Cia Agrees With Kerry.

[KCFlyer]

I was merely using it to point out, again, the blantant hypocracy of the democratic party. They accuse either the President or the republican party of doing something that they are not, yet the dems can do it all day long and nobody complains.

Also, as you read through the stories, how the dems love to attack conservatives of being hate filled and mean, yet the protests in boston were peacefull while the protesting in NY is filled with attacks, arson, foul language. I read one story where a protested was carrying a sign, had no idea what it meant. When asked why he was carring it, he said that someone at the start of the march gave it to him to carry.

Gee, he really cared about what he was doing didn't he?

😛

[post="174433"][/post]​

Fred...some folks will do anything to get on TV. Just watch the Today show if you don't believe me. Your protesters may be "nicer" than the Democratic protesters, but your "voice" to much of America (Hannity, Limbaugh,Michael Savage) and the sponsors of those shows are full of hatred. It's only draped with the American Flag. I remember listening to Limbaugh a few years ago and there was an ad for "American Spectator"...it sounded as if the announce was growling thru clinched teeth the "Liberal List"...Oliver Stone, Anita Hill...finally spitting (there is no other word to describe it) - Hillary Clinton.

Guess I'd rather have a guy who was carrying a sign that he didn't know what it meant to "represent" me rather than the "king of the cutoff" Sean Hannity, who kills the call when someone makes a point and instead begins verbally flogging (the now disconnected caller) using the word "liberal", well...liberally...to describe some sort of horrid person...sort of like a pedophile. Bill Haher said on his show a few weeks ago that the word "conservative" has not been demonized, the word "liberal" has. He's right.

 

[FredF]

And Hillary Clinton is the essence of impartiality? :down:

As I have not hear hannity except as a guest host for Rush but I have hear the Maja Rushie and there is not hate there at all. He goes out of his way to let those with opposing views on the air and give them a lot of lattitude untill they start to become vulgar and the like.

The problem, as I see it, is that in order to attempt to dis-credit what they are saying, the likes of hillary have to resort to name calling and saying that they are full of hate and such, except anybody that has listened to him for more that 15 minutes knows just how wrong she and all the others are.

You know KC, I almost find it amusing that you cannot defend the dems or your position but insist on trying to deflect the discussion to your opponents and trying to put them down.

I started this by pointing out the complete hypocracy of the democratic party in accusing the President of trying to eradicate those that oppose his views, yet there they are for the world to see outside the garden yet in Boston they were contained in a razor wire surrounded compound miles away from the convention and here you are talking about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and calling them names.

 

[KCFlyer]

You know KC, I almost find it amusing that you cannot defend the dems or your position but insist on trying to deflect the discussion to your opponents and trying to put them down.

I started this by pointing out the complete hypocracy of the democratic party in accusing the President of trying to eradicate those that oppose his views, yet there they are for the world to see outside the garden yet in Boston they were contained in a razor wire surrounded compound miles away from the convention and here you are talking about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and calling them names.

[post="174457"][/post]​

I don't really defend the dems either. But....I've seen what the US has become under GWB, and quite honestly, my 12 year old labrador retriever could have done a better job, and left the US and the world in better shape.

My 11 year old daughter came home from school last week. They had a little project...a short story in a "news" format. One of her friends wrote this:

"John Kerry was divorced 18 years ago. His wife got to keep the money and the kids, but John Kerry said "I don't care, I didn't like them anyways". Fine "family values" that kid is hearing at home, isn't it? I don't like Bush, but my daughter doesn't hear me rant on about his drug and alcohol abuse and "war zone dodging". All she hears is that the war in Iraq was wrong. You know, I usually fly a flag outside my home. I took it down this week - I don't want it to be viewed as some kind of support for George Bush. When the convention is over, I'll once again fly it. Guess that makes me a "nasty protester".

I eagerly await the debates, where Bush and company will have to do something they have done a pretty fair job of avoiding as of late...discussing the issues facing America THIS year. Not John Kerry's 20 year old divorce or 35 year old military service.

And Hillary Clinton is the essence of impartiality?

Nope, she sure isn't. But I haven't heard her SPIT the names of conservative republicans, as I have heard coming from the right.

 

[USAir757]

You know, I usually fly a flag outside my home. I took it down this week - I don't want it to be viewed as some kind of support for George Bush. When the convention is over, I'll once again fly it. Guess that makes me a "nasty protester".

No, it makes you unamerican and ignorant.

