrong

We have something called a Neutron bomb that kills people not property -use one of those & many will see the light (for awhile) until the next one needs to be used

way too much politicing & worrying - want to be on top ??? be strong & do the right thing ??? -& that includes the the most economical solutions


----------



## Bobm

Fetch just keep reading and at least you will be informed.
*HE WAS JUST AN ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS LEADER*  
You've heard of CAIR, haven't you? That's the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This is a group that spends most of its time trying its best to ignore Islamic terrorism while searching for any incidents of insensitivity shown toward Muslims by weary Americans. 
CAIR has now made its feelings known on the death of Hamas terrorist Ahmed Yassin. *CAIR, of course, condemns Israel for the killing of Yassin*, and calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader." Wait ... it gets more ridiculous than that. CAIR says that the international community has to "take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence."
Thanks to James Taranto's Opinion Journal column, we can now take a look at the Covenant of the Hamas. This document was issued on August 18, 1988. It is the founding document of Hamas. CAIR calls Yassin an "Islamic religious leader?" Yeah .. the leader of Hamas. 
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the Covenant of the Hamas
Article 7: "The Day of Judgment will not come about *until Moslems fight Jews and kill them*. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."
Article 13: "So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement ... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad [holy war]."
Now just what was it that CAIR said in their statement on the death of Ahmed Yassin? Oh yeah ... "The international community must now take concrete steps to help protect the Palestinian people against such wanton Israeli violence." Read those bits from the founding document of Hamas ... and then spend a few of your precious moments thinking about how idiotic it is for CAIR to be imploring the international community to talk about "wanton Israeli violence." Didn't we read something about "fight Jews and kill them" and "there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him"? And the world needs to protect these goons from those bad, bad Israelis? I hope the Israelis open season on Hamas and Kill Arafat its something they should of done a long time ago. :beer:


----------



## Bobm

WASN'T A CRIME COMMITTED HERE?

And I'm talking about a crime committed by John Kerry. A serious crime.

There was a meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in in Kansas City in November of 1971. At that meeting there was a plan discussed to assassinate members of Congress. Now ... let's emphasize this point. *These anti-war Vietnam veterans were sitting there and discussing murder .. they were discussing the idea of murdering certain members of the Congress of the United States who were in favor of the Vietnam war. Well ... the idea was discussed, and the idea was rejected.*

The reports of that Kansas City meeting are disturbing enough. It gets more disturbing when you consider the fact that our not-yet-crowned Democratic candidate for president was a member of that organization. Things get even more interesting when you learn that Kerry was present and a participant in that meeting. *Yes ... John Kerry was there while his leftist anti-war colleagues were discussing murdering members of congress*.

Now when these reports first came out the Kerry campaign was quick to respond by saying that Kerry "never ever" attended that meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and that he had resigned the organization months earlier. Uh oh ... big oops. It seems that the FBI was interested in the activities of these veterans at that time, and they were being watched. More particularly, Kerry was being watched. The FBI records of that Kansas City meeting show that our presumptive Democratic nominee was at that meeting. No wiggle room ... he was there. Now it seems that the sKerry campaign lied when they said he wasn't.

*Time to backtrack. Since the FBI has surveillance records showing Kerry present at that meeting,* the Kerry folks need to conjure up a new statement. So now his campaign is releasing a statement saying that Kerry " .. had no personal recollection of this meeting .... [but] if there are valid FBI surveillance reports .... we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."

*"Historical footnote?" *The participation by a presidential candidate in a discussion about murdering U.S. Senators and Congressmen is a "historical footnote?" John Kerry's presence at and participation in this meeting is an "account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war?"

We're supposed to be satisfied with the revelation that Kerry wasn't particularly fond of the assassination proposals, and that resigned from the Vietnam Veterans against the war soon after that meeting. That's it? He resigned*? Well big whoop! You're sitting there at a meeting listening to your colleagues plan the murder of elected officials ... and you merely resign? Hey! How about going to the police? How about telling the FBI that you just heard some people discussing a plot to murder members of Congress?* Isn't it a crime to become aware of such a discussion and fail to report it to authorities?

I know ... we've been through this before ... but what if we were reading stories about a Republican presidential candidate who was present at a meeting where the murder of liberal Supreme Court Justices was discussed. Would we be satisfied to learn that the Republican candidate rejected the idea and then disassociated himself from the group having the discussion? Come on. We all know what would be happening now. The Democrats and their loyal media myrmidons would be howling in outrage. There would be demands for investigations ... criminal investigations ... and suggestions that the Republican candidate be charged with aiding and abetting an assassination plot. Believe me, it would be a major story.

With Kerry and his anti-war pals ... no media outrage.???? No demands for investigations into that Kansas City meeting and any role that sKerry played. Nothing. You might hear about it on Fox News, and you might read about it in the Drudge Report --- but that's pretty much it.

*This story won't get any traction in the mainstream DC and New York press corps because it doesn't serve the personal aims of the people who would carry it to the forefront.* Well over 90% of the people who are in a position to ask these questions about Kerry's involvement in that Kansas City meeting, and his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards, want Kerry to beat George Bush in November. If someone else pushes this story into the limelight, they'll groan a bit and give it a degree of due diligence. They're just as happy, though, to see it just go away.

So here's what you have to ask yourself. *Do you want a president who once overheard a discussion about assassinating members of Congress ... and then did nothing about it?*

Think about it. November is getting closer.


----------



## Bobm

In some effort to appear united behind John Kerry, the Bush-haters had a coming out party yesterday in what DNC party chairman Terry McAullife called "unity day." What he really should be calling it is "loser day," because that was who showed up. And what a day it was.

First of all, Howard Dean officially sold out the Deanie Babies and handed them over to John Kerry, formally endorsing the Democratic nominee. *All you people supporting Dean who thought he was somehow "different" have finally learned; he wasn't. Dean always was just another party establishment liberal that was going to wind up towing the company line.* Speaking about what he had in common with John Kerry, Dean finally told the truth; he's not George Bush. That is the only thing driving Democrats in this election. They have no ideas, no better policies, no answer to the war on terrorism. It's all about hating Bush. And then there was this jab. At a dinner last night attended by Presidents Carter and Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards and Kerry, Howard Dean said "The real issue is this: who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America? A group of people that never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who has served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?" I wonder what Bill Clinton thought of that, since of course, he never served overseas ... unless you want to call leading anti-war demonstrations overseas "serving." Well ... maybe Bill Clinton has never served overseas, but he's certainly been serviced overseas.

Come on .. look at this lineup a little more closely:

*Jimmy Carter ... 21% interest rates and cowering before the Iranians*. Also, the man who gave us the present Kim Jong Ill. The president who *never met a dictator he didn't like*.

*Al Gore ... Couldn't even carry his own home state *in a presidential election.

*Bill Clinton ... accused rapist .. impeached .. lied under oath *to deny a woman a day in court under a statute that, with great fanfare, he signed into law.

Also last night, President Carter called on Ralph Nader to drop out of the race, saying "I don't want you to cost the White House for the Democrats this year, like you did four years ago." *I thought Bush stole the election? Oh well, never mind. *


----------



## Bobm

The White House has announced that President Bush will throw out the first pitch at the St. Louis Cardinal's home opener. Presidents do this ... year after year. Can you believe that the Democrats have turned this into a political matter? Just as soon as the White House announcement was made the Democrats issued a press release slamming Bush for the trades made by the Texas Rangers while he was a part owner. Oh yeah. The voters are going to turn on Bush because he traded A-Rod.

How about some other Bush trades?

We traded a president with no moral compass for one with a strong sense of ethics and a devotion to the unmentionable God

We traded inaction against terrorists for a war on terrorism that has, in the words of terrorist leaders, Al Qaeda "disorganized and on the run."

We traded the Taliban in Afghanistan for a popular government that insures freedom and personal rights.

We traded rape rooms and mass graves in Iraq for the liberation of tens of millions of people.

We traded an economy in recession for one that is growing strongly.

All this ... and the Democrats are worried about Alex Rodriguez. Just what part of this Democratic campaign are we supposed to take seriously?

Maybe it was a April Fools press release.


----------



## Bobm

Last week there was good news for George Bush, and tragic news for everyone. One story made Americans feel good. The other story made all of us sick to our stomachs. The good story was the surprisingly good numbers showing almost 400,000 jobs created by our economy in March*. The bad news was the murder and desecration of four American civilians working in Iraq.

Here was the task facing the liberals at CBS. How can they use the "feel bad" story to make Americans feel a little less good about the "feel good" story? Well, believe it or not, they figured it out. Thanks to Dan Rather we now know that those four men who were killed in Fallujah were only there because they couldn't find decent jobs at home. On last Wednesday night's newscast Rather asked the question: "What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be, for some, the only job they can find."

These four men were former military. They were former Navy Seals and special forces operatives. They were earning a living the way they wanted to earn a living. One of these men was from Delaware. The unemployment rate there is 3.1%.

