PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry: Wrong Side of History…Every Time!


JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:31 AM
April 22, 1971 Appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee claiming to represent all Vietnam veterans, accuses his brothers-in-arms of having “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…”. Most Vietnam veterans vehemently rejected his characterization of events. Also asserted that “we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now”, which assertion was later proved categorically wrong by the Reagan administration, whose every effort against the Soviet empire John Kerry fought tooth and nail while in the Senate.

Kerry also admitted in his testimony that he had met with our enemy in Paris, to wit: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government…” Important note: John Kerry was still on active duty with the Navy at that time, making him a traitor to the United States of America, an act of treason punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

1984 While Reagan is in the midst of a huge military buildup to win the Cold War, John Kerry issues a press release calling for the cancellation of the very weapons systems that made victory possible, including: the MX Missile, B-1 bomber, the critical SDI (Star Wars) defense-only system that was the key to victory in Reykjavik, Tomahawk Cruise missile, Apache helicopter, Patriot Missile (Tel Aviv sends their thanks, John!), AEGIS, Harrier, F-15, F-14, Phoenix air-to-air missile, Sparrow air-to-air missile, etc. Again and again John Kerry voted to cut vital defense systems, but now all of a sudden he wants to make a “stronger America”? Why don’t we just surrender to our enemies so John Kerry can feel he has accomplished something for America?

1985 Kerry, along with Sen. Tom Harkin, ventured to Nicaragua to meet with President Daniel Ortega, a Marxist revolutionary who idolized Fidel Castro and received aid from the Soviet Union. Kerry saw another Vietnam in the making because then-President Reagan was aiding freedom fighters in Nicaragua trying to overthrow Ortega's Sandinista regime. "If you look back at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution," Kerry told the Washington Post on April 23, 1985, "if you look back at the troops that were in Cambodia, this history of the body count and the misinterpretation of the history of Vietnam itself, and look at how we are interpreting the struggle in Central America and examine the CIA involvement, the mining of the harbors, the effort to fund the contras, there is a direct and unavoidable parallel between these two periods of our history."

Kerry, in office only a few months and with no consultation with the administration or the State Department, decided to negotiate with Ortega. He and Harkin walked away from Nicaragua with an agreement for direct talks with Washington. President Reagan flatly rejected it.

"Do we want to see the body bags coming back again?" asked Kerry. "I don't think Congress would let it happen. I think there is a very strong sensitivity just ingrained in people like me, Harkin and [Al] Gore by virtue of the Vietnam experience that sounds alarm bells. I think all across the Hill there is a generational feeling, even with those that didn't go. I don't think it's isolationist. I'm not. I think it's pragmatic and cautious about what we can achieve."

Following his trip to Nicaragua, Kerry insisted: "They just want peace. They don't want their daughter getting blown away on the way to teach! Or their sons disappearing. It's just terrible. I see the same sense of great victimization. The little kids staring wide-eyed and scared. It really hits home the same way as Vietnam. Sending our own troops. I just don't think Congress or the people will allow it. If we haven't learned something by now about talking rather than fighting ..."

Kerry was clearly convinced another Vietnam was shaping up in Central America.

But he was wrong. [Again!]

Reagan stuck to his policy of supporting the resistance to the Sandinista government. And the first time elections were held, the Sandinistas were swept out of office.

Today, Nicaragua, a strong U.S. ally in the region, has troops fighting side by side with Americans in Iraq.

1991 John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm to push Iraq out of Kuwait. I guess Bush I’s coalition wasn’t “real” enough to suit Kerry’s tastes.

2004 John Kerry, once again taking the wrong side against a communist adversary of the United States, prefers bilateral talks with North Korea, instead of including China, Russia, South Korea and Japan as Pres. Bush has done. Not surprisingly, North Korea likewise prefers bilateral talks. Once again, John Kerry comes out on the side of a communist regime. History shows him batting .1000 when it comes to being wrong on communism…or could it be he secretly supports communism???? He certainly did in the ‘70’s!

October 8, 2004 During the 2nd Presidential debate, John Kerry once again lies, as he has done repeatedly, about the alleged forced retirement of Gen’l Shinseki.

Hi, Libs! :wavey: How's it feel to be wrong...

Again!

:tape:

Shane54
Oct 10th, 2004, 05:26 AM
Good post! I am glad that someone has guts to speak against Kerry. Even though I don't agree with everything Bush does, Kerry is not God's gift to the World either. I just wish people would take off their "bias" glasses and be fair. The war in Iraq is not Bush's doing. Saddam had 12 years to abide by rules and deadlines. He continually disregarded them.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:46 AM
Good post

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 12:39 PM
While i didn't have the energy, to sit through and read every word of your "spin masters guide to rewriting history" i did notice this


1991 John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm to push Iraq out of Kuwait. I guess Bush I’s coalition wasn’t “real” enough to suit Kerry’s tastes.

i don't know if you got the memo, but the war is widely considered to be the worst in American history, and every historian i have talked to calls it "the only war America lost", because 'nam was never a "declared" war.

most of you may not be old enough to recall ODS but it was not happy times here in America, it was NOT popularly supported, in fact there was FAR more opposition to ODS then there is to this so called war.

you can tell young ems who don't remember the war that everyone supported it, but those of who were there know otherwise.

in short KERRY WAS RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE FIRST WAR IN IRAQ, because in spite of the spin masters guide to rewriting history, IRAQ I, was a complete and utter disaster.


while we are on the subject of "wrong side of history"

i am sure you spin masters know but dont care that Dick voted AGAINST:
HEAD START
and
MLK DAY

unless of course are saying that voting against MLK day and HEAD START was the RIGHT thing to do?

kabuki
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:16 PM
Good post! I am glad that someone has guts to speak against Kerry. Even though I don't agree with everything Bush does, Kerry is not God's gift to the World either. I just wish people would take off their "bias" glasses and be fair. The war in Iraq is not Bush's doing. Saddam had 12 years to abide by rules and deadlines. He continually disregarded them.