How can you pick and choose when you'll support this nation and when you won't? Saying things like "my laborador retriever could have done a better job" ... were you being serious or were you trying to make us laugh? Because it wasn't funny. It just shows how ignorant people can be. It's unfortunate.

 

[KCFlyer]

No, it makes you unamerican and ignorant.

How can you pick and choose when you'll support this nation and when you won't? Saying things like "my laborador retriever could have done a better job" ... were you being serious or were you trying to make us laugh? Because it wasn't funny. It just shows how ignorant people can be. It's unfortunate.

[post="174487"][/post]​

No...I support this nation 110%. I don't want my support of this nation to be construed as support of Bush, which many "patriots" seem to require. Hence, the flag comes down. Sorry my dog comment offended you. It wasn't fair. She's never let me down. Bush has though.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I was just giving some low figure. Depending on which union you're talking about, the amount would vary. But in all cases, it would be relatively little, as your actual 8 dollar figure suggests.

[post="173791"][/post]​

Actually eight dollars represented about 20% of my dues at that time. Still seem low? Where is the program I can use to keep 20% of what I pay to corporations from being used to buy politicians?

I'd agree that in most cases, you wouldn't be harrassed, but there are many documented cases where people were.

Weren't you the one asserting that most of the union members were Republicans anyway? Any union in the US which condoned such harrassment, either directly or indirectly, would be opening themselves up to lawsuits from right-wing anti-union organizations like the so-called 'Right to Work Foundation', which, not surprisingly, is financed by the National Association of Manufacturers - a union for employers.

Does that mean I'm saying it doesn't happen? No but there are many more documented cases where workers are harrassed by their employers for their involvement in political causes of which their employers didn't approve or by their fellow employees for the same 'reasons'.

Personally, if I were a teamster, or in some other, shall we say less than totally ethical union, I wouldn't want to take the chance

That would be the same Teamsters who endorsed Reagan in 1980?

Look, I don't favor corporations influencing legislation or elections with their money anymore than I favor unions doing the same. But as long as each "side" is contributing mostly to a different party, you can't ban the unions from contributing if you don't ban corporations and vice versa. But to claim that one side's poop doesn't stink is grossly unfair.

Nobody made any such claims. However, considering that Corporate America contributes at a rate of five dollars for every one the unions do, attempting to write that off as some form of parity is ludicrous. Particularly when you consider that many corporations donate to both parties in an attempt to cover their bets.

There were many years when the Dems had control of both the White House and Congress, yet they never rescinded the Bermuda loophole.

There was no need to close it as there were regulations in place that provided a serious disincentive to using that loophole. The Bush administration did away with those regulations and opened the offshore floodgates.

I just knew that I should have inserted a rolleyes smiley, but was naive enough to figure most would realize the sarcasm

Yes, apparently sarcasm does go to waste here...

I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm only conservative on some issues. For example, I'm pro-choice and pro-gun control.

And I am still a registered Republican, I just don't want to be part of the corporate whorehouse the NeoCons have turned the Republican party into or participate in their assault on the Bill of Rights under cover of the war on terror. I hate to burst your bubble, but I belong to the NRA because I think the Second Amendment is important and to the ACLU because I think the other Amendments are important too.

I'm just against immoral/amoral liars, rapists, perjurers and pardon sellers like BJ Bill...

This is the kind of thing that always tickles me when the Republicans complain about how divided America has become. I wonder how that happened... It doesn't faze you that you insinuate that people shouldn't criticize the President after spending eight years doing just that?

Or veterans like Kerry who come home from their 4 month war...

And that's four months more than just about everybody in the Bush White House. Kerry had to be near combat to get wounded and had to get wounded three times to be sent home early. George Bush got fillings.

... to blast their fellow servicemen as war criminals ...

Again, he went there and earned the right to say what he wished. While I didn't agree with him I was proud that someone other than draft-dodging college kids was opposing the war. "War Criminals"? I knew plenty and I'm not excluding myself. I sure didn't see John Wayne or Vic Morrow over there.

You guys just don't get it, do you? You see war at a distance or in movies and think in terms of glorious death in battle. War is a terrible, criminal enterprise and should be used only as a last resort. It's the business of breaking things and hurting people and more often than not innocents get hurt. Men die for their friends on their left and right, not for the lofty ideals that sent them there. Now, was Kerry blaming the warriors or just the war they were told to fight? I've read Kerry's speeches on the subject, not just the excerpts the Bush campaign wants me to read, and I think it's very clear that he was condemning the war.

Funny how Kerry never brags about his record as a Senator.