What we have here is a simple exercise by Dan Rather to try to slant the news so as to take a positive story and drag it down by associating it with a negative story. Another reason why fewer and fewer people are watching CBS news.

*Notice I said "jobs created by our economy." The economy creates jobs, not the government. This is something you might find difficult to comprehend if you were educated in democrat controlled government schools.


----------



## buckseye

Kinda curious bob were those jobs created in the boundries of this country or outside the boundries. I would say we created alot of jobs everywhere but in the USA.


----------



## KEN W

Bob...just wanted to let you know...I was at the Democratic Convention over the weekend...Very popular button there was...

Clinton may have lied....but nobody died!!!


----------



## Bobm

Ken, thats a typical simplistic slogan sounds good but no real substance 
( Don't take that personal, I've read enough of your stuff to believe you to be honest) but the current people controlling the democrat party sure are'nt! Clintons lack of response to repeated terroism World trade senterCole, Sudan ect. emboldend the terrorists and ultimately killed 3000 plus American civilians. Those terrorists were in place here in the Us and their plan was cooked up while Clinton was in office. Bush was caught flatfooted as well but at least he is doing something now. Gore would be tring to understand why they don't like us! 
Those jobs are here and there is a lot of employment opportunity here. And much to the Democrat Parties chagrin that trend will continue. :lol:


----------



## KEN W

This is a button...it's supposed to be a slogan and simplistic.

Also they had Bushisms on the big screen...direct quotes from news sources...talk about letting his mouth get in front of his brain.

Actually the phrase I liked best was this one...

Car transmissions are a lot like politics,,,

Put it in.... D to move forward
....R to go in reverse


----------



## Dano2

watching Sen. Ed Kennedy right now.
He says it how it is


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Ken. I love you, man.

You can boil things right down to the cogent points!! Few words, but great wisdom.

Bob. Take your rantings someplace else. We don't care what you have to say about Bush and Kerry. You are making a total fool of yourself. Did you ever hear the story about the shepard who cried "Wolf! to often?? We don't even read your stuff. You are wasting your time.


----------



## Bobm

Your correct Bush is pretty funny sometimes, The transmission joke is pretty funny also. At least we can get some entertainment out of this stuff :beer:


----------



## Bobm

I forgot to comment on Kennedy This is thrilling news. Ted Kennedy has taken it upon himself to be a principal campaign spokesman for John Kerry. Kerry knows how most of the country views Kennedy, and he would just as soon Kennedy shut his pie hole. But it ain't gonna happen.

Kennedy's speech yesterday was delivered before the Brookings Institute. Brookings is non-partisan, and they prefer their speakers to respect that non-partisanship. Kennedy's speech was supposed to be about health care policy. Instead it turned into an anti-Bush rant. Kennedy is not one to respect the desires of his hosts, not when it comes to partisanship.

Ted Kennedy is vile and repulsive. He has no credibility among the thoughtful and rational. Those who feel that fighting terrorism, and countries that support terrorism is our number one concern right now can only be thrilled that this hideous leftist has decided to carry the Kerry banner.
 *TEDDY KENNEDY SAYS IRAQ IS BUSH'S VIETNAM*  
Yesterday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, noted Bush-hater and preeminent moron Teddy Kennedy gave a partisan election-year speech slamming President Bush on just about everything he could think of. *That's right...Teddy Kennedy...the patron saint of all that is well and good in the Democratic party.*
The big headline-grabber was that he called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam." First of all, the comparison to Vietnam is flawed...there is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. In Iraq, the United States captured the country and remains in control. In Vietnam, over 50,000 American lives were lost. In Iraq so far, 610. While every death is a tragedy, it is worth pointing out the total to discredit Senator Kennedy's intellectually bankrupt assertion.

And how is this George Bush's Vietnam, anyway? Isn't it more of Bill Clinton's doing? How many years of UN resolution after UN resolution did we sit through, with President Clinton doing next to nothing about enforcing them? Kennedy went on: "Saying whatever it takes to prevail has become standard operating procedure in the Bush White House. In this administration, truth is the first casualty of policy." Well isn't this rich. *Teddy Kennedy is lecturing President Bush about telling the truth! What's next? A speech on sobriety?* :lol:

Kennedy also accused Bush of having the biggest credibility gap since Richard Nixon. Unfortunately Senator, you got that one wrong too. Those honors went to Bill Clinton. Nice try, though.


----------



## KEN W

Lets hope Kennedy is wrong for our sake....but why is it wrong to start saying he might be right???

And as far as credibility....Bush hasn't lost all of his yet...but he is well on the way.


----------



## Bobm

Ken, there are really few similarities to Vietnam lets hope that the politicians in Washington don't make the same mistake and continue to allow the Miltitary to make the tactical decisions. I think the mistake all Americans make is assigning our value system to the middle east. They 
will see any negotiation as weakness, we need to hit them very hard take mullah whats his name out and disarm or kill all his followers. Most Iraqis by far support our efforts, it will have been a total waste if we don't follow through with this thing. Also not following through will be seen as weakness which will lead to further terrorist attacks here and there.
Jeez Perry, sorry you feel that way, I just find the political discussion interesting in this election year. 
Ken to answer your question about Kennedy the biggest reason is that when our country is in a military confrontation like this the enemy draws comfort and hope of overcoming us when partisans in either party don't show a united front publicly. Kennedy should take his concerns directly to the president privately. This is going to take some time Bosnia is still not democratized nor is South Africa and that situation is over 10 years old, in fact the USA didn't really settle down for a long time either. Kennedy knows this he isn't stupid just so hungry to regain power he is willing to sacrifice our countries success in Iraq to get his power back which is one of the many reasons to dislike him. This terrorism thing is going to dog us for a long time if we don't win decisively stay the course in Iraq.


----------



## KEN W

Bob...there is starting to look like 1 big similarity....keep sending more troops....just today the army is saying that.

Do I hear the word DRAFT in the future????


----------



## Dano2

yes indeed, kennedy says it how it is.


----------



## headhunter

THORVIG, Take your medication. Yes , alot of us DO read Bobm's political commentary's............ Bumper Sticker: YOUR LIFE IS NOT MY FAULT!


----------



## buckseye

We hope to end this war with PEACE not Comprimise. That was the problem with Viet Nam, it was a political decision to end the war.


----------



## Bobm

Thanks Headhunter for the vote of confidence, Buckseye is correct we cannot cut and run or compromise we must prevail in this thing and sending ,more troops is not a bad thing if it makes all the troops safer which it will because the Arabs mentality is one of respect for force. We need to hit them decisively
So Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of "insurgents" in Fallujah were using a mosque as a military base to fire on Coalition soldiers. So what did our boys do? *They hit back, and hit back hard. Much to the horror of the media, the Marines called in an aerial assault, and a Hellfire missile was launched at the mosque. * :beer: A laser-guided 500-pound bomb was dropped on a wall surrounding the compound for good measure. It's not known precisely how many dirt naps were handed out, but according to the AP, :beer: . Good, now maybe they'll get the message.

The U.S. Marines attacked a second mosque in Fallujah, after it became clear that the insurgents were hiding out there as well (no doubt practicing the peaceful religion of Islam by firing at our troops.) The chief military spokesman in Iraq said that the Geneva convention protects the mosque, but the insurgents nullified that by attacking from there. Too bad for them...at least they won't have to worry about transporting the body for the viewing. :lol:

*This is a good sign. In the past, U.S. Central Command might have hesitated to bomb a mosque*. In the past (including Gulf War I,) Saddam and others were getting away with hiding weapons and soldiers in places of worship and schools, because they knew the United States would not bomb them there. Now that has changed. The message is clear: there is nowhere to hide.

This shouldn't take long...U.S. officials are estimating the al-Sadr group of terrorists at around 3,000. A couple more of those 500-pound bombs should do the trick.


----------



## Bobm

For 30 years the misery index has been described as the sum total of the unemployment rate and inflation rate. Both political parties have agreed on this index for decades. Well ... John Kerry has a bit of a problem with the traditional misery index. Using the 30-year-old measurement standards the misery index is lower under President Bush than it was under Bill Clinton and George Bush 41. Well, you can't very well make people feel miserable using a misery index that shows them anything but miserable, can you now? The Kerry solution? Create a new misery index ... one specifically designed to convince otherwise happy Americans that no matter how blue the skies, they're really living in a state of complete and total despair.

So ... John Kerry sends his myrmidons out to find some economic statistics that he could use to prove to people that they really are miserable. Here are the ones they came up with:

Median family income 
College tuition 
Health premiums 
Gasoline prices 
Home ownership 
Job growth 
Personal bankruptcies 
Now ... just how does Kerry's misery index measure up to the one we've been using for 30 years? The inflation rate is left out. Why? Because it's low, that's why. Ditto for the unemployment rate. That's low also, so it had to be left out of Kerry's "you're far more miserable than you think you are" index.