You cannot be serious.

Wigglytuff
Oct 10th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Good post! I am glad that someone has guts to speak against Kerry. Even though I don't agree with everything Bush does, Kerry is not God's gift to the World either. I just wish people would take off their "bias" glasses and be fair. The war in Iraq is not Bush's doing. Saddam had 12 years to abide by rules and deadlines. He continually disregarded them.

dont worry, kabuki is wrong, saddam DID NOT abide by deadlines....
like when he didnt turn in his Weapons Of Mass Destruction on time.
that was soooooo wrong of him, this whole thing could have been avoided if he had just turned in his weapons.


its a good thing the good old U.S. of A. went in there found the weapons and .....

wait....

wait...

hmmm

weapons??.....

hmmm....

hmm....

still looking........

hmmm....

"WMD's come out, come out where ever you are!!"

hmmmm...

nothing...

hmmm...

ok, hmmm looks like there were NO WMDs....

but he still missed the deadline to turn them in, so there kabuki :ras: :ras: ....

really kabuki, i dont understand how you dont understand the logic, saddam failed to turn in the WMDs he didnt have by the deadline. so we can liberate the iraq people against their will. its all very logical.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Good post! I am glad that someone has guts to speak against Kerry. Even though I don't agree with everything Bush does, Kerry is not God's gift to the World either. I just wish people would take off their "bias" glasses and be fair. The war in Iraq is not Bush's doing. Saddam had 12 years to abide by rules and deadlines. He continually disregarded them.
Point taken - Kerry is not God and I have never pretended him to be that.

But he (along with quite a few others) are more than capable than Bush of running our country.

Paneru
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:15 PM
You cannot be serious.

The scary thing is that
they actually are!

Kerry's called a flip floper and yet how many
time has Bush changed his reason's for going to war?

First it was to get the WMD which they didn't find
which they would've known had he let Blitz finish
doing his job.

Also, Colin Powell had to apologize
for what he said.

The, when Bush could no long use the WDM argument
to justify the war, he immediately went to cloak it
under the guise of liberating the Iraqi people.

Finally, it's supposed to all steam from 9/11 when it was
obvious and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda boasted about it and
being behind it and yet Bin Laden and his core group are left
to persuit someone proven to have no ties to 9/11 by the
commission. So, you had Bin Laden there to concentrate your
efforts on and bring him and all his core group to justice.

Now, you have Iraq in chaos with people still not having electricty and what not and lawless destruction and Bin Laden still out there.

Paneru
Oct 10th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Point taken - Kerry is not God and I have never pretended him to be that.

But he (along with quite a few others) are more than capable than Bush of running our country.

Right!

Kerry isn't a God, neither candidate is.

Yet after seeing what Bush has done it's time
for a change because 4 more years of Bush
is 4 more years of the same and that doesn't
sit well with many.

Kerry can atleast own up when he makes mistakes
unlike Bush IMO.

harloo
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:50 PM
dont worry, kabuki is wrong, saddam DID NOT abide by deadlines....
like when he didnt turn in his Weapons Of Mass Destruction on time.
that was soooooo wrong of him, this whole thing could have been avoided if he had just turned in his weapons.


its a good thing the good old U.S. of A. went in there found the weapons and .....

wait....

wait...

hmmm

weapons??.....

hmmm....

hmm....

still looking........

hmmm....

"WMD's come out, come out where ever you are!!"

hmmmm...

nothing...

hmmm...

ok, hmmm looks like there were NO WMDs....

but he still missed the deadline to turn them in, so there kabuki :ras: :ras: ....

really kabuki, i dont understand how you dont understand the logic, saddam failed to turn in the WMDs he didnt have by the deadline. so we can liberate the iraq people against their will. its all very logical.Umm, jiggly you forgot that Saddam hid the WMD's in Iran, and Syria.;)

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 03:58 PM
Bush is a COWARD he won't go after any real threats: Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea. Instead he goes after the pussies that he knows don't have any weapons of mass destruction. It's a good thing too, with this idiot Bush leading us to war, if we faced any real threats we'd be torn apart. We're having enough trouble getting Iraq that has no WMD, could you imagine what Iran, or North Korea could do to us.

Anybody know if N. Korea dropped a bomb on the capital building in DC, if I'd be safe living next to the TN/KY border in VA? :D

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 04:56 PM
1984 While Reagan is in the midst of a huge military buildup to win the Cold War, John Kerry issues a press release calling for the cancellation of the very weapons systems that made victory possible, including: the MX Missile, B-1 bomber, the critical SDI (Star Wars) defense-only system that was the key to victory in Reykjavik, Tomahawk Cruise missile, Apache helicopter, Patriot Missile (Tel Aviv sends their thanks, John!), AEGIS, Harrier, F-15, F-14, Phoenix air-to-air missile, Sparrow air-to-air missile, etc. Again and again John Kerry voted to cut vital defense systems, but now all of a sudden he wants to make a “stronger America”? Why don’t we just surrender to our enemies so John Kerry can feel he has accomplished something for America?
Bush Sr's Secretary of Defense (uh, some guy named Cheney) wanted to cut many of the same weapons that Kerry did. (I guess he wants to surrender, too). The Patriot missle was later revealed to have been such a failure against Scuds that it couldn't beat Mark Phillipousis! :o And the MX missle (a pure "use it or lose it" first strike weapon) would have strengthened Gorbachev's hardline rivals (Ligachev, etc.) so much that the Cold War might have never ended.

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Bush Sr's Secretary of Defense (uh, some guy named Cheney) wanted to cut many of the same weapons that Kerry did. (I guess he wants to surrender, too).
Correct, Roger! :yeah: :bigclap:

In 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Nice try McSpinster ;), but John Kerry made a valiant effort to win the Cold War for Russia, in 1984 while it was still HOT ;), and all the revisionism in the world can't change that! :p :lol:

mboyle
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:47 PM
why do you enjoy talking to walls, Justinetime?

