 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Plato, Bush is a rareity among politicians, a man of his word. |
I can't believe you kept a straight face while writing that. Bush is a liar of enormous proportions. He lied about his tax cuts and who would be affected, he lied about his previous jobs (including gov of Texas), he lied about missile defense, he lied about 9/11, he lied about Iraq. His admintration has lied about Vicky Plame, the vandalism of the White House. They have acted to surpress the truth with the 9/11 commission, Iraq, government regulations, etc.
This administration is an enemy of the truth. Kerry seems to be also. The Dem's are making it real easy for me to vote Nader. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by monkspider

Ned,
You're too blinded by hatred to see past the tip of your nose. You are afraid to face your responsibilty to other people, so you have created your own universe to hide in and you lash out at anyone who values love and brotherhood. Just know that your universe is a lonely place, and the sooner you can join the rest of us, the better. You just need to learn to value love more than hatred, and you will have great potential in this life. |
Perhaps we who have lived what you know as history think differently because we experienced the consequences of the policy choices now being debated once again.
I think ill of Kerry and good of Lieberman. The difference is their policy choices on foreign affairs. In fact, there are famous Democrat politicians even a little older than me who knows just how good president Bush has been on fighting the war on terror. They include Koch, former mayor of New York, and Zell Miller, ex govenor and senator from Alabama. Had Lieberman been the Democrat nominee, perhaps they would have back this patriot rather that arch enemy of American security, Kerry.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Monk
While I don't doubt that some politicians have a higher moral character than others, some of you guys are in need of a paradigm shift in your conception of politics. First of all, it should be about the issues much more than the candidates. Secondly, we need to accept that anybody who wants to hold a political office of great importance would have to have stabbed somebody in the back at some point or said one thing and done something else at another time. It's not pretty but it's inevitable because that's the way politics goes and the other side is doing it too.
I think it's tiring how people seemingly want to turn themselves into one-sided characters in every and all political debates around here. I can only imagine Ned's outrage if Bush had been a candidate for the Democrats. So Ned, do you even have a single viewpoint on politics that favours Democrats over Republicans? If yes, why we hear about that for a change? Vice versa, the same could be said for Sava and quite a couple others. |
Monk, you, like many who live in the anti-Bush league, simple fail to listen. I supported Lieberman.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can't believe you kept a straight face while writing that. Bush is a liar of enormous proportions. He lied about his tax cuts and who would be affected, he lied about his previous jobs (including gov of Texas), he lied about missile defense, he lied about 9/11, he lied about Iraq. His admintration has lied about Vicky Plame, the vandalism of the White House. They have acted to surpress the truth with the 9/11 commission, Iraq, government regulations, etc.
This administration is an enemy of the truth. Kerry seems to be also. The Dem's are making it real easy for me to vote Nader. |
Che, yeah sure.
I checked that anti-Bush, lie site. The first four or five stories of lying were on Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. You really had to dig deep to find anything on Bush. But the stuff they accused Bush of lying about are so inconsequential as to be laughable. However, because they are so inconsequential, it is very hard to verify based on publicly available resources. So all we have is bald-face assertions by extremely biased people.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
The Vietnam war ended a few years before I finished high school. But I was quite aware of the issues, having family and friends that fought in the war.
Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded.
Revisionists have dieified many of these people, or at least tried to. The strong conservative movement of the last twenty-five years has blunted that and you can rest assured that as the American public becomes more focused on this election there will be a great groundswell of hostility towards Kerry because of his protest background and legendary bias against the military.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
The Vietnam war ended a few years before I finished high school. But I was quite aware of the issues, having family and friends that fought in the war.
Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded.
Revisionists have dieified many of these people, or at least tried to. The strong conservative movement of the last twenty-five years has blunted that and you can rest assured that as the American public becomes more focused on this election there will be a great groundswell of hostility towards Kerry because of his protest background and legendary bias against the military. |
Bravo! jimmytrick. The people who were there at the time know that the likes of Kerry destroyed Johnson's and Nixon's ability to end the war through negotiations. It was only after Nixon was reelected in a landslide and he began an overwhelming attack on the major cities of North Vietnam did they finally accept peace.
The people who somehow think the country did not support our effort in Vietnam and that the likes of Kerry were treated as heroes are indeed living in a post-revisionist view of the world. However, it is true that Kerry, almost single-handedly, is responsible for the hostile reception of many of returning troops. He called them war criminals, baby killers and the like.
Kerry is the lowest of the low.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Che, yeah sure.