Let's take a look at some of the elements Kerry does use.

Median family income. Why not use family net wealth? The true measure of how a family is doing economically is how wealthy they are, not how much they earn. You can have $3 million in your checking account and a $3 million dollar paid-for home, and not work. Your family income would be low .. but are you miserable? I don't think so.

College tuition. Most American families aren't paying any college tuition. What kind of a measurement is this?

Health Premiums. What does this figure mean to families who have health insurance as a job benefit?

Gasoline prices. Adjusted for inflation, they were higher in the early 1980's.

Home Ownership. The highest in history.

Job Growth This doesn't matter to someone who already has a job. Besides .. jobs are being created right and left right now.

Personal Bankruptcies. A bankruptcy doesn't make me miserable unless the person declaring bankruptcy owes me money.

This moronic index ignores economic growth and inflation ... things that affect everyone! The big question here is how in the world can the mainstream American media pay any attention to this BS without laughing itself into unconsciousness? The answer, of course, is that most of the people who are reporting on Kerry's ridiculous index are people who want to see Kerry win in November.

The real lesson to be learned here is that Kerry is campaigning on misery. His election hinges on whether or not he can convince voters that they are really not quite so happy and comfortable as they think they are.

*Why don't we all create indexes! Here's one! How about the "Morality Index?" We can apply the morality index to presidents. Here are the items that would be included in the index.*

Number of women raped. 
Number of women groped 
Number of affairs with interns 
Number of affairs with night club singers 
Lies told while under oath 
Promises not kept 
Somehow I think the present president might score a bit better on this one that some previous presidents I can think of, but I really don't want to name any names.


----------



## dosch

# 1 ON THE MISERY INDEX:

BOBM'S LIFE


----------



## jacks

#1 on the uneducated index:

Dosch


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Bobm,

Don't bet on it. Bush is just better at hiding stuff! :gag:

I don't think there are any decent politicians. :eyeroll: Except maybe the dead ones! :lol:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Maybe we should just all vote for John F'n Kerry and then in two years we will be wearing diapers on our heads and speaking like we have a mouth full of crap!!  dd: :sniper:


----------



## KEN W

Maybe we should all keep George W [get my friends rich while I'm in office] Bush.

Lets keep the minumum wage down so there are more homeless and more people below the poverty line.

Lets keep raiding Soc. Sec Trust funds to keep us in a war we shouldn't be in.Heck...I want to have my Soc. Sec. payments cut down the line because Bush needs money.

Let's let the government keep on invading our privacy..ie...Patriot Act

Lets keep sending jobs overseas

Let's let the Bush crowd keep on raping our enviornment

I would ask one question of all you Bush lovers...

ARE WE BETTER OFF NOW THAT BUSH HAS INVADED IRAQ????

We have aleinated our allies...we have EVERYONE in the middle east except Isrial PO'D at us....we are trying to fight wars in 2 places at the same time...Hitler found out that mistake...Gas prices are the highest ever

We need someone in charge who will clean up this mess GWB has gotten us into.I'm not saying John Kerry is the best solution...but it's time for a change of leadership and he is the only other choice.

Invading IraQ was a mistake...come on GWB you made a huge mistake...time to let the buck stop where it belongs.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Good points, one and all!!
Walmart is having a stock up and save sale on turbins with the shiny red rubys on them and your local community college is offering discounts on Arab language 101!! :******: 
One more thing to consider, an abundant supply of vaseline will be in order when Kerry gets elected because your govt. is going to give it to you every way but sideways!!  
Except, if you are one that collects entitlements then you will think you've died and gone to heaven.
I just love liberals, they make me look soooo good!! :justanangel:


----------



## headhunter

Ken,

There is no such thing as the "social security trust fund" The Government either has the money , or it doesn't. The SSTF is just a title to make our Workers/Elders "feel good"....and "secure" of course.

Lets just face it. Some jobs and even some people, arent worth mimimum wage. So why raise it? Does the teenager who sweeps floors and throws away garbage at Mcdonalds need to make $9.00 per hour? Uh, NO.
If you want to pay YOUR sweeper $10 an hour go ahead! don't make the rest of us do it.

Invasion of Privacy? isn't that what you liberals are all about? overtax the succesful, Tell us whats "good for us" , Pal up with the UN, (the worst socialistic organization in the world) Try to disarm or overregulate law abiding gun owners......etc etc etc etc etc yawn etc etc :bs:


----------



## KEN W

Headhunter...the gov't is taking every surplus dime of Soc Sec and your friend GWB has no intention or plan to pay any of it back...therefore Alan Greenspan has stated that there will likely be cuts in SS...so what part of that scenario is mistated?

4leg...as far as bending over and getting the vaseline out...GWB has been doing that to us for almost 4 years.He and his rich REPUBLICAN friends are piling up the money,while the rest of us get screwed...he needs to take back the tax cut from his rich buddies.

And as far as the UN goes...well look how we are viewed by the rest of the world when we go it alone...OUR solders are dyeing ...where are our so-called arab friends???

As far as gun control goes...Kerry has come right out and said he does not favor gun registration.

Bush'es REPUBLICAN policy...

I GOT MINE.....SCREW YOU!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The money going into SS has by law been invested in Gov Bonds. These bonds mature and then go into the Gen Fund by law. Money put into the Gen fund unless spec directed like taxes on gas are distrubited and used to meet the obligations that our elected officals have voted for.

The practice of using SS funds has been an on going practice since the Dems made it part of the Gen Fund dollars. There has not been a year that these moneys have not been used since the program was implemented.

The difference came when the dollars in the 70's under Tip Oniel where used to offset defiects in Budget Proposals. The use of the word trust fund is a misnomer for the tax on income.

Kerry was a key vote during the Gun maker Liablity bill. He voted for Amendemnts that would have given the AG of the US the authority to ban any multi shot weapon they deamed a threat. This Amendemnt would have banned any guns used by any military at anytime in the world past and present.

This would have made 870's and Mod 12's and Ithiac 37 illegal. It would have required that all Mod 1911 .45's and the current Berreta handguns also would have become illegal. Can you see tuning in your fathers or grandfathers old scattergun to be melted or become a person commiting a felony by not doing so?

Ken regardless of what he says you have to look hard at what he has done and how he has voted. He has a perfect record of voting to restrict or take guns that are normal everyday hunting, and target weapons from law abiding people. If you would like I can gather all of his votes and the results of the bills and get them to you or post them up. Fienstein and Kerry are closer on this issue than most of us are to our guns when we fire them.


----------



## Bobm

1)Headhunter is right there is no social security trust fund, its literally a drawer in Va. full of IOUs an both parties are guilty of not having the balls to tell the public the truth, Bush is the first one to actaully address the issue its such a political hot potato. Which is one more testament to his guts.
2)The middle class benefited most from the tax cuts as did all of us becasue its contributing to the rebound in our economy, the so called rich pay way more than their "fair share".
3)You have some ligitamate points with the Patriot Act
4)Neither Bush, Clinton or anyone else in our government can control where jobs go its market driven and the market is international so don't blame any goverment officials for that one, if they get involved it will be worse and hurt our economy.
5)I don't know what to think about the environmental issues it seems that both sides of the issue get too extreme
6)Yes we are better off since we invaded Iraq the people that aren't on our side never were and admit it or not the Muslim fanatics want to kill us and we just can't and sure shouldn't ignore them
7)Gas prices adjusted for inflation are not the highest they ever were and the the biggest reason they are high are our refining capacities has lagged behind our demand and we as a nation have done nothing since h 70's to improve that or minimize our dependence, we should devote our technological might toward that instead of tryin to go to Mars.
*8)Iraq is one (of many) battle theaters we will be in in the war against terrorism and we all better get used to that idea and get together to win the battle or the theater of battle will eventually be here!*


----------



## headhunter

Ken, but the reason "the rich" (everyone that makes , what ,over $50,000 a year?) Get the tax cuts is because THEY PAY ALL OF THE TAXES! If you make 100,000 a year and give 30% back to the GOV, and I make $15,000 per year and pay 10%, who is getting screwed the most! YOU!

That seems somewhat unfair to me., The more successful/driven/lucky/intelligent/bussiness smart, and finally, the more money and time you spend to educate yourself, the more you get PENALIZED by the GOV. How stupid is that? You call that fair?! Hardly. Its getting ridiculous.

I say flat tax everyone, and when the moneys gone, the moneys gone. The "Rich" uke: or at least most of them, got that way by being smart and working hard. Those lefty's that always bash the "rich" are just jealus they weren't smart enough to do the same. So of course they want "the poor" to get a piece of the pie from "the rich"..... uke: To them I say, grow up and make your own dam money. Your life is not my Fault!


----------



## Bobm

Look at Fair tax .org that is the best plan I've ever seen.


----------



## Bobm

Here we go...it's tax day. If you hate our current tax system as much as I do, have a look at fairtax.org. Read, understand, and vote appropriately.