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:57 PM
why do you enjoy talking to walls, Justinetime?
:secret: Because sometimes the walls have ears, mboyle. ;)

Martian Willow
Oct 10th, 2004, 06:58 PM
It's quite a compliment to Marxism to think it only collapsed because America spent lots of money on pointless weapons. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that many of the smaller communist states surrounding the Soviet Union rejected communism before the USSR did, and they weren't affected by US arms programs even slightly.

njguido11
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Right!

Kerry isn't a God, neither candidate is.

Yet after seeing what Bush has done it's time
for a change because 4 more years of Bush
is 4 more years of the same and that doesn't
sit well with many.

Kerry can atleast own up when he makes mistakes
unlike Bush IMO.

Kerry said he thought they should have gone to war 2. Easy how that fact gets forgotten. WAKE THE FUCK UP. HEs on the other side now because trying to appeal to the other side of things. If he didnt do this he would not even been in contention. YOU people are so easily manipulated

njguido11
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:08 PM
Bush is a COWARD he won't go after any real threats: Bin Laden, Iran, or North Korea. Instead he goes after the pussies that he knows don't have any weapons of mass destruction. It's a good thing too, with this idiot Bush leading us to war, if we faced any real threats we'd be torn apart. We're having enough trouble getting Iraq that has no WMD, could you imagine what Iran, or North Korea could do to us.

Anybody know if N. Korea dropped a bomb on the capital building in DC, if I'd be safe living next to the TN/KY border in VA? :D

SO ud support us going after Iran and N. Korea. YOUD BE THE 1st one on here screaming foul. Ur a hypocrit.

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:17 PM
It's quite a compliment to Marxism to think it only collapsed because America spent lots of money on pointless weapons. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that many of the smaller communist states surrounding the Soviet Union rejected communism before the USSR did, and they weren't affected by US arms programs even slightly.
Not to worry, Willow. :) There are many who share your view that Reagan's participation in the fall of the Soviet Union was purely incidental. You know, that same crew of leftist elites who proclaimed at the top of their lungs that the Cold War was "unwinnable" and wished for Pete's sake that Reagan would quit trying to win it! :lol: :tape:

For goodness sake, he was ticking off our formidable eastern foe that was collapsing on its own anyway! [At least in the revisionist version! :tape:]

:haha:

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:20 PM
SO ud support us going after Iran and N. Korea. YOUD BE THE 1st one on here screaming foul. Ur a hypocrit.

Please learn to spell too, I almost had to take some ebonics just to figure out what you were trying to say.

No, I'd prefer no more wars. Unlike in the past, and during the olden days of WWI and WWII, War is not good business.

I'm just saying, instead of going after someone known with proof positive to have the WMD, Bush pussies out and goes after someone that doesn't. All because his Daddy didn't get the job done of taking care of Saddam back in 91. :o

If you ask me, Bush & Co are stupid. They want us, in the USA to have access to Nuke weapons, and expects the rest of the world to just give them up. I'll never understand for the life of me, why they don't completely do away with Nuke, biological and other WMD completely. One country, just because they think they are the "good guys" doesn't need control over such things. Such things don't even need to exist.

Still want to say I'm a hypocrite? If anything, I'd rather have a president that works with the world to eliminate the terror that someday will end the entire planet.

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:32 PM
I'm just saying, instead of going after someone known with proof positive to have the WMD, Bush pussies out and goes after someone that doesn't. All because his Daddy didn't get the job done of taking care of Saddam back in 91. :o
Oh, thou short-sighted one:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/deployment.map/new.base.map.6.10.gif

One conflict at a time, please! :)

Still want to say I'm a hypocrite? If anything, I'd rather have a president that works with the world to eliminate the terror that someday will end the entire planet.
Because no doubt those sensible leaders like the Mullahs in Iran and Mr. Mentally-Ill in N. Korea will cooperate fully, as did the Soviets before them, n'est-ce pas? ;)

If we make nicey-nicey with our fanatical enemies, they'll just go away, right? :bounce:

Don't you lefties ever tire of being wrong??? :confused: :tape:

:lol:

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:35 PM
Don't you righties just wish you could blow up, oh say the rest of the world after draining all it's resources. And then say, when you get done with there, have enough ammo left to gather everyone that makes under $200,000 a year and just do away with those too.

Ah yes, what a much better world that would be.

But you keep forgetting, if that really did happen Rightie, who probably isn't old enough to vote to begin with, who's going to make the products you need. I doubt you'd find many at $200,000 a year that will give up sitting on their high horse to make your Big Mac's for you.

:wavey:

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:40 PM
Oh, thou short-sighted one:

Because no doubt those sensible leaders like the Mullahs in Iran and Mr. Mentally-Ill in N. Korea will cooperate fully, as did the Soviets before them, n'est-ce pas? ;)

If we make nicey-nicey with our fanatical enemies, they'll just go away, right? :bounce:

Don't you lefties ever tire of being wrong??? :confused: :tape:

:lol:

Well I suppose these same people, will just as easily bow down to Bush/Cheney and give up their Nuke weapons to us. So the mighty USA has control over them ALL?

Let's see which is the logical question.

Would they:
A) Give them up after we go in and bully the hell out of them, completely surrendering them to the United States, the biggest bully of every country. This ultimately gives the US power to control the WORLD. Yeah that seems wise doesn't it. North Korea and Iran can just give them up to us, we'll take care of them with extra special care once they hand them over.

B) Work with negotiations and show them how much safer, the world can be without WMD. Therefore leading by example and everyone meeting to give up their WMD all at once. Thus leaving no clear country the power to bully any other ones.