He actually does that quite a bit. If you'd take a break from the 'GOP talking points du jour' you might have heard. He was doing it for decades before George woke up and decided he wanted his Dad's job.

One thing I know he never did is sell pardons, mainly because he never had the power to do so.

I guess those that Reagan and Bush the First pardoned were all just really deserving... like the Iran/Contra folks who were selling weapons to a sworn enemy of the US.

Unfortunately, Americans wouldn't be able to use any drugs if they're dead as a result of a terrorist strike, an event more likely if Kerry were elected.

Without a doubt the most ludicrous assertion I've seen yet. Exactly what evidence do you base your unbiased analysis on?

I didn't mean to imply the ad was about Hitler or 9/11.

...somehow more believable and objective than moveon.org crapola equating GWB to Hitler or claiming he knew about 9/11 in advance.

[post="173791"][/post]​

Uh-huh.

For example, if some delusional fool you see on the street states a fact while yelling and screaming about the end of the world coming tomorrow, the "fact" gets lost in all the ranting and raving.

Unless he's on talk radio and tells you the Democrats are to blame for it and then it's the gospel truth. After all, it's not like he could have some other agenda.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Guess that makes me a "nasty protester".

[post="174471"][/post]​

Or an "Enemy Combatant" like the rest of us who disagree with Bush.

Remember, it's not enough to obey Big Brother, you must love him.

 

[NWA/AMT]

No, it makes you unamerican and ignorant.

[post="174487"][/post]​

It's either that or be self-rightous and intolerant, I suppose. Too harsh? Did you realize you have an interesting habit of referring to those who have the temerity to disagree with you as 'ignorant'? Think about it.

How can you pick and choose when you'll support this nation and when you won't?

Because that's just what the people who wrote the Constitution wanted. They realized that blind obedience leads to either tyranny or a nation of the blind, or both.

Because it wasn't funny.

That's your opinion. I thought it was funny.

It just shows how ignorant people can be.

Yep.

 

[AgMedallion]

Your protesters may be "nicer" than the Democratic protesters, but your "voice" to much of America (Hannity, Limbaugh,Michael Savage)

To equate those three (esp Savage) is ludicrous (esp lump the first two in with Savage). While I don't agree with quite a bit of what Rush says (esp his support of big tobacco), I have always been shocked at how courteous he is to even the most obnoxious callers and he always lets them have their say. Even Sean Hannity is sometimes more courteous than he should be to some callers. Savage is another story. 🙂

... Sean Hannity, who kills the call when someone makes a point and instead begins verbally flogging (the now disconnected caller) using the word "liberal", well...liberally...to describe some sort of horrid person

If you think the term "liberal" is derogatory, that's your problem. If that's what you are, why are you so ashamed of it?

... Bill Haher said on his show a few weeks ago that the word "conservative" has not been demonized, the word "liberal" has. He's right.

I assume you meant Maher, not "Haher". He's the one who, right after 9/11, said it was our military leaders, not the terrorists, who were cowards. He was more or less kicked off the air after that and has somehow managed to worm his way back in, relying on the bad long term memory of most Americans. Personally, I wouldn't quote anything that miserable SOB says.

 

[diogenes]

No, it makes you unamerican and ignorant.

How can you pick and choose when you'll support this nation and when you won't? Saying things like "my laborador retriever could have done a better job" ... were you being serious or were you trying to make us laugh? Because it wasn't funny. It just shows how ignorant people can be. It's unfortunate.

[post="174487"][/post]​

UnAmerican? Then why did the Founders make the first Amendment about free speech? Dissent is as American as apple pie. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants..." (That's Thomas Jefferson speaking, for the ignorant! )

Ignorant? Typical neocon; when you can't win in the clinches, smear the opponent.

 

[KCFlyer]

If you think the term "liberal" is derogatory, that's your problem. If that's what you are, why are you so ashamed of it?

Actually, I consider myself more of a conservative. But not a neoconservative. In the 1996 election, I voted for Dole. But next time you're listening to the radio, listen closely to how the word "liberal" is used...here's a hint...it used with the same tone that one would use "pedophile".

 

[TWAnr]

Here is the latest on the Scum Boat Veterans for Bush:

SWIFT BOAT VET GOT $40M CONTRACT FROM BUSH

The Bush White House has denied any connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth[1] - the group that has been airing factually unsupportable smear ads against Sen. John Kerry's war record. But a new report today shows that one of the key accusers in the smear ads was a lobbyist for a company that recently received a massive federal contract from the Bush administration.