April the 15th is my least-favorite day of the year. This is the day when about one-half of those who actually earned money last year will file their papers with the imperial federal government verifying just how much of the money that they earned will be retained by government for its operations. The other half? They'll pay nothing. *In fact, many of them will get government checks covered by those who actually do pay taxes.* This actually happened to me this year, wow! 

Only 50% of Americans say that their income taxes aren't too high. What a surprise! Could that be the same 50% that isn't paying taxes? Duhhhhhh.

About 62% of Americans say that their income tax burden is fair. Judging from IRS figures this 62% of would be paying about 8% of all federal income taxes collected by the feds. What do they have to complain about?

But ... what do Americans think of the evil, hated rich? As you might expect, 63% say that the rich just aren't paying enough. That, my friends, is Democratic class warfare working. Those at the bottom income levels think their federal tax burden is fair because they aren't paying any! While they sit there enjoying their free ride they complain because the rich just aren't paying enough!

One bit of good news. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts, every single American who does actually pay taxes is paying those taxes at a lower rate then a few years ago. That's one of the big reasons our economy is growing so strongly. It's the same old story playing out again as it did with John F. Kennedy and Reagan. Allow people to keep more of what they earn by working, and they'll work harder to earn more.

*CHECK AROUND FOR YOUR PERSONAL TAX IDIOT *

And just how do you identify your own personal tax idiot? Everybody has one, you have to find yours. It's really very simple. You just walk to some friend or coworker and ask "How much did you have to pay in income taxes this year?" If they answer "I didn't have to pay anything, I'm getting some back!" You have found your own personal tax idiot. Please take care of them for they are stupid and incapable of survival without your help.


----------



## Bobm

I love this :lol: and it comes as no surprise to me that Senator Flip flop the biggest liberal phony in the Senate exaggerated his military service record turns out hes precisely the phony I think he was! :lol: 
Yesterday's Boston Globe came out with a story about a growing controversy over one of Kerry's Purple Hearts. Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer, is questioning one Purple Heart. He says that Kerry was standing there *with a scratch on his forearm*. He was holding a piece of shrapnel. Hibbard is saying that Kerry's fellow soldiers told him that they didn't think that they had received any enemy fire. Hibbard says that he questioned John Kerry about the incident, but that Kerry was so adamant about receiving a Purple Heart for that scratch that Hibbard reluctantly dropped the matter. *Kerry got his Purple Heart for a scratch on his arm, one of the three he needed to get out of any further service in Vietnam[/b].

You do know, don't you, that John Kerry refuses to release his medical records from his Vietnam service. :******: ( you noticed how Cowardly Kerry was clamoring for George Bushs records to be made public which bush promply did) Those medical records would have details on all three combat injuries that Kerry reportedly suffered. We now learn that one was a scratch. What of the other two? 

Are we going to learn the true story of Kerry's Purple Hearts? Are we going to find out whether or not he anxiously demanded Purple Hearts for scratches and minor scrapes ... just to take care of the "three and you're out" rule? The answer is NO, not if John Kerry has anything to say about it. Boy you liberal really screwed up with this guy I love it :beer:*


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

VP Cheney pulled out the gun control card this weekend at an NRA function. All you gun owning liberals should do a little more background on the Kerry :bs: WAFFLER before you put all your cards in his gungrabbin' basket. :down:

If you think alls he wants to ban is assault weapons your are blind by your partisan hatred for President Bush! :eyeroll:

WAKEUP!! :withstupid:


----------



## Bobm

Two points to be brought up today regarding John Kerry ... the not-yet-crowned Democratic presidential candidate.

*First, Kerry is whining that George Bush and Republicans are attacking his patriotism. In the mind of John Kerry asking about his vote against continued funding for our troops, his designation of our troops in Vietnam as "murderers," his call for American troops to be put under UN control when deployed internationally, and his incredible string of votes against the very weapons systems that are being used to defend and protect our country today are attacks on his patriotism. *They're not, of course. They're really attacks on his judgment. Kerry is hiding behind the patriotism facade because there's really no other place for him to hide.

This is the same tactic that was tried by Georgia Senator Max Cleland. During his freshman term Cleland quickly fell under the spell of then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Democrats sought to make political gains with the formation of a cabinet-level department of homeland security. In the process of creating the homeland security department Democrats wanted to erase some of the leverage the president had in dealing with government union employees. In effect, the Democrats wanted to make the very people we would be depending on to defend us on our own soil from the threat of Islamic terrorism immune from being fired. Cleland was all-too-easily talked into joining Daschle in this effort, and it cost him. :lol: *Today those who assailed Cleland for his government union protectionism are accused of "attacking his patriotism*."

*The Kerry-Cleland "you're attacking my patriotism" argument might wash with the marginally cogent voters who are prone to vote Democrat, but not with anyone who applies an ounce of rational thought to the issue. Instead of defending his patriotism, Kerry needs to defend his positions. Too bad they're so indefensible.*

Secondly, John Kerry is professing to be amazed that George Bush is highlighting the terror threat to the U.S. in this year's election. Actually, I suspect that Kerry is more upset than surprised. Kerry knows for a certainty that if, between now and November, the American people suddenly wake up and recognize the grave threat posed to this country by Islamic fanatics, he will be toast on November 2nd. Voters overwhelmingly give Bush a huge edge when the question is defending America from terrorists. It's no wonder Kerry would rather Bush not bring the issue up at all.

I just can't believe that the people of America have become so enamored of government, so in need of government-provided security, and so blasé about freedom and the threat that this country faces from Islamic terrorism, that they would take the most liberal, big-government loving member of the U.S. Senate, a man who would certainly weaken the sovereignty of our nation, and make him not only the president of the United States, but the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm

Well how about this. ( Congress makes me sick, both sides of the aisle.)The United States Congress, never one to worry about government spending, is all of a sudden concerned about how much the war in Iraq is costing. They weren't this concerned about the government spending when it came to say, the highway bill. Or how about welfare spending? Education? *So why all of a sudden have they become fiscally responsible when it comes to defending this nation? Oh ... this one is so easy. It's because they're not the ones spending the money, that's why, and because it's not being spent in their home districts*.

Right there in the thick of this newfound concern over government spending is alleged "Republican" Senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel says that "Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it's going to be $50 billion to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year." Hagel knows that every dollar that is spent in the war on terror is a dollar that they can't spend on pork projects and social welfare spending. This is like a brat kid complaining about his allowance not being raised, just as the house is being foreclosed on. The liberals don't like their spending priorities being taken away, and they're whining about it. *Too bad....the money is needed for the military, not for them to buy votes with government programs. * :******:

*The United States confiscates and wastes so much of our money on so much nonsense that they should spare no expense when it comes to fulfilling an actual Constitutional duty, like providing for the safety and security of the United States.*

Now for a little humor :lol: :lol: 
*DEMOCRAT* SENATOR'S WIFE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT

This is one of those stories that almost too good to be true...it's almost difficult to imagine how someone could be this stupid. But they are, so here we go. Wanda Baucus, *wife of Democratic Senator Max Baucus*, got into it at Johnson's Garden Center in Washington D.C. She wound up assaulting someone, for which she was later charged. And what was all this over?

A bag of mulch. :lol: :lol:

That's right, a bag of mulch. Apparently Mrs. Baucus was upset that someone was being served ahead of her and decided to strike the woman in the face and body several times. She must have snapped. Maybe the person was annoying. Who knows? Baucus says he is standing by his wife, and no one would expect him to do anything different.

*Anyway, notice how this is being covered in the media. Outside of a passing mention here or a link there, not much coverage. What if say, it had been the wife of Republican Senator Bill Frist? Why then you know it would be top story team coverage!*

Something to think about when it comes to bias in the media.


----------



## Bobm

If Kerry is booted, who do you think will take his place as the Democratic nominee? 
Hillary Clinton 
John Edwards 
Dennis Kucinich 
Other

Call it buyer's remorse.

The election is still a little over six months away, and already Democrats are starting to have buyer's remorse over their rushed nomination of The Poodle. *You could see this coming a mile away, since "anybody but Bush" is not a victory strategy for this November. People have to be able to vote for something, and the more they see of John Kerry, it's not looking good. *In their haste to nominate someone as soon as possible, they failed to properly vet their candidate and let the process play out.

If you spend any amount of time sniffing around the Internet .. especially sites created by and frequented by Democrats .. you will see the expressions of doubt. A Mickey Kaus article on Slate cites one Democrat blogger asking "At what point do Democrats begin to consider that they haven't nominated this guy yet?" Some Democrats are saying "Uh oh .. .we nominated a turkey." James Ridgeway, a liberal columnist for *The Village Voice writes "With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go." "Dem leaders" he says," are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean."* :lol: 
Just watch this over the next few days. If more columns are written and the "Kerry must go" movement picks up any steam the next few months could get more and more interesting. It may be time to head for the pound and see if there's another, cuter stray.