Yeah which one do you think is more LOGICAL to happen. Please don't belittle the intelligence of North Korea/Iran by saying they are as stupid as Bush thinks they are. No country, will ever give up it's weapons to another country so it can ultimately become the "New World Power". :o

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Don't you righties just wish you could blow up, oh say the rest of the world after draining all it's resources?
Well, sure! :shrug: What use have we for the world after we're finished with it?! :shrug: After all, we're just...:hehehe:...Evil Conservatives!:hehehe:

[Question mark inserted out of courtesy.]:hatoff:

:)

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Hey you said it. Let's just bomb the rest of the world, hell if we have all their Nukes how could they ever fight back. Talk about a peaceful planet. One World controled by One Nation.... alas, the Bible is fulfilled and the end of time comes just in time to save the sane! :wavey:

I like what the Republicans keep moving towards, hell it's bad enough the Democrats are moving that way as well. With a Repub in office we just seem to get there a little faster in one term, than to say it takes a Dem 2 terms to get just as far. ;)

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Correct, Roger! :yeah: :bigclap:

In 1992, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Nice try McSpinster ;), but John Kerry made a valiant effort to win the Cold War for Russia, in 1984 while it was still HOT ;), and all the revisionism in the world can't change that! :p :lol:IC you have no rebuttal however re. the MX missle. Had it been built and deployed, Kremlin hardliners like Yegor Ligachev would have toppled Gorby (if he didn't prevent it by becoming one himself). Thus no glasnost, less perestroika, and a continued Cold War (maybe to this day).

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 08:29 PM
JR I told you, JustineTime won't come back and argue any points the robot has made. Thus therefore you're talking to thin are. It already knows it's lost this battle, now it's just running on empty. :lol:

You know, I thought Bush made a deal with the Saudi Royal family to lower the price of gas before the election, esp starting in October. How come the cost of gas/oil has done nothing but rise since Oct?

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 08:32 PM
You know, I thought Bush made a deal with the Saudi Royal family to lower the price of gas before the election, esp starting in October. How come the cost of gas/oil has done nothing but rise since Oct?Black solidarity. (The current Nigerian upheval is payback for the Florida 2000 phony felon lists). ;)

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 08:37 PM
IC you have no rebuttal however re. the MX missle. Had it been built and deployed, Kremlin hardliners like Yegor Ligachev would have toppled Gorby (if he didn't prevent it by becoming one himself). Thus no glasnost, less perestroika, and a continued Cold War (maybe to this day).
You're kidding, right, Roger? I mean, honestly! :haha:

So now John Kerry won the Cold War???

Why isn't he running on that instead of his dubious Vietnam record then? :confused:

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 09:04 PM
You're kidding, right, Roger? I mean, honestly! :haha:

So now John Kerry won the Cold War???

Why isn't he running on that instead of his dubious Vietnam record then? :confused:Like maybe because he was a freshman Senator then, and isn't falsely ova-emphasizing his own role in killing it. :p

RVD
Oct 10th, 2004, 09:22 PM
JustineTime, you CAN'T be serious about this post, can you?
So you're telling people here that GWB is a better presidential choice because Kerry was against, historically, one of the worst mistakes in U.S. history (Vietnam War)? And again against another (Iraqi War)?
Wouldn't these be reasons to vote FOR Kerry?
MAN! Incredible.

I can't believe that you're voting for a man who...
1.) Knowingly 'Lied' to the entire American Public.
2.) There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (WE TOOK THEM ALL).
3.) There was NO plutonium trading hands (These were falsified documents).
4.) There was NO imminent danger of Iraq attacking the U.S. (How could he? HE WAS CONTAINED)
6.) There were NO Iraqi terrorists on the planes that slammed into the WTC.. (Most were Arabs...BUSHES BUDDIES).
7.) There was NO collaboration between Iraq and the Osama Bin Laden(sp). (They HATED each other).
8.) Saddam was NO threat to the U.S.

WE invaded a sovereign nation.
WE killed unborn babies, grandmothers, the disabled. OUR OWN SOLDIERS.
WE didn't expend every effort to seek a resolution through joint diplomatic efforts.
WE rushed to war.
WE had NO exit plan.
WE provided NO (or at the very least inferior) body armor to our own troops.
WE cut the military pay WHILE the soldiers were on the ground fighting.
WE cut back on military medical benefits (again, while our men and women were out there risking their lives).

For Christ sakes, I haven't even listed the innumerable facts that prove Bush is a failure as leader. NONE of his business ventures EVER succeeded.

If you want a former 'druggie-alcohy-military-dodging-low-achiever' running the country for 4 more years, that's your business. But to come on a board and list the reasons why his challenger is a 'BAD' choice is beyond asinine. SHEESH! :rolleyes:

heartBREAKeRS
Oct 10th, 2004, 09:44 PM
Im with Bush, on matter what, I know he is a man with action and not promise.. At true leader. just my opinion

Hulet
Oct 10th, 2004, 09:44 PM
So, if the definition of a communist is
-one who speaks up against atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam
-one who talks to all parties involved (foe or friend) to find peaceful solution
-one who attempts to put a stop to arms race
-one who spiritually suffers when civillians suffer in civil war in Nicaragua
...
then shouldn't we all be communists? :)

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:03 PM
JustineTime, you CAN'T be serious about this post, can you?
So you're telling people here that GWB is a better presidential choice because Kerry was against, historically, one of the worst mistakes in U.S. history (Vietnam War)? And again against another (Iraqi War)?
Wouldn't these be reasons to vote FOR Kerry?
MAN! Incredible.

I can't believe that you're voting for a man who...[No need to. I never said I was voting for Bush. I'm leaning independent. Kerry, however, is an admitted war criminal and traitor. I certainly will NOT vote for him!]
1.) Knowingly 'Lied' to the entire American Public.[Please tell me where Bush "knowingly lied". :)]
2.) There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (WE TOOK THEM ALL).
3.) There was NO plutonium trading hands (These were falsified documents).
4.) There was NO imminent danger of Iraq attacking the U.S. (How could he? HE WAS CONTAINED)[Not directly, no, nor did Bush or anyone on his staff intimate otherwise.]
6.) There were NO Iraqi terrorists on the planes that slammed into the WTC.. (Most were Arabs...BUSHES BUDDIES).[Saudis, yes, and you don't hear me singing their praises, either, do ya? ;) Nevertheless I'll wager their families got $25,000.00 checks from Saddam, though!]
7.) There was NO collaboration between Iraq and the Osama Bin Laden(sp). (They HATED each other).[Despite the fact that the liberal media does it's level best to cloud this issue, their was [u]clearly a Baghdad/Al Queda connection. Just not on 9/11. Listen carefully to the way the pundits spin it. ;)]
8.) Saddam was NO threat to the U.S.[He was harboring and proudly supporting terrorists, which made him fair game in the war on terror, IAW the Bush Doctrine.]