I checked that anti-Bush, lie site. |
Not my link, man. I seperated out the lies of Bush and the lies of his Administration. I think he's responsible for those who work for him and lie, however, and he has created a permissive environment for lying. This is certainly one of the most dishonest governments we've had. I hope that whatever subsequent Administration comes to be has the cajones to investigate this Adminstration fully, and send those who need to go to prison to prison.
Why hasn't Bush asked his staff to sign an affidavate that they didn't leak Valerie Plame's name, nor do they know who did? Why has this administration thrown roadblock after roadblock in front of the 9/11 commission? Why has this administration been firing scientists who disagee with the junk science the Bushies base their policy on?
Hell, I doubt Bush even knows what truth is anymore. |
In the now famous words of Martha Stewart on being asked about her conviction, "Whatever."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
AnnC
|
 |
State & Ontario
Sep 1999 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick: Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded. |
In my part of South Carolina, people had low regard for anti-war protesters until 1969 when news of the My Lai massacre became public. After those grisley photos appeared in Life magazine, adults in my family (hyper-conservative Goldwater Republicans) turned against the war and quietly admitted that the protesters were right.
quote: Originally posted by Ned: GePap, dismissing the lying part, it is good to see that at least someone on the left agrees that Bush will fight and fight hard for what he believes in. |
I'm on the left and I agree that Bush will fight for what he believes in... but that's the problem. Among other things, he will fight for:
1. Increased federal control of things like education and marriage law (which ought to be left to the states).
2. Increased federal funding for religion and the arts (!!) and for other programs that he and his wife personally endorse.
3. Big business. He already forced a change in labor law which denies overtime pay to 8 million workers, and propsed an immigration policy that will drive down wages for working people. What will he fight for next?
My Republican relatives in the Carolinas have turned against Bush and they're pretty typical, I think. They represent a growing trend throughout the US.
It doesn't really matter who the Democratic candidate is. Bush will win 13 states this November, at most, and Democrats will re-take the White House.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Kerry is crap
unfortunately the other man running is Bush
reason why I am voting third party
(Well, and I agree with them more)
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
**Exclusive**
Sen. John Kerry's official election website is riddled with obscenities, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
The Democrat nominee-in-waiting recently said radio stations are within their right to pull Howard Stern off the air if they object to the shock jock's racy show.
But an investigation reveals Kerry's own website is filled expletives, setting the standard for a new wave of 21st Century campaigning!
MORE
A sampling of web pages featured on Kerry's official site reveal:
"Bush f**ked up Afghanistan... Did I expect George Bush to f**k it up as badly as he did... cutting all your f**king legs off at the knees... Where the f**k is he?... scare the living s**t out of me... He has a pig-in-s**t grin on his face, he wanted to get into the s**t... doesn’t play s**t in my book..."
In fact, typing in the terms "F**k" or "S**t" in the search box of the official Kerry For President site directly links the reader to the action!
A campaign source tells the DRUDGE REPORT that "John Kerry For President" online simply contains published material, and the senator was simply unaware on Sunday that the expletives were being carried on his own Internet server. [A search on the official Bush/Cheney re-election revealed no such curse words.]
"I think you'll see the offensive words removed," the top campaign source said.
Unlike over the air broadcast, there are no known foul language rules for official campaign websites.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
This is more of a question rather than a statement. Recently Kerry criticized Bush for not intervening soon enough in Haiti so as to prevent a rebel victory and an Aristide debacle. He said he would have led a "international force" into the Haiti, without specifying the composition of that international force.
It is my understanding that several weeks ago: Powell was calling for just such an international force. However, when he consulted the French, they insisted that Aristide must go. The French made it clear that they would veto any UN resolution calling for international force in Haiti without some political resolution first. That is when Powell shifted course and began to try to get both the rebels and the Aristide forces on the same page in terms of a coalition government. In the end, that did not work, so Aristide had to flee. When he did, the French and United States a had resolution passed at the Security Council authorizing an international force composed of French, American and Canadian forces.
In essence therefore, what Kerry was arguing for was unilateral intervention in a civil war in Haiti, without French support, without a UN resolution and with no vital American interests involved.
When reporters asked Kerry about why he criticized Bush for preceding without French support and a UN resolution in a case of Iraq, but would be willing to do exactly the same thing in the case of Haiti, Kerry merely replied that his position on unilateral intervention was different from Bush, but would provide no further details:
""People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary," said Mr. Kerry, who has rarely used the word "unilateral" in the campaign except to describe how Mr. Bush has alienated allies. "But my standard is very different from George Bush's."
But so far, Mr. Kerry has not described that standard in detail. In the interview on his plane, Mr. Kerry said he was reluctant to define how he would act in specific situations...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/p.../07KERR.html?th
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|