Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[AA-MCI]

C'mon Freddie, Bush won't even tell us where he was for most of the time before 1994 and you want to quibble over the details of Kerry's story?

Keep trying to convince yourself and amusing us.

 

[FredF]

Well see, now that makes sense. Without details is about the only way you can support Kerry.

" I will fight a more thoughfull, sensitive war"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

"I will create more jobs"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

"I will balance the Budget"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

"I am a better cadidate for President"

Why - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

I guess you are right. Who cares about details?

 

[NWA/AMT]

I guess you are right. Who cares about details?

[post="171956"][/post]​

He didn't say he didn't care about them, he just said it was funny to watch you get so worked up over them. He's right.

Kerry has made the detailed plans available for each of those speeches you mentioned, but you really don't want them. You just want to claim that they don't exist. When we supply details you just shift gears and pretend you never asked the question in the first place.

You pretend Bush walks on water and claim that we make the same claims for Kerry when, in reality, we never have. Your boy is trying pretty hard avoid having the American people judge him by his actions, instead sticking to the time-honored NeoCon tactic of smearing his opponent. Just one problem though;

This time the American people aren't falling for it.

 

[KCFlyer]

Just hold it right there.

People on this board are very quick to take claims by the Kerry campaign as truth, yet when someone points out that what Kerry says in official navy documents contrasts directly what he wrote in his own diary and later published in a book, you call that Op-ed.

Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. That article, while parts were opinion, also pointed to a number of factual discrepancies. That is not opinion.
When Kerry, on the other hand calls this swift boats group another arm of the republican party, that is take as fact. That is mere opinion. He is being harmed by them and trying any means at his disposal to get them to go away even claiming them to be illegal. Yet he has nothing to back up his claim.

People on this board are very quick to follow the notion that whatever he says is fact yet that does not apply to anybody that would seek to contradict him.

Fine, from Kerry's own record and words. Take it as fact if you take everything else he says to be true
According to the records, Kerry claimed in the casualty report that he prepared March 13, 1969, that he was wounded as a result of a mine explosion.
On page 313 of "Tour of Duty," and evidently in Kerry's secret journal written on or about March 13, 1969, quoted in that book, Kerry relates his injury from the rice stock explosion.
Oops. Which of Kerry's accounts, stories or whatever you want to call them are you going to belive this time?

[post="171940"][/post]​

That crafty ole Bush....he was pretty smart not to keep a diary detailing his wartime service so that discrepencies can get documented.

And most of us thought long before Kerry announced that the Swift boat vets were arm of the republican party that the group was....an arm of the republican party. Bottom line, it didn't take Kerry's pronouncement for most of us to see it for what it is.

 

[KCFlyer]

"I will fight a more thoughfull, sensitive war"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

"Sensitive" in this case refers to the rest of the world. GWB has done enormous damage to America's credibilty by it's total disregard of the cautions of the rest or the countries in the world. I don't think he means getting all touchy feely with the terrorist groups, which is the way the GOP paints it.

"I will create more jobs"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

I don't know really....I doubt he'll do much better than Bush, becuase when you get right down to it, Bush or Kerry will be indebted to corporate America and it's quest for "shareholder value". If that's the case, the only job growth we'll see will be in that all important "minimum wage" category.

"I will balance the Budget"

How - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

A good starting point is to take back all those blank checks GWB set aside for defense spending.

"I am a better cadidate for President"

Why - Well those are just details. You don't need to know about them

I'm still waiting for someone who can tell me what GWB has done that makes him the better candidate for President. Anyone. Buehler?

 

[FredF]

I'm still waiting for someone who can tell me what GWB has done that makes him the better candidate for President. Anyone. Buehler?

[post="171977"][/post]​

I accept your challenge.


First off, he's brought integrity and honor back to a white house tainted with illicit activity.

He passed a series of tax relief measures. I have more of my money in my pocket as a direct result
the the tax cuts that were implemented.

After the dowrturn that started before he took office and were magnified by the attacks on 9/11, he has
provided an economic arena where jobs are being created and the economy is growing.

He has renewed strength in our military, one that for 8 years was in a constant state of decline.

And most importantly, he stood up the to world and said that it is no longer acceptable to kill americans. After
8 years of terrorist activity against americans with few if any consequences, he has informed the world that
attacking americans will no longer be tolerated. Then after saying that, he has proceeded to carry through on
that message.