Does anyone around here other than me smell a Clinton?


----------



## bigcat

wow- you guys have some great dialogue. the only thing i have to say about the race, is that the bottom line is that we lose no matter who is elected. we need more people involved in the process that get after it like most people on this forum and we would eventually have better candidates to choose from.


----------



## Bobm

Every time somebody brings this up, they get accused of attacking Kerry's patriotism, but somebody's gotta do it :lol: , so here we go. While John Kerry has released some of his military records, h e has yet to account for exactly how he received his injuries that led to his three Purple Hearts. This is important, of course, because 1.) Kerry has made his military service in Vietnam a campaign issue and 2.) the rule at the time was three Purple Hearts got you sent home from Vietnam. *So was Kerry working the system? It sure looks like it with every passing day.*
The latest comes to us from the doctor that treated one of Kerry's 'Purple Heart' injuries. Louis Letson, now a retired doctor in Alabama says he has a very clear memory of an incident that occurred while he was a Medical Officer in Vietnam. Letson says he remembered Kerry because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Sure sounds like Kerry was plotting and scheming for his political career from the start. Anyway, about the injury.

The good doctor tells us that some of Kerry's crew confided that they had not received any fire on their boat, but rather Kerry's injury may have been self-inflicted and come from Kerry firing a military round at some rocks on shore, at close range. The injury was a small piece of shrapnel stuck in Kerry's arm. Did it require stitches? Nope. So just what was the treatment for this battlefield injury for which Kerry was awarded one of his Purple Hearts? A band-aid. The wound was covered with a band-aid.

What was the experience of some other commanders in Vietnam? You're unlikely to hear this from the Bush-bashers in the media, and the Kerry campaign cries foul when anyone brings it up. But *it's a legitimate question, and one that Kerry has yet to answer. *


----------



## marmadogg

Bobm said:


> Every time somebody brings this up, they get accused of attacking Kerry's patriotism, but somebody's gotta do it :lol: , so here we go. While John Kerry has released some of his military records, h e has yet to account for exactly how he received his injuries that led to his three Purple Hearts. This is important, of course, because 1.) Kerry has made his military service in Vietnam a campaign issue and 2.) the rule at the time was three Purple Hearts got you sent home from Vietnam. *So was Kerry working the system? It sure looks like it with every passing day.*
> The latest comes to us from the doctor that treated one of Kerry's 'Purple Heart' injuries. Louis Letson, now a retired doctor in Alabama says he has a very clear memory of an incident that occurred while he was a Medical Officer in Vietnam. Letson says he remembered Kerry because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Sure sounds like Kerry was plotting and scheming for his political career from the start. Anyway, about the injury.
> 
> The good doctor tells us that some of Kerry's crew confided that they had not received any fire on their boat, but rather Kerry's injury may have been self-inflicted and come from Kerry firing a military round at some rocks on shore, at close range. The injury was a small piece of shrapnel stuck in Kerry's arm. Did it require stitches? Nope. So just what was the treatment for this battlefield injury for which Kerry was awarded one of his Purple Hearts? A band-aid. The wound was covered with a band-aid.
> 
> What was the experience of some other commanders in Vietnam? You're unlikely to hear this from the Bush-bashers in the media, and the Kerry campaign cries foul when anyone brings it up. But *it's a legitimate question, and one that Kerry has yet to answer. *


Go to John Kerry's site as he has posted every single document.

The rightwing echo chamber has dropped this topic because it died on the vine when the facts came out just like every pathetic smear that comes from the RNC and Rove.

Why are you so willfully ignorant?


----------



## BigDaddy

Can somebody with some military experience please shed some light on how a person gets awarded a Purple Heart? Can a soldier get a Purple Heart by simply requesting or demanding it, or does it have to be awarded by a superior? I honestly don't know.


----------



## marmadogg

Put aside all the spin on Kerry's war medals, post war activities, and war injuries, this is a sufficient enough comparisson of the military records of both Bush and Kerry.










And where did Bush go after requesting not to serve in Nam? Why off to the "champaign unit" in the National Guard, with help from daddy. And yes, that was the name of the unit Bush was assigned to. The ideal chickenhawk my friends.


----------



## marmadogg

BigDaddy said:


> Can somebody with some military experience please shed some light on how a person gets awarded a Purple Heart? Can a soldier get a Purple Heart by simply requesting or demanding it, or does it have to be awarded by a superior? I honestly don't know.


Writen Army regulations actually say that a "physical lesion" does not even have to be present.

the criteria:

1. Some injury, (which could even be a bruise or sprain) 
2. injured during activity with hostile forces 
3. sought medical attention for same

So even if everything the Republicans said is true, the shrapnel hit still fully qualified as a purple heart wound.

They are highlighting that one, as it was the least of his 5 combat awards.


----------



## KEN W

We're going to name you after one of our best presidents!!!

"Give'em Hell marmadogg"..."The Buck stops Here"

Good old Harry S. :beer:


----------



## Mr. B

Just curious Ken are you a moderator or just like the rest of us on this forum? It seems that you like to stir the pot just like every one else.

Does not really matter to me I am just trying to see how serious I should take your posts.


----------



## KEN W

I'm just like the rest of you...I have my opinions and enjoy contributing them.I'm only a mod in the sense that Chris trusts me and a few others to help take out the spam,and the really bad name calling.

If I had to choose between mod and being able to speak my mind...I would choose the latter.

Besides I don't think I have ever participated in name calling or used bad language outside of phrases.At least I don't think I have.

Being a mod here does not make me omnipotent.It's just to help Chris out...he asked me before he started this site if I would do that.

If I ruffled your feathers Mr. B...sorry about that....but the coservatives here have had free rein long enough...couldn't bite my tongue any longer.


----------



## marmadogg

Mr. B said:


> Just curious Ken are you a moderator or just like the rest of us on this forum? It seems that you like to stir the pot just like every one else.
> 
> Does not really matter to me I am just trying to see how serious I should take your posts.


BOO F'ING HOO Mr. B!

It stinks when someone drops facts on your world doesn't it?

Any other logical fallacy or outright lies you want me to dispell?

I know what I am talking about as the only reason I watch Fox News is to see what an English version of Al Jazerra looks like.


----------



## Mr. B

marmadogg

Last time I checked I did not agree or disagree with any one opinions in this thread. But next time you decide to dispell a logical fallacy of mine please find out what I think first.

Ken,

You did not ruffle any feathers I was just curious. Of the forums that I visit you are the first mod. that expresses his views quite the way you do. No problem like I said I was just curious.


----------



## Bobm

Ken's views are always welcome here, he makes a lot of sense when he not talking politics :lol:


----------



## Bobm

Kerry is a phony! And his own "hometown paper is reporting it!
The Boston Globe June 6, 2003 -- Kerry had been wounded three times and received three Purple Hearts. Asked about the severity of the wounds, Kerry said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. "Walking wounded," as Kerry put it. A shrapnel wound in his left arm gave Kerry pain for years. Kerry declined a request from the Globe to sign a waiver authorizing the release of military documents that are covered under the Privacy Act and that might shed more light on the extent of the treatment Kerry needed as a result of the wounds. 
"There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts -- from shrapnel, some of those might have been M-40 grenades," said [George] Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. "The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception."
The Boston Globe - June 6, 2003 -- . . . The National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. *The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. *The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis."
*Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious*, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.
Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived.
The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer . . .


----------



## KEN W

Touche' Bob... :withstupid:


----------



## Bobm

*Kerry got a scratch and used it as a " Get out of Vietnam Free card" and anybody that can't see that is " wilfully ignorant ". *
A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

*"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. *"People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

*But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."*

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography. But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.
REAL SOLDIERS REFUSED PURPLR HEARTS FOR NONSENSE BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT PURPLE HEARTS SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY KERRYS' DID'NT! WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN'T MIND THROWING THEM AWAY, OH i FORGOT HE LIED ABOUT THAT TO uke:


----------



## Bobm

Hey Ken , you have to admit this is funny!
*Kerry to Endorse New 'Purple Heart' Band-Aids
05/06/04 NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey*
Senator John Kerry, the recipient of three Purple Hearts, has signed a contract with Johnson & Johnson to endorse a new line of band-aids.

The band-aids will be small purple hearts designed to cover minor, superficial wounds like Kerry suffered as a lieutenant in the Vietnam War.

"We're proud to be working with Senator Kerry," said a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson. "We plan to use actual shrapnel removed from his arm in our ad campaign to highlight the small size of our J&J Band-Aid brand Purple Heart bandages."

The doctor who treated Kerry at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, recently described the procedure used to treat the wound that won the senator his first Purple Heart.

"First, I located the wound with the aid of a magnifying glass," said Dr. Louis Letson. "Then, I used a pair of tweezers to extract the shrapnel, which measured approximately one centimeter in length and two to three millimeters in diameter.