WE invaded a sovereign nation.[For which I and most of they are glad!]
WE killed unborn babies, grandmothers, the disabled. OUR OWN SOLDIERS.
WE didn't expend every effort to seek a resolution through joint diplomatic efforts.[Every effort? OK, I'll give you that one, but perhaps that is largely due to the fact that our ostensible allies, France, Germany, and Russia, who opposed US at the UN, all had their greasy liitle paws in the oil-for-food cookie jar!]
WE rushed to war.[No. we didn't.]
WE had NO exit plan.[Honestly don't have enough info to address this either way. :shrug:]
WE provided NO (or at the very least inferior) body armor to our own troops.[:scratch: The sum $87 billion comes to mind for some reason...You're voting for Kerry, right?]
WE cut the military pay WHILE the soldiers were on the ground fighting.[Again, insufficient data. Sorry! :o]
WE cut back on military medical benefits (again, while our men and women were out there risking their lives).[See above]

For Christ sakes, I haven't even listed the innumerable facts that prove Bush is a failure as leader. NONE of his business ventures EVER succeeded.[Categorically incorrect. See Texas Rangers. ;)]

If you want a former 'druggie-alcohy-military-dodging-low-achiever' running the country for 4 more years, that's your business. But to come on a board and list the reasons why his challenger is a 'BAD' choice is beyond asinine. SHEESH! :rolleyes:I'm not plugging Bush, nor have you seen me do so. I simply deplore Kerry. He should be behind bars, not running for our nation's highest office, IMO. :shrug:

Besides, asinine is my specialty! Ask Roger! :)

Martian Willow
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:11 PM
Not to worry, Willow. :) There are many who share your view that Reagan's participation in the fall of the Soviet Union was purely incidental. You know, that same crew of leftist elites who proclaimed at the top of their lungs that the Cold War was "unwinnable" and wished for Pete's sake that Reagan would quit trying to win it! :lol: :tape:

For goodness sake, he was ticking off our formidable eastern foe that was collapsing on its own anyway! [At least in the revisionist version! :tape:]

:haha:

I didn't say anything about my views on the situation. I just pointed out that yours suggest that Communism would have survived had it not been for star wars, which is a compliment to it's economic stability. :) Do you think the Romanian revolutionaries who shot Ceaucescu even knew what an MX missile was?

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:32 PM
I didn't say anything about my views on the situation. I just pointed out that yours suggest that Communism would have survived had it not been for star wars, which is a compliment to it's economic stability. :) Do you think the Romanian revolutionaries who shot Ceaucescu even knew what an MX missile was?First, let me just say that I never called JiT "asinine" and that Doan's standard of "well somebody do something here" can lead to walking off a cliff.

Willow, its worse than you said. If the MX had been deployed and the USSR stayed a Brezhnev style dictatorship, the Soviets (or the Romanians acting @ their behest) would have preserved that regime, even if they replaced Ceaucescu. (Ditto East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria).

RVD
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:33 PM
I'm not plugging Bush, nor have you seen me do so. I simply deplore Kerry. He should be behind bars, not running for our nation's highest office, IMO. :shrug:

Besides, asinine is my specialty! Ask Roger! :)Phew! I understand your position now JustineTime. And, my bad. It sounded like you were a GWB supporter.

I too do not like Kerry. He seems shifty, slow to react, opportunistic 'after-the-fact'. In other words, reactionary. But then most politicians do. However, GWB is downright SCARY! He always looks like a deer caught in the headlights (ready to bolt to that safe-house under the dessert floor). Also, he has no respect for human life whatsoever. (Refer to his record as Governor of Texas). He's simply there to make his rich buddies richer, which he's succeeded in doing. I just can't respect, nor take 4 more years of this madness.

PLEASE LORD, LET THE MADNESS END! :lol:

RVD
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:37 PM
This article generally sums it up for me.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1009-22.htm

Published on Saturday, October 9, 2004 by the Associated Press

Europeans Lament a 'Changed' America
by Mort Rosenblum

PARIS - In Paris, a hairdresser says with a laugh that if he can't vote on Nov. 2, at least he is splashing Heinz ketchup on his steak-frites as his contribution to the momentum against President Bush.

In Oslo, a young Norwegian expresses his thoughts on a Web site that takes advantage of Norway's two-letter Internet code: www.tellhim.no

Even in Warsaw, where many support Bush, Poles question the president's Iraq policy. "He banged his fist on the table," said Ewa Wojcik, a 44-year-journalist. "Whether it was the right table remains a question."

Opinion surveys concur that Europe heavily favors Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. But, beyond the numbers, conversations reveal a broad belief that the Atlantic Ocean is wider than at any time in modern memory.

From Britain to the Baltics, many sense a sea change in sentiment toward an America they once admired — largely linked to what they call an arrogant contempt of others after 9-11.

Cedric Judicis, 51, the ketchup-eating coiffeur, normally pays scant attention to U.S. presidential contenders, but this year he knows all about aspiring first lady Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the H.J. Heinz Co. fortune.

Heinz Kerry gained much of her $500 million portfolio through her Heinz inheritance, but she does not serve on theboard and is not involved with the management of the company.

Like many Europeans who see the American chief executive as reshaping their world, Judicis wishes he could vote.

"To us, America was always the gold standard," he said. "It made mistakes, but it always meant well. We were like pupils who admired the master."

Judicis has made six trips to the United States and, unlike some others, he is eager to go back.

"But America is different now," he said. "It rules by force, not by the weight of respect. There's a sense of 'do what I say and not what I do.' It was always so open. Now it seems to us totalitarian."