Do I agree with everything that he has done? No way, but at least he has the courage of his convictions to do what he believes is best, not what some silly focus groups tell him is popular.


For as liberal board as this one, for you only want to fence words or talk about President Bush, I must say that I am suprised. Or rather, I am not suprised because it is very clear those that pay attention, that people are not really pulling for sKerry but just do not like President Bush. This is your big opportunity
to try to convince those that would seek to disagree with you, that the person you are supporting is the right person for the job and not just because you don't like the person that currently has the job.

 

[FredF]

Let me see if I have this right here. Kerry claims that the Swifties for truth yada yada yads are just an extension of the Bush Campaign, yet he has to evidence to back that up. Ok, fine.

And yet

Kerry Campaign Won't Fire MoveOn Staffer

The Kerry campaign is gloating this weekend over the resignation of Bush-Cheney volunteer, former Vietnam War POW Ken Cordier, who's featured in the latest Swift Boat ad - saying it proves illegal coordination between the Swiftvets' 527 group and the official Bush campaign.

But Kerry has no plans to fire Zach Exley, a key campaign staffer who served as the organizing director for MoveOn.org throughout the presidential primaries.


What's more, MoveOn, whose sole mission is to defeat President Bush in November, maintains that Exley is allowed to "communicate" with the 527 group even as he works for the Democratic nominee.
"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement," the Bush campaign said in a statement late Saturday. "Because of his involvement [in the ad] Col. Cordier will no longer participate as a volunteer for Bush-Cheney '04."

But there's no doubt that Kerry knew all about Exley's background when he hired him.

In April the Kerry for President Web site proudly announced: "Zach Exley joins the [Kerry] Internet team as Director of Online Communications and Online Organizing. He was previously the director of special projects for the MoveOn.org."

Exley claims he won't communicate with MoveOn until after the election, but when he teamed up with Kerry, MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, acknowledged that Exley will be able to make use of "what he's got in his head."

And a statement issued by MoveOn when Exley signed on with team Kerry insisted that "federal election rules permit some forms of communication" between Exley and the liberal 527.

 

[KCFlyer]

First off, he's brought integrity and honor back to a white house tainted with illicit activity.

He has also brought a level of secrecy to the executive branch that is worse than any other president in history - including Nixon. I'll address your "illicit activity" later in this response.

He passed a series of tax relief measures. I have more of my money in my pocket as a direct result
the the tax cuts that were implemented.

You must be rich. I only have a household income of about $100K, and I haven't seen any appreciable increase in my pocket.

After the dowrturn that started before he took office and were magnified by the attacks on 9/11, he has
provided an economic arena where jobs are being created and the economy is growing.

As I said in my post - the jobs that are created are the type where it takes one person working two of those jobs to attain any kind of livable wage. In my area, we have seen far more layoffs than any comparable creation of new jobs - outside fast food places and landscaping jobs.

He has renewed strength in our military, one that for 8 years was in a constant state of decline.

That military that was 8 years in decline is the same on he used to topple Saddam. And while strenghening the resources for the armed forces, he is pushing to reduce benefits for the troops (read people) that are fighting in the military.

And most importantly, he stood up the to world and said that it is no longer acceptable to kill americans. After
8 years of terrorist activity against americans with few if any consequences, he has informed the world that
attacking americans will no longer be tolerated. Then after saying that, he has proceeded to carry through on
that message.

YOu know, when he went after the Taliban in Afghanistan, I was 100% behind him. Then he decides to wage a "preventative" war (not preemtory war) against a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That's what's called "illegal" my friend. That is the result of something that the administration has been very good at hiding, and which was pointed out in your first point - illicit activity. Yes, GWB and company are no strangers to illicit activity. John Dean mentions in his book that Bush's actions regarding the Iraq war constitute an impeachable offense. I tend to agree.

Do I agree with everything that he has done? No way, but at least he has the courage of his convictions to do what he believes is best, not what some silly focus groups tell him is popular.

Hmmmm...seems to me that the "reasons" used to justify Iraq were run thru several "focus groups" before deciding that "liberating the Iraqi people" was our prime motivator.

For as liberal board as this one, for you only want to fence words or talk about President Bush, I must say that I am suprised. Or rather, I am not suprised because it is very clear those that pay attention, that people are not really pulling for sKerry but just do not like President Bush. This is your big opportunity
to try to convince those that would seek to disagree with you, that the person you are supporting is the right person for the job and not just because you don't like the person that currently has the job.