"Finally, I covered the wound with one of those little round band-aids people use to cover corns on their toes."

The Band-Aid endorsement is not the first for Senator Kerry.
It comes on the heels of two other high-profile endorsement deals Kerry has signed with Waffle House and Flip-Flops, Inc. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bobm

I thought this was clever
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper,and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share." Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't vote for Kerry :lol: .


----------



## MN Fisher

I don't know if these were covered or not, but there are a few things I came across that needed commenting on. First off, there is a lot of posts to read and I only had time for the shorter ones (sorry Bobm, do enjoy your posts though).

*Minimum wage -* a minimum wage is an outdated idea. It used to be a good idea, however, the government has managed to screw many things up (I said government as a whole, not any one person) and this is a good example. Minimum wage was designed to be the bottom of a pay scale but if your employer schedules you for less than 39 hours a week, they can pay you 12 cents an hour if they want. Ask waitresses. True some individuals in the service industry (waiters, waitresses, black jack dealers) are expected to cover the rest in tips to average a minimum wage. But a minimum wage increase means everything goes up.

*Gas prices -* forgive me for not having time to check this right now, but I beleive I read or heard that if you took gas prices from the 1970's compaired to the average income and did the same today, you would find that gas cost more then than it does now.

*Kerry for President -* If Kerry is such a winner and such an electible guy, why will no one run with him? The DNC is trying to find a VP canidate that will win the election for him. Besides, the Clinton's aren't going to let Kerry win, not if Hillary wants to run in 2008! If she does, and does get elected, she will be in for one helluva suprise come re-election time 2012 when I run as an independent. Then perhaps we can have truer government by the people. Anyway....

I just saw a couple of things I wanted to comment on. And just to set the record straight now so no one gets the wrong idea...I am not a democrat or republican. I am a conservative on most things and a liberal on somethings. I also strongly feel that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain at all, with the only exception being...you weren't old enough to vote in the last Presidential election.

Sorry,  didn't even realize I stepped up on a box labeled "soap".  I am off it now though! :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

down one


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Don't vote for Kerry ."

yes thats a great idea, lets continue losing soldiers, hiking gas prices, and killing the economy, i really cant find what you see in bush.


----------



## Bobm

Militant Tiger said


> yes thats a great idea, lets continue losing soldiers, hiking gas prices, and killing the economy, i really cant find what you see in bush.


Lets take them one at a time
*1)losing soldiers*
unfortunately for soldiers their job is extremely dangerous and it is to defend our nation from those that would attack us. George Bush and the Federal governments first job is to defend us and the Iraq thing is the tip of World war on terrorism. We have to win in Iraq and eventually unless sweeping political change occurs in the Middle east after we win the war in Iraq we will have to deal with Syria and Iran until we do so our country will never be safe. We will have to fight the terrorists at some point so its better to work on the problem in its birthplace the Middle east rather the in the streets of the US later. One way or the other we have to destroy them because they intend to destroy us and have stated so in no uncertain terms on many occasions. I would suggest you research the writings of Osama Bin Laden or watch the video of Nick Berg and then ask yourself if you really think there is even the slightest hope of some negotiation, if you look at it honestly you will realize there isn't. 
*2)gas prices*
First off gas prices are up but we are as much to blame for this as the Arabs we haven't built a refinery in over 20 years yet our demand has steadily increased. We have ledgislated many blends of gas for environmental reasons making the supply side of the equation totally inflexible. Bush had nothing to do with these problems he wasn't even the govenor of Texas when these decisions were made.
And the whole thing is a farce anyway one more liberal media attempt to discredit Bush. Fuel is not at an all time high when inflation is factored. We as a Nation will have to make some environmental compromises in the short term and then work hard to come up with the tecknologies necessary to lower our dependence on oil.
3) your third point "and killing the economy" is 100% incorrect. The economy is growing at a very good rate especially considering all the things that have happened to this country in the last three years. Bush didn't kill the economy and while I agree with his policies trying to help, the fact is that presidents don't really have a lot of influence on the economy, but they like to take the accolades when its up and they get blamed when it isn't. IF you understood how good our economy actually is doing right now you wouldn't of brought it up. I think in one of our discussions you mentioned that you're a high school kid so let me make a suggestion. Study the facts read all you can about the economy and the various indicators that are used to measure it and then if you want to debate them we can. Right now you are making statements based on halftruths you have heard probably in the media. A good source would be the Wall street journal web site.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

right you are bob, i concede. neither you nor i can win this so i give in. my parting suggestion is that you look at the republicans half of the deal too, the best perspective of a football field isint taken from the goal posts


----------



## Bobm

Yesterday. Kerry met with Ralph Nader. After the meeting, Ralphie Boy came out all smiles and praised Kerry. Now keep in mind that this is the same Ralph Nader that was saying there was no fundamental difference between John Kerry and George Bush. Makes you wonder exactly what's going on, doesn't it?

For Nader's part, it's all about ego. He wants people to pay attention to him. He knows he has no chance of winning, and he knows that, like in 2000, he could throw the election by siphoning off just enough votes from Kerry to re-elect Bush. This is all about making Kerry come to him and beg for his support.

According to an aide, Kerry told Nader "I have fought with you. I have been with you on a range of issues and you should judge me by my record in the Senate." Now this is rather odd, isn't it? Kerry wants Nadar to judge him by his Senate record. Why? Because he was recently designated the most liberal Senator out there ... even more to the left than Teddy Kennedy. But the voters? For the voters it's a different story. Kerry wants you to believe he's a centrist who wants to go out there and kick terrorist butt. The same man who once said that US troops abroad should be under the control of the United Nations now wants to position himself to the voters as a gung ho warrior against terrorism. But for Nader ... "Look, Ralphie. It's me. The Senate's greatest liberal? You don't want to mess up my chances, do you?"

In the end, Nader will probably pull out of the race and fall in line with Kerry, just like any other good liberal Democrat. But not before he gets some more press down there at Ralph, Inc.


----------



## Bobm

So the president made a big speech last night outlining what the American people can expect in the coming months regarding the situation in Iraq. You would expect Kerry to be right there with his criticism...tearing down the president, putting forth his own plan, or whatever. *But what did we hear from Senator sKerry last night instead? Nothing, really*.

Oh sure, he did release a statement. He said "What's most important now is to turn these words into action by offering presidential leadership to the nation and to the world." But isn't that exactly what Bush laid out in his plan? What's really going on here is that the liberals think they have a winning issue with Iraq, but they really don't. The reason? They have no plan! *And of course, the liberal media isn't about to call Kerry on it.*

Kerry doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Iraq. He voted for the war, but doesn't like the way Bush has fought it. He voted for the $87 billion, before he voted against it. The only war Kerry seems to want to talk about is the Vietnam War.

*The fact of the matter is that we have no choice in Iraq, and some people, the brighter ones, actually get that.* Consider this statement released last night, from another Senator: "I hope that all of us in both parties who have said that we have to stay in Iraq and finish the job in pursuit of our own values and of our own security will pull together and make it happen and not be part of a chorus of doubters that will undermine the support of the American people more. In my opinion, this is the test of our generation. And if we don't win it in Iraq, we're going to face it much closer to home in the years ahead." Who said it?

*Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut*. :beer:


----------



## Bobm

*Kerry Challenged on Shift in Ketchup Position *
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come under fire this week for comments indicating he has changed yet another position previously held during his long political career.

"It is time to question why John Kerry has slipped yet another profound shift in policy into his continually evolving platform," said conservative Washington Post pundit Charles Krauthammer. "Opportunism is one thing; but it is hard to explain this flip-flop as anything but financially motivated."

At issue is Kerry's comments in a recent stopover indicating that America needed to improve the health of its children by considering "all options" to improve school lunches. He remarked that an increase of vegetables, such as "broccoli, salad, and ketchup" would help address the serious problem of burgeoning obesity among America's youth.

"Ketchup as a vegetable?" said Temple University political science professor Clark Fenster. "Oh man, does that take me back."

In 1981, then-president Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs. This was intended to make it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches. However, the suggestion was widely ridiculed and the proposal was killed.

"At the time that scandal made headlines, Kerry was a candidate for lieutenant-governor of Massachusetts," noted Krauthammer. "He spoke forcefully against the Reagan administration's proposal. Now, let's see: what has changed since 1981?"

The most obvious change relevant to this issue is Kerry's marriage to Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz family fortune. Heinz is the largest seller of ketchup in the world; today, the combined net worth of the Kerry-Heinz fortune is reported to be between $199 million and $839 million, making Kerry the wealthiest U.S. senator.

Kerry disputes the notion that his change in position has been motivated by his prominent connection to the largest ketchup producer in the world.

"Now, it's true I opposed Reagan's proposal back in the early eighties," said Kerry. "But that was after all over twenty years ago. Our understanding of nutrition has evolved since then. For example, it is now known that ketchup contains significant amounts of lycopene, an antioxidant found primarily in processed tomato products. Although the FDA has not yet established nutritional guidlelines for the consumption of lycopene, I think some of our previous notions about ketchup do need to be reconsidered in this light."