Jillie Faraday, a British filmmaker based in Paris, still loves to visit American friends. She knows the society well, avoiding generalities that often lead its critics astray.

Still, she excoriates the Bush administration because of Iraq. "Can't they see that they're just making more terrorists, more bitterness, more frustration?" she asked.

And she thinks a Republican cabal is conning an apathetic, foolish mainstream. She is outraged, for instance, at the new electronic voting system in Florida which leaves no paper record.

"If they tried to do that in anywhere in Europe, people would riot in the streets," she said. "Americans are fed propaganda, and they say it's democracy."

Most Europeans questioned said they were more opposed to Bush than in favor of Kerry. Few have firm opinions yet on the Democratic candidate. Many question his ability to rally Europe on Iraq, should that be his intention.

In Poland, the mood is mixed. Three of four Poles questioned by The Associated Press said they would not vote even if they could.

"Kerry seems weak, unconvincing," said Piotr Sakowicz, 44, an avionics engineer. "And Bush seems incapable of continuing his task."

Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes, 29, on leave from Norway's Socialist Left party to run his "tellhim.no" Web site, posted a letter to Bush, saying Norwegians respect America's "strength, generosity and creativity."

But, he added, four out of five Norwegians oppose the war because Bush's policy "only fosters resistance."

In Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair supports Bush, polls suggest a two-to-one preference for Kerry. By telephone, a sampling of Britons explained why.

At 32, Chris Hoe, a British treasury employee, said he grew up with America as an example of an open-minded and free-spirited nation. "Now," he said, "I'm afraid that's been pushed aside by an ugly isolationism."

For Amanda Farrant, 36, a King's College expert on Middle Eastern borders, Bush's America is downright dangerous. By removing Saddam Hussein , she said, coalition forces gave the Middle East its first chance at regional cooperation in decades.

"But the way American and British troops went in, disbanding the border guards, you really have to wonder what brain cells are working up there," Farrant said.

She was disgusted when U.S. authorities recently turned back singer Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens, as a terrorist risk.

"I'm afraid all sorts of things are turning people off about America," she concluded.

Arab leaders tried to warn Bush to gain more support and plan for a postwar transition, she said, but instead Washington is confronted by a region full of angry, frustrated people.

Views are poignant in Germany, where fresh generations are rejecting the old postwar attachment to an American ideal.

Vending machine executive Paul Bruehl worries about what he calls Bush's Christian fundamentalism. "In world dealings, you need intercultural dialogue, with Muslims, with Buddhists, with everyone," he said by phone from Cologne.

With a bitter laugh, Bruehl described a T-shirt he had seen that made the point: "And God spoke through the Bush."

But the strongest feelings are in France, which dates its trans-Atlantic friendship to the Marquis de Lafayette's help against the British in the American Revolution.

French Foreign Ministry officials say privately they laugh off anti-French slurs. But they describe a deep-seated unease with Washington, pushing them closer to European partners.

Among ordinary Frenchmen, the feeling is clear.

"We no longer feel much sentiment for America," remarked Laurence Torno. Her husband, a softspoken dentist, agreed. "It is too aggressive, too full of itself."

Their son, Pierre-Charles, 17, saved for years for a post-high school grand tour, starting in Florida and ending in New York. This summer he graduated and went to Australia.

"Before the Iraq war, my friends and I all felt a strong sympathy with America," Pierre-Charles explained. "Now we see no respect for people's human rights or international agreements."

One friend who went to America told him he was pushed around by kids wearing buttons that said, "After Baghdad, Paris."

Now he has revised his dream of studying medicine in the United States.

"I loved Australia," Pierre-Charles concluded. "It was very open, friendly, a great place. I'd had it with America."

© 2004 AP

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:42 PM
So, if the definition of a communist is
-one who speaks up against atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam
-one who talks to all parties involved (foe or friend) to find peaceful solution
-one who attempts to put a stop to arms race
-one who spiritually suffers when civillians suffer in civil war in Nicaragua
...
then shouldn't we all be communists? :)
Kerry didn't "speak up" against atrocities, he invented them!

"Talking to all parties" is fine, but not against both the interests of your own country and the wishes of the chief executive. This is called "treason".

Kerry's idea of "putting a stop to the arms race" was basically surrendering to the Soviets. :shrug: :rolleyes:

OK, Kerry's sensitive. :tape: He's batting .250, but kowtowing to a communist dictator (Ortega) don't butter our biscuits! :eek:

:lol:

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:45 PM
I love how the Bush supporters automatically label anyone who dislikes Bush and says they are going to vote for Kerry a "leftie" or a "commie". I'd rather be that than a blinded robotic moron without my own brain to think with. Hey JustineTime, when Kerry gets elected... GET THE HELL OUT! ;)

Josh
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:51 PM
I see Karl Rove is still alive and kicking. :smash:

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:56 PM
OK, Kerry's sensitive. :tape: He's batting .250, but kowtowing to a communist dictator (Ortega) don't butter our biscuits! :eek:
Does Bush, Sr. sending Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleberger to "kowtow" in Beijing (months after Tien An Men Square, BTW) mean he's a Commie, too?
:confused:

Bacardi
Oct 10th, 2004, 10:58 PM
What about the fact that Bush supports Putins new rules on restricting people. Isn't that resorting back to Commie actions, thus for meaning Bush is supporting the Commie movement. Then again, ah yes, earlier I forgot, he passed something so he could pry into our lives too. Bush would have a communist movement if he knew it would stuff his pockets and keep him in office a little longer.

What I honestly worry about, is what that little shit's going to do in his bratty angered fit when he finds out on Nov 3rd that he wasn't re-elected? I mean can you imagine the temper tantrum that baby is going to make? I wouldn't doubt him trying to start wars everywhere just to leave some mess for Kerry to take care of. As if Kerry doesn't have enough of W's mistakes to clean up anyway.