You know, when it comes to what's best for the American public, I admit that neither candidate is fit for the job. How 'bout that? Because both candidates are beholden to corporate America. What's best for the American people is running a distant second to "what's good for corporate America". Corporate America want's fewer environmental regulations? Great...GWB says "you got 'em". Corporate America wants to be able to put their "headquarters" in a PO Box in Bermuda to avoid US taxes altogether? GWB says "you got it". Corporate America says that they want overtime rules changed? "No problem" says GWB. Trouble with that one is that corporate America wants 60 to 70 hours of work per week out of their employees, but they only want to pay them for 40. So they cut staffing levels to a point where the "go getters" will work 70+ hours per week to cover the "slackers" who were laid off and not replaced. Kerry most likely would be the same in that regard. Nader actually addresses many of those issues, but I won't waste a vote.

But here's the real reason I'll vote for Kerry over Bush - I'm flat out afraid of Bush. His administration has reduced the liberties of American citizens in this country through the Patriot Act. He has alienated the US from most of the rest of the world thru his "F*** You" foreign policy. He has used 9/11 as an excuse to keep government unaccessable to the citizenry. I feel he has fired the first shots in what will become World War III. I honestly believe that Kerry will take steps to give Americans back many of their liberties. I belive Kerry will take steps to win over our (former) allies - and take their advice into account in the arena of foreign policy. And I believe Kerry will not operate any hidden agenda's in a secretive government. Yeah...Kerry will be just as beholden to big business as Bush is. But in most other respects, I believe that Kerry is the better man for the job.

 

[FredF]

Couple of problems here.

First, I am not rich, but I do have more money in my pocket as a result of his tax cuts. See I am married and have kids. So that is a start and I did have capital gains so I guess I get to keep more of my money.

Your stance is incorrect about benefits for the military. He has actually tried to increase those benefits. I found that story burried, but what the administration has tried to do was actually increase benefits. It was just one more story reported inaccurately. In all fairness, it was hard to find, but I did find it.

The war in IRAQ, is about terrorism and there were multiple UN resolutions that called for just what happened. There were also quite a lot of those in congress that were calling for just the same thing. Except that just happened to be a differend president.

But here is the kicker.

President Bush refuses to kiss the butt of every nation that says we should not do what we are doing, especially in IRAQ because they have lucrative economic contracts with the regime that was toppled. These Nations that want to blame the woes on the world on us, these nations that say we should bow to them when it comes to deciding what serves our national defense, they can get mad at us. I would rather have a president that actually takes his oat to defend this country first and worry about the will of other nations later.

I have said before that a true friend is not one that stands beside you when times are good, but a true friend stands beside you when times are bad. These very nations, that you propose appeaseing and Kerry wants to appease are these very same nations that we cannot ligitimately call friends.

 

[KCFlyer]

I don't propose "appeasing" other countries....I propose dialoging with them and THEN coming to a decision via a vote of the membership of the United Nations. Not this "F*** You" stance that we did adopt. I believe it's something called the "golden rule". Bush being a professed Christian should be aware of this. Let's say this was 1940's America and Bush was president, and Germany decided to attack Poland. Would he have stood by and said "More power to you"? Or would there have been an outcry that a country cannot unilaterally invade another? Please don't give me the "well, that was Hitler - he was an evil man"story. True, Hitler was a vile man, but the fact is, what he did is absolutely no different than what the US did in Iraq. Especially when the "United Nations" objected and we did it anyhow. A true friend stands by you in the good times, and a truer friend tells you when you are preparing to make a huge mistake. Trouble is, it means little when you don't want to listen to that advice.

And our Congress voted to grant Bush the ability to go to war if.....the situation could not be addressed via diplomatic channels, or if it could be proven that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US. Neither happened, yet we went to war. That's an abuse of power. Terrorism is the term du jour to justify this administrations actions. And as far as I can see, we are losing the war on terror. And to fight it the way we are fighting it is only serving to increase the recruiting efforts of terrorist groups.