Some commentators have argued that Kerry's switch on ketchup is indeed a calculated move, but attribute it to a broader attempt to reach out to moderate Republican voters.

"Bush has angered a lot of Republicans," noted Fenster, "and they are looking for a reason - any reason - to find something positive about John Kerry so they can vote against Bush with a clear conscience. There are few presidents, Republican or Democrat, who have been as popular as Ronald Reagan in the popular imagination - the Republican party has practically canonized him. By embracing a long-dormant and relatively minor Reagan policy initiative, Kerry may actually be making a shrewd bid for these voters on the fence."

It is unclear whether this position change will affect Kerry's core Democratic voters, who have offered mixed reactions to the announcement.

"You know, I wouldn't even mind the resurrection of a silly Reagan-era policy like this if it means getting Bush out of office," said registered Democrat Kylie Benson following a recent Kerry appearance. "But you know, they've started passing out little "Kerry for President" ketchup packets. It makes me feel like I'm voting for Ronald McDonald."


----------



## Bobm

Kerry has dropped the idea to delay accepting his nomination in order to raise more money, and will accept the nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this summer. Apparently he actually thought this idea might work.

The media is saying this was supposed to be a secret, that somehow Kerry was going to spring this idea before the convention. That story doesn't wash. What we had here was clearly the launching of a trial balloon.  You get some flunky to drive the idea into a parking lot. If it dents too many fenders you step forward to denounce the idea and seize the role of hero. Kerry has spent his entire life doing everything this way. It's how he can be on both sides of an issue. Instead of actually making a choice and standing for something, he's for it all! 
Anyway, Kerry had hoped maybe this idea might go through. You see, the Kerry campaign is far behind the Bush campaign in money raised. As soon as each candidate is nominated, they get $75 million a piece in taxpayer money to spend on their campaigns. That's it. That's all they have to spend. The Democratic convention is five weeks before the Republican one, so Kerry is going to have to stretch his millions out over a longer period of time. While Kerry sits on his $75 million, Bush runs an additional five weeks with almost unlimited funding. Yet more proof that there is a God.

*As a Bush spokesman said, "Only John Kerry could be for the nominating convention, but against the nomination - before he was for the nomination."* :lol:


----------



## headhunter

HE'S A SNAKE IN THE GRASS, I'LL TELL YA GUYS, HE MAY LOOK DUMMB, BUT THATS JUST A DISGUISE, HE'S A MASTERRMINND, IN THE WAYS OF ESPIONAGE........

Charlie Daniels :jammin:


----------



## Bobm

The men who served with Kerry the so called purple heart winner in Vietnam are sueing him to get him to quit using them as his evidence of serving honorably
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38760
Tells you what his so called band of brothers really thinks of him uke:


----------



## Bobm

*Get ready for the media onslaught....Bill Clinton's memoirs are being released June 22, and it's already started. Bill Clinton will be on 60 Minutes, as well as a nationwide tour pushing his book*. Kerry's campaign is not pleased, but what can they do? Absolutely nothing. Clinton could have chosen to release his book after the election ... he could have, but he didn't. Do you think there wasn't a plan at work here? You got it! Clinton is out to steal sKerry's thunder. *Remember, the Clintons don't want Kerry to win...they want George Bush to be re-elected so the Hillary can run for in an open election in 2008. * :lol:

Yesterday, speaking at a booksellers convention, Clinton said "I don't spare myself in this book." Well, isn't that nice. Hopefully he'll spare the rest of us. Will he tell how he turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on several occasions? I doubt it. How about the Monica Lewinsky fiasco? How much of that will he tell us? The book is after all, a thousand pages.

One other thing, at that speech yesterday, check out what Clinton said about the current president: "If you go back and read what Bush said in the campaign, he's just doing what he said he'd do. You've got to give him credit for that...no one has the whole truth." :beer: You're not going to hear that repeated in the media very much, if at all. Is that just a Clinton attempt to put Bush in a better light? Sure doesn't help Kerry much, does it?

Brace yourself...the media is about to become all Clinton, all the time. *Too bad for Kerry, though. He just lost the spotlight for the summer.*


----------



## Bobm

You really do have to wonder about the media sometimes. It must be awfully difficult to sit there and constantly dream up new ways to bash the President. :eyeroll: Somehow, they always seem to get it done. Their latest obsession is a single poll in a single newspaper that shows Kerry ahead of President Bush by six or seven points. BFD. But judging by their reporting, you would think the election was five minutes away instead of over five months.

"Kerry surges ahead of Bush" scream the headlines...but you have to ask yourself...what if the situation were reversed? Would they report that "Bush surges ahead of Kerry?" Of course not...if Bush led Kerry by six or seven points, it would be reported as a "thin margin," and the president would be "barely leading" in the polls. They would tell us that it was within the margin of error, and it was inconclusive.

Let's try to keep this in perspective, Bush's father was 17 points behind Michael Dukakis in the summer of 1988, and he was elected with relative ease. Who they polled...what questions were asked...how many were polled...these all figure into the polling result.

*Enough with the polls. nobody cares. *Why, after all, do newspapers take polls? To create news and to give them something to cover, that's why. Isn't there something just a little bit curious about newspapers going out there to create news to cover?


----------



## Bobm

When do you think health care will be socialized in the U.S.? 
within 5 years 
5-10 years 
10+ years 
never

All of the news this week seems to be about Bill Clinton and his book. That is exactly as Bill Clinton wanted it. Kerry is desperate to make some news of his own, and is barking about health care. *Predictably, Kerry is telling anyone who will listen that health care is a "right." * :eyeroll:

OK ... let's go through this logically. If you agree with Kerry, if you claim medical care as a right, then you are claiming a right to someone's time or property. In either case, you are making a claim to a portion of that person's life. You cannot obtain medical care without someone either spending time on you or supplying you with some sort of product, be it drugs or medical devices. If you're claiming a right to a medical practitioner's time, then you are claiming a right to that portion of his life. If you are claiming a right to some drug or medical equipment, then you are claiming a right to whatever portion of someone's life they spent acquiring or creating that product. *Any way you cut it, your claim of a right to health care is a message to someone else that you own a portion of their very existence.* :eyeroll:

So, where do we go from here? Once we accept the idea that one American can claim a right to a portion of another American's life, what's next? If you have a right to health care, why not a right to a home? Why not a right to a warm coat in winter? Why not a right to groceries? Apparently health care should be a right because you might die without it. If that's the case, then food should certainly be a right because you're flat-out going to die without it.  
Actually, this is all quite academic. Socialized medicine is absolutely inevitable in the United States. Youngsters dreaming of becoming doctors are dreaming of becoming government employees. The horror stories from socialized medicine countries ... stories like four-month waits for surgery or even MRIs ... will carry datelines like Cleveland or Houston.


----------



## seabass

It's the law or the "right" for every child to get an education until he/she is eighteen. People have, therefore, claimed a part of a teacher's life. Fine. This to a teacher has meant being employed. School systems are often the largest employers in most small towns across America.

"Socialized" e.g. government run medical care is more efficient. Studies have shown government spends far less on administrative costs, and more money gets to the patient than in HMO programs.

To me the same goes with the war on terroism. I posted this before but didn't hear much reaction except from BobM that said there isn't much the government can do better than the private industry. Here it is:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0510-09.htm
I would like the opinion of someone *currently* in the armed forces on the use of the private sector in the Iraq war.


----------



## Bobm

Seabass said


> It's the law or the "right" for every child to get an education until he/she is eighteen. People have, therefore, claimed a part of a teacher's life. Fine. This to a teacher has meant being employed. School systems are often the largest employers in most small towns across America.


Your point is what.?... that doctors and medical practitioners aren't able to find work unless the goverment gives it to them thats obviously not the case is it? The same thing can be extended to teachers good ones would find work just fine without government involvement. Notice how all our politicians kids go to private schools , why because they know full well that private schools are better and the kids come out of them with much better educations. If all our schools were privatized the market would drive standards up and the price down. And many of the problems disipline/babysitting problems teachers have to deal with would not exist.
I have a good friend that went from teaching in the public system to a Catholic school and she had to add a hour to her lesson plans becasue she didn't have andy more dicipline problems. So many of our parents today refuse to parent their kids and expect the teachers to do that and the teachers should be spending their time teaching. Privatizing would be better


----------



## seabass

No, thats not the point. I just used teachers as an example of how we "make claim to a person's life." I could have used our "right" to a fair and impartial courtcase and how we make claim to a judge's/lawyers life...and that the system works!! I just don't understand the argument that we don't have the "right" to certain things.

Anyway, most interested in someone else's take on Halliburton et.al being used in the war. I dont' know what to think about that.