JustineTime
Oct 10th, 2004, 11:06 PM
Does Bush, Sr. sending Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleberger to "kowtow" in Beijing (months after Tien An Men Square, BTW) mean he's a Commie, too?
:confused:
C'mon, Rog, don't insult us both by even pretending you can't see the difference betwixt the two!

*JR*
Oct 10th, 2004, 11:15 PM
C'mon, Rog, don't insult us both by even pretending you can't see the difference betwixt the two!What difference? Papa Bush's guys engaged in a dialogue with unelected Chinese leaders, and Senator Kerry did with an unelected Nicaraguan one.

Volcana
Oct 10th, 2004, 11:37 PM
Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?April 22, 1971 Appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee claiming to represent all Vietnam veterans, accuses his brothers-in-arms of having “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…”. Most Vietnam veterans vehemently rejected his characterization of events.

No. Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many.
Also asserted that “we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now”, which assertion was later proved categorically wrong by the Reagan administration
Again, no. You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries. And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.
Kerry also admitted in his testimony that he had met with our enemy in Paris, to wit: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government…” Important note: John Kerry was still on active duty with the Navy at that time, making him a traitor to the United States of America, an act of treason punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason.
1984 While Reagan is in the midst of a huge military buildup to win the Cold War, John Kerry issues a press release calling for the cancellation of the very weapons systems that made victory possible, including: the MX Missile, B-1 bomber, the critical SDI (Star Wars) defense-only system that was the key to victory in Reykjavik, Tomahawk Cruise missile, Apache helicopter, Patriot Missile (Tel Aviv sends their thanks, John!), AEGIS, Harrier, F-15, F-14, Phoenix air-to-air missile, Sparrow air-to-air missile, etc. Again and again John Kerry voted to cut vital defense systems
The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda. Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.
1985 Kerry, along with Sen. Tom Harkin, ventured to Nicaragua to meet with President Daniel Ortega, a Marxist revolutionary who idolized Fidel Castro and received aid from the Soviet Union. Kerry saw another Vietnam in the making because then-President Reagan was aiding freedom fighters in Nicaragua trying to overthrow Ortega's Sandinista regime. "If you look back at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution," Kerry told the Washington Post on April 23, 1985, "if you look back at the troops that were in Cambodia, this history of the body count and the misinterpretation of the history of Vietnam itself, and look at how we are interpreting the struggle in Central America and examine the CIA involvement, the mining of the harbors, the effort to fund the contras, there is a direct and unavoidable parallel between these two periods of our history."
Kerry, in office only a few months and with no consultation with the administration or the State Department, decided to negotiate with Ortega. He and Harkin walked away from Nicaragua with an agreement for direct talks with Washington. President Reagan flatly rejected it.
"Do we want to see the body bags coming back again?" asked Kerry. "I don't think Congress would let it happen. I think there is a very strong sensitivity just ingrained in people like me, Harkin and [Al] Gore by virtue of the Vietnam experience that sounds alarm bells. I think all across the Hill there is a generational feeling, even with those that didn't go. I don't think it's isolationist. I'm not. I think it's pragmatic and cautious about what we can achieve."
Following his trip to Nicaragua, Kerry insisted: "They just want peace. They don't want their daughter getting blown away on the way to teach! Or their sons disappearing. It's just terrible. I see the same sense of great victimization. The little kids staring wide-eyed and scared. It really hits home the same way as Vietnam. Sending our own troops. I just don't think Congress or the people will allow it. If we haven't learned something by now about talking rather than fighting ..."
Kerry was clearly convinced another Vietnam was shaping up in Central America.
But he was wrong. [Again!]
Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Reagan stuck to his policy of supporting the resistance to the Sandinista government.Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal.
Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history.
1991 John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm to push Iraq out of Kuwait.The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN.
2004 John Kerry, once again taking the wrong side against a communist adversary of the United States, prefers bilateral talks with North Korea, instead of including China, Russia, South Korea and Japan as Pres. Bush has done. Not surprisingly, North Korea likewise prefers bilateral talks.China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct.
October 8, 2004 During the 2nd Presidential debate, John Kerry once again lies, as he has done repeatedly, about the alleged forced retirement of Gen’l Shinseki.Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right.
Hi, Libs! How's it feel to be wrong...Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?

RVD
Oct 10th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?No. Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many.
Again, no. You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries. And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.
If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason.
The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda. Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.
Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal.
Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN.
China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct.
Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right.
Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?Volcana I love you! Will you have my baby? :lol: We'll keep it on the dl so wifie won't find out. ;) (Okay, I'm assuming you're female. Or it'd be real hard to on the both of us). :lol:

I'm just so glad you took the time to respond item-by-ridiculous-item. It seems that people just post stuff without even reading or truly believing what they post. :confused:

Anyway, I'm framing this one. :bounce:

Wigglytuff
Oct 11th, 2004, 02:58 AM
volcana! you rock!

i cant say that enough.

Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?No. Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many.
Again, no. You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries. And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.
If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason.
The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda. Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.
Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal.
Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN.
China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct.
Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right.
Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?

rand
Oct 11th, 2004, 08:55 AM
Good post! I am glad that someone has guts to speak against Kerry. Even though I don't agree with everything Bush does, Kerry is not God's gift to the World either. I just wish people would take off their "bias" glasses and be fair. The war in Iraq is not Bush's doing. Saddam had 12 years to abide by rules and deadlines. He continually disregarded them.
:lol:

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 11th, 2004, 12:37 PM
C'mon, Rog, don't insult us both by even pretending you can't see the difference betwixt the two!
Just curious, but why did you use the word "betwixt"

Did you here is somewhere else?

I'm just wondering b/c that word is like an inside joke with me and my friends, thanks :p

JustineTime
Oct 11th, 2004, 03:35 PM
:shout: Hey, Kool-Aid! :shout: :drink: Drink up, Libsters! :lol:

Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?
Try the truth.

No. Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many.
Lie. Don't know which vets you're speaking with, but the notion of "widespread" atrocities propagated by commie-lovers Kerry and Hanoi Jane are patently false, regardless of hysterical liberal assertions to the contrary.