His tax cuts did nothing to increase my standing in life...I have a kid too. I got the child care break. And I got his post-election "gift". All told, in 4 years, I got maybe $2,000. Technically, yes, I have more. But it didn't buy me a car, or a boat or anything else to "stimulate" the economy. About all it did was go towards that month's credit card bill. But I'd venture to guess that the tax relief that the family with a million dollar income and two kids got. Not anywere close. Not even proportionally. And you know, I and the millionaire family were paying those taxes and still living quite well, thank you, and we had a balanced budget. So we get this great tax break and also have a historically high budget deficiet. Coincidence. Not according to Bush...that's a result of 9/11. That's a handy catch all event.

You didn't address your loss of freedoms....the Patriot Act, which oddly enough put a liberal Democrat Senator on the "no fly list". Gotta wonder if that was really a "fluke". Damn....I remember when I was a kid going with my mom to see LBJ when he stopped in Orlando. There weren't any "non support" police to keep anyone away, as there are with the Bush presidency. And yes...there were a few Goldwater signs at that event. But with Patriot and Patriot 2, our rights are being revoked in the name of "terrorism". Tell you what...when Americans are deprived of many of the rights that our forefathers fought and died for over the years in the name of "terrorist" activities, it's just one more way that the terrorists are winning this war. If it gives you the warm fuzzies that the government now has the right to find out what books you've been reading...what shows you are watching....what web sites you visit...what church you attend....what social groups you belong to, well that's great. Personally I find that frightening. And that's why Bush must go.

 

[FredF]

POP QUIZ

If you pay $1000 in taxes and I pay $100 in taxes and we both get a 10% tax break, that means you pay $100 less and I pay $10 less.

Even if you only get a 5% break that still means you pay $50 less.

Now, who got the better tax break?

I am so tired of hearing how the rich got all the tax breaks and all this class warfare crapola. The people carrying the largest burden got the most dollar amount breaks because, not get this part because it is very critical, THEY PAY THE MOST TAXES. They got a lower percentage, but amazing enough, it added up to more actual dollars.


Ready for Question 2?

I personally think the TSA should be done away with, but pray tell me kind sir, exactly what freedoms have you personally lost?

 

[FredF]

You are also quick to complain about the Bush campaign and those that say they were not allowed into whatever event. I have not heard you say boo about Kerry's efforts to censor the swift boat book or ads.

Do you have some double standard here? You should be just a outraged that he is trying to force, strong arm, threaten the publisher of the book and tv stations that run those ads. Are you going to condem him for those actions as well?


I am waiting.

 

[A10Pilot]

Fred

Pay no attention to KCFlyer. He is clueless. I have spent over twenty years in the military including Desert Storm combat and Operation Iraqi Freedom last year. He acts like he is an expert on these matters but knows nothing. He has tried to lecture me on the capabilities of ELINT (which he was so far off on it was beyond laughable) and how we employ weapons.

He lives in his little world with no understanding of the threat we all face.

A10 Pilot

 

[KCFlyer]

Fred

Pay no attention to KCFlyer. He is clueless. I have spent over twenty years in the military including Desert Storm combat and Operation Iraqi Freedom last year. He acts like he is an expert on these matters but knows nothing. He has tried to lecture me on the capabilities of ELINT (which he was so far off on it was beyond laughable) and how we employ weapons.

He lives in his little world with no understanding of the threat we all face.

A10 Pilot

[post="172070"][/post]​

A10 - care to tell me the difference between an preemptive war and a preventive war? Here's a clue for you - one is legal...one isn't. The second one of the Bush Administration that you are fighting falles in to the "isn't" category. BTW...I don't act like an expert. I only argue for what is right and what is wrong. Bush just gave you 20 year military guys the war you've been itching to fight. Must be hell to have been a warrior with no war to fight. So y'all jump a the chance to fight in a war that is wrong. The good news is, the younger warriors will have that war they've wanted...most likely for longer than they really want to fight it.

Also, I believe it was someone else arguing about Electronic Intelligence capabilities....I was only questioning why, if it's possible to spot a camel taking a dump in the desert from 100 miles over the earth, why wasn't it possible to find a convoy of trucks moving WMD's accross Iraq. Never claimed to be an expert, and never engaged you in an argument of the capabilities of electronic intelligence. Never got a real answer to my question either, as I recall, unless you call a response similar to "Jane, you ignorant slut" as a 'response'.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I personally think the TSA should be done away with, but pray tell me kind sir, exactly what freedoms have you personally lost?

[post="172032"][/post]​

I don't propose to remain idle until it affects me personally, thanks. If you wait until then it's too late.