----------



## Bobm

But the point I was making and you are missing is that we do have the right to a trial in the constitution. We don't have the right to health care in the constitution yet Kerry is implying we somehow have the right to healthcare. Its not a right he is just pandering to the ignorant and if goverment healthcare is more efficient then why do people in countries that have socialixed medicine come here when they are ill. Answer because market based medicine provides better service, in socialized medicine countries you can't get a MRI for months in the USA you can get one in days and that could mean the difference between life and death.


----------



## MSG Rude

Seabass,

Here is _my opinion_, I must state that this opinion is not in any way, shape, form, or fashion supported nor endorsed by the US Gov. nor the Military\Army. This all comes from me. I have to do that cause there are some people here that would blast me for speaking for the military.

With regards to civilian contractors like Halliburton and such, I am all for regulated government contracts with civilians.

With the decline in recruiting that all services are feeling and the time duration that this has been developing, we (military) need the extra bodies to do some of the work. Food services, security, POL (petroleum, oil, lithium), etc can all be handled through these contracts and relieve military personnel for other or added duties. For _many_ years (20+) basic training locations here in the states have been using civilian food services to feed the trainee's.(Sorry old timers, KP is now a cake walk!)

Now, some contracts are BS and we know that. Lining the preverbal pocket I would guess. 12K$ hammers and crap like that. The federal dollar is the most lucrative for contractors. Most bidders will double their estimates because they know that "everyone else does that". If the 'Government' walked down to Menards and bought all the hammers they needed they would save billions, but lets stay in the real world for the rest of this.

Money is money and there are those that will do whatever it takes to get as much as they can. Ever sold something for more then it was worth? Really??? Why??? Here is the answer...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I would love to be the one that ok's purchase orders. Do you realize we are paying contractors and suppliers that are* years* behind but our payments are still on time every month to them? It makes me want to uke: !

Welcome to the machine. Rent the movie 'Dave' in which Kline plays a President impersonator and then sits in the seat when the real guy dies. He has to find money in the Federal budget to say his wife's (S. Weaver) childcare center. Pretty close to the real out look on the whole budget thing.

Anyways, this is just my $300.00 in cents.


----------



## seabass

Thanks a lot SFC Rude... glad to hear an opinion from someone who is out there and knows the ins and outs of the situation.


----------



## Bobm

Former President Bill Clinton's book is being released on Tuesday, and the media onslaught is gearing up. The first big interview is with Dan Rather, to be broadcast on '60 Minutes' on Sunday. If the transcript that has been released is any indication, get ready for quite a left wing mainstream media love fest. uke: I think they edited out the portion when Rather asked Clinton if he wanted to get naked.

Clinton calls his impeachment "a badge of honor." That's interesting...because as one of only two presidents to be impeached, it may be more like a badge of denial. Perhaps history will not be so kind. Lying under oath is not a badge of honor. And don't give me this "he only lied about his personal life" nonsense. *Clinton lied under oath with the intent to deny to a plaintiff her day in court under a statute that Clinton himself signed into law! * Did you understand that? Let me amplify things for you a bit.

Early in his presidency Clinton made a big deal ... press conference and all ... about signing legislation that attached federal criminal penalties to some incidents of sexual harassment. A woman named Paula Jones then uses that very law to sue Clinton for his actions in that hotel room in Little Rock. Then Clinton lies under oath in order to prevent Paula Jones from having a fair and honest hearing of her complaint. Clinton calls this a badge of honor? *If perjury is a badge of honor, what would he call his rape of Juanita Brodderick, the Silver Star?* :eyeroll: 
:******: Clinton also takes undeserved credit for the booming economy of the 1990's. Our economy was already growing when Clinton took office in 1993. The Reagan boom continued for most of the 90's despite Clinton's attempts to kill it with tax increases. Clinton also takes pride in the war in Kosovo, in which he says he rid the world of a dictator (something apparently George Bush isn't allowed to do.) Then when it came to the issue of Monica Lewinsky, he calls the affair a "terrible moral error." :lol: How neat and tidy....he also gave his reason for why he did it: because he could. What a sleaze ball. uke:

Bill Clinton's purpose in selling his memoirs is threefold. To rehabilitate his legacy and rewrite history, to sell books and make money and lastly *to steal the spotlight away from Kerry, ensuring his defeat at the polls and paving the way for his wife to run in 2008.* Which is why I put it in this thread  in case you were wondering :beer:


----------



## pointer99

yes i hear that clintons book is actually two books in one.......the first is about his childhood and struggle to move up the ranks that could be appropriately called "my story".

the second is a seething attack on ken starr which should have been entitled...." the grinch who stole my preidency". :beer: uke:

pointer


----------



## Bobm

Go figure. A new and celebrated ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that, for the first time, a majority of voters don't believe the Iraq war was worth fighting, and that candidates Bush and Kerry are about equal in voters' eyes in terms of how well they would handle the war on terrorism. Yet, in the words ABCNews.com, a refined version of the same question still produces a strong pro-Bush majority: *"On a personal level, the public by a 14-point margin picks him over Kerry to keep the nation safer and more secure. And the Massachusetts senator may be vulnerable on specifics; only four in 10 say he has a 'clear plan' on terrorism, while Bush does better."* :beer: 
Confused? The evidence here is of a public being dragged reluctantly into a recognition that we're in a serious fight that goes way beyond Iraq. Saudi Arabia is clearly in Osama's sights. Pakistan, which possesses the bomb, is another serious battlefield. John Kerry may wish all this could be blamed on the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, but he hasn't gotten much support from the last Democratic president.( The Clintons start their defeat Kerry campaign so Hillary can run unopposed 2008) Bill Clinton is too smart not to have recognized the complex strategic dilemma that needed to be addressed in Iraq, and he's been saying as much in his book-tour interviews. (He's got the added incentive that Hillary voted for the war and has been hawkish about the need to win it).

What the poll shows is that voters don't want the job of saying which strategy is right, though "on a personal level" they stick to a recent tradition of trusting GOP presidents to be more aggressive in protecting America's interests. Still, the latest survey will be embraced by a few pundits who've staked their reputations on a prediction that Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" will tilt the election. Get real. Anyone counting on doubts about the Iraq war, even deep doubts, to give rise to a strong anti-war vote that will expel Mr. Bush from office is misreading history. To wit, Nixon won and McGovern lost. John Kerry will have to find another path to victory.

Pointer 99 I think I'm going to really like you :lol:


----------



## Bobm

IF you vote in Kerry kiss good medical care goodbye. He'll still have it but you won't
We can look at the latest example of "nationalized healthcare" in a nation that has a great deal in common with America: Canada.

It has been recommended--by Senator Kerry and other Democrats--that Americans pattern their national healthcare program after Canada's. Well, maybe we had better learn a little more about what is going on in Canada first.

When you hear someone say the words "free health care," keep your purse closed and your hands in your pockets. Why? Health care is not free. What is meant by the words "free health care" is you do not pay for health care. All of us pay for your care. To low income people, it sounds wonderful&#8230; until they read the fine print.

Do you think Social Security is running out of money because government knows how to manage money? No. They know how to spend, not manage it. 

Just as there is no such thing as a Social Security Lock Box, there will never be such a thing as a Medical Care Lock Box. We will pay into a fund and legislators will do what they have done with the retirement funds of millions of Americans. *They will spend it on pork&#8230; programs designed to get them re-elected to office. *

In Canada, the Medisys Health Group in Montreal charges between $595 and $1,050 for an annual physical exam. Because annual physical exams are "preventive" in nature, they are not covered under Canada's socialized medicine program. You pay for it.

How many poor Americans will not be able to afford the preventive measure of an annual physical if they must pay for it? In Canada, you can use a credit card if you want, but you, not government, pays for an annual physical.

Looking at those kinds of dollars, it's easy to see why so many American primary care physicians support socialized medicine. It is their ticket to early retirement.

In Canada, government employees-like Prime Minister, Paul Martin-have access to private care at places like the Medisys Clinic. In other words, *Canada has a two-tiered system. * Big surprise there isn't it folks the government boys always look out for number one. :******: Some people go to clinics that take Medicare and others go to private clinics where government employee insurance pays their health care costs. There is usually no waiting period for treatment at the latter but there is at the former.

*It's a little like American legislators and government employees who have far better medical insurance options than taxpayers who pay the tab for their privileged private treatment*. :******: We have a double-tiered system, too. Ours just hides the offensive part of it better than our Canadian friends do.

Non-government employed Canadians may carry private insurance, but it is only allowed for nonessential services. Or, Canadians can pay up to $1,050 for an annual physical out of their own pockets. *But for serious illnesses, private medicine is illegal. * uke: People must get into the lines at public hospitals. The lines can be long, but it is the only alternative.

*Canadian health care is rationed*. Our Canadians friends have about three to six-month waiting periods for people who need joint replacements. Some wait a long time for bypass or other heart surgery.

Remember, this is the health care system John Kerry wants us to use as a model for Americans.


----------