As the Washington Post reports, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr., the man who claims Kerry was not under fire when he received his first Purple Heart, is a top lobbyist for a defense contractor that recently won a $40 million grant from the Bush administration. According to a March 18 legal filing by Schachte's firm, Blank Rome, Schachte was one of the lobbyists working for FastShip's effort to secure federal contracts.[2] On Feb. 2, FastShip announced the Bush administration had awarded it $40 million.[3]

Schachte has other connections to the Bush administration. The Washington Post notes David Norcross, Schachte's colleague in the Washington office of Blank Rome, is chairman of this week's Republican convention in New York.[4] Records show that Schachte gave $1,000 to Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns.[5] Additionally, Schachte helped organize veterans' efforts against Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and for Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary.[6]

This is not the first member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who has been revealed to be connected to the President. The Bush-Cheney campaign's top outside lawyer was forced to resign after he admitted providing legal services to the veterans group.[7] The Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans adviser was also featured in one of the smear ads.[8]


Sources:

1. "Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan," WhiteHouse.gov, 8/20/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52656.
2. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52657.
3. "FastShip, Inc. to Receive $40 million in Federal Support for Marine
Cargo Terminal in Philadelphia," FastShipAtlantic.com, 2/02/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52658.
4. "A Swift Shift in Stories," Washington Post, 8/31/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52657.
5. OpenSecrets.org, 8/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52659.
6. Charleston Post & Courier, 2/17/2000.
7. "Bush-Cheney Lawyer Advised Anti-Kerry Vets," Washington Post, 8/25/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52660.
8. "Bush Campaign Drops Swift Boat Ad Figure," Washington Post, 8/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1836800&l=52661.

 

[AgMedallion]

UnAmerican? Then why did the Founders make the first Amendment about free speech? Dissent is as American as apple pie. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants..." (That's Thomas Jefferson speaking, for the ignorant! )

Ignorant? Typical neocon; when you can't win in the clinches, smear the opponent.

[post="174738"][/post]​

Kinda reminds me of how liberals label folks "racist" when they're stumped for comebacks (usually due to holding indefensible positions). 😛

 

[AgMedallion]

Here is the latest on the Scum Boat Veterans for Bush:

I find it fascinating that so many veterans can be lying through their teeth. If they're that dishonorable, it's weird how they found the honor to serve their country. I guess the only truthful statements are ones which are in support of Kerry. Funny how that works. 🙄

It will be interesting when you see the poll numbers drop for Kerry once the SwiftBoat vets start publicizing the horrible things Kerry said about Vietnam vets back in '71. Not that they haven't been publicized, but it's nothing compared to what they're gonna do. I guess Kerry never thought those remarks would come back to bite him on the as* 33 years later. Payback is a bit*h. The term poetic justice comes to mind.

 

[KCFlyer]

I find it fascinating that so many veterans can be lying through their teeth. If they're that dishonorable, it's weird how they found the honor to serve their country. I guess the only truthful statements are ones which are in support of Kerry. Funny how that works.

Indeed it is...that would mean that those who support Kerry are lying. Are we to deduce that ALL vets are liars?

It will be interesting when you see the poll numbers drop for Kerry once the SwiftBoat vets start publicizing the horrible things Kerry said about Vietnam vets back in '71. Not that they haven't been publicized, but it's nothing compared to what they're gonna do. I guess Kerry never thought those remarks would come back to bite him on the as* 33 years later. Payback is a bit*h. The term poetic justice comes to mind.

What will be even more interesting to see will happen to Bush's poll numbers (I didn't think Bush really ever followed poll numbers, but I digress) when, if they feel that they MUST campaign as if it were 1969, the Kerry group runs an ad showing the American soldiers killed and maimed over in Vietnam interspersed with highlight photo's of GW's "service" to America during that same time. Don't even have to have much dialogue....just show a picture of a bleeding soldier in a rice paddy, then a picture of Bush hunting for Alabama. Show a picture of a soldier being evacuated from a battlefield...followed by a picture of Bush on Padre Island. Then...for an air of modernity...show a picture of Bush, esconced in the comfort of the White House....5,000 miles away from the battlefield saying "Bring 'em on", followed by the caskets of the soldiers killed by a bomber in Najif who "brought it on". But Bush never said we committed war crimes...unless you count getting dragged away from the Texas National Guard officers club while drunk a war crime.

It's amazing. The same guys who called Clinton a draft dodger think Bush is the second coming of Patton.