Again, no. You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries.
For which you can largely thank Roosevelt and his communist lacky advisor Owen Lattimore. Chiang Kai-Shek sends his regards from the great beyond. :rolleyes: Another great triumph of liberalism!

And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.
Again, spin. We won the Cold War. Kerry, like most libs at the time, said we shouldn't even be fighting it, or at least not with the preposterous goal of actually winning it! He was WRONG! I know it hurts, but denial is only the first step in the grieving process; let's move on to acceptance, shall we? :hehehe:

If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason.
This notion is absurd on its face. So every single crime of treason is prosecuted automatically? Hmm...:scratch: Then I wonder why Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and yes, John Kerry, aren't all playing canasta with Martha Stewart...

The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda. Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.
No, you're right, they were absolutely useless against Al-queda. :tears: Fortunately for US, AL-Queda didn't even exist when John Kerry in his infinite misguided liberalism proposed doing away with them. Jimmy Carter won the Cold War?! :eek: Now I've heard it all! :haha: Unbelieveable! Do I read the things I post? Have mercy! :lol: Riddle me this, Batman: why was SDI, a purely defensive system, such a sticking point with Gorby in Iceland? Because if it worked, all the missiles they had pointed at US would have been useless! This truth is glaringly self-evident, but in your hysterical liberal blindness, you seem adept at stumbling blithely past it.

Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Like he was on Vietnam, no doubt. :rolleyes: I know, YOU think he actually was...:tape: Of course the Sandinistas wanted peace with their northern neighbor who could obliterate them with little more than a fly-swatter! So they could set up a communist regime on our doorstep at the behest of the Soviets. But Reagan wasn't havin' it! But as stated previously, when THE PEOPLE, whose voice you seem so adamant needs to be heard, actually spoke, bye bye Sandinistas, hello partner in the non-existent coalition of the coerced and bribed! :rolleyes:

Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal.
Reagan was not a knowing party in the Iran-Contra scandal, and was righteously PO'd when he found out. Negotiating with Iranian terrorists on any scale was totally against his policies. Reagan had bigger fish to fry than Daniel Ortega. Not surprising that John Kerry and his liberal pals in Congress yet again came down on the side of a communist dictator, frustrating Reagan's every effort to thwart the spread of worldwide communism.

Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history.
Bully for him. Pity he didn't oppose worldwide communism with at least equal ardor.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN.
Point conceded.

China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct.
The fact that North Korea is in favor of bilateral talks and eagerly awaits a Kerry administration is all I need to know. Spin on! :hatoff:

Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right.
Yet another liberal lie: "the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002" :rolleyes:

Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?
Sorry, I'm not a liberal. I make decisions based on fact, not emotion! :nerner:

:lol:

:)

Martian Willow
Oct 11th, 2004, 03:49 PM
You're hilarious. Were you Rothes as well?

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Oct 11th, 2004, 04:22 PM
JustineTime - answer my question about your use of the word "betwixt" please ;)

JustineTime
Oct 11th, 2004, 04:55 PM
JustineTime - answer my question about your use of the word "betwixt" please ;)
Uhh, sorry! :o

As Roger can tell you, I love poetry. :secret: But don't tell Volcana; she/he might think I'm a closet liberal. ;)

:lol:

Wigglytuff
Oct 11th, 2004, 05:58 PM
:shout: Hey, Kool-Aid! :shout: :drink: Drink up, Libsters! :lol:

Try the truth.

of hysterical liberal assertions to
his communist lacky advisor

Again, spin. We won the Cold War. Kerry, like most libs at the time, said we shouldn't even be fighting it, or at least not with the preposterous goal of actually winning it!

I know it hurts, but denial is only the first step in the grieving process; [/B]

I wonder why Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and yes, John Kerry, aren't all playing canasta with Martha Stewart...

Have mercy! :lol: Riddle me this, Batman:

but in your hysterical liberal blindness, you seem adept at stumbling blithely past it.

Bully for him. Pity he didn't oppose worldwide communism with at least equal ardor.

Point conceded.

The fact that North Korea is in favor of bilateral talks and eagerly awaits a Kerry administration is all I need to know. Spin on! :hatoff:

Sorry, I'm not a liberal. I make decisions based on fact, not emotion! :nerner:

:lol:

:)
for someone who makes their decisions based on "fact" you seem to have a fair amount of unhealthy emotion on here.

did some girl you dated leave you for a "liberal"? what gives? or do you just like calling posters (Volcana in this case) who are more rational and together than you are things like this: "hysterical liberal blind"?

i dont know, you seem a bit hysterical and blind yourself. glad to see you finally conceded your BS about the kerry and the war in Iraq I

and you also seem to have failed to address the FACT that Dick, voted against head start and MLK when i first asked you address it, or is it that only some "facts" matter?

i wont take on the whole of your point, because you have already been schooled by volcana, and callin her a liar doesnt make it so.

--------------

here is a question, not just for you but for anyone really,

how exactly can people say american won the "cold" war?
1/4 of the world is communist
and Russia has 2K more nukes than the US has?*

*number of nukes (somewhat outdated: 1999)
1-Russia 10,210
2- USA 8,226
3- france 449
4- china 395
5- UK 260

what are the requirements for winning a "cold" war? avoiding a "hot" war? not surrending? ????

JustineTime
Oct 11th, 2004, 06:12 PM
for someone who makes their decisions based on "fact" you seem to have a fair amount of unhealthy emotion on here.

did some girl you dated leave you for a "liberal"? what gives? or do you just like calling posters (Volcana in this case) who are more rational and together than you are things like this: "hysterical liberal blind"?

i dont know, you seem a bit hysterical and blind yourself. glad to see you finally conceded your BS about the kerry and the war in Iraq I

and you also seem to have failed to address the FACT that Dick, voted against head start and MLK when i first asked you address it, or is it that only some "facts" matter?

i wont take on the whole of your point, because you have already been schooled by volcana, and callin her a liar doesnt make it so.

--------------

here is a question, not just for you but for anyone really,

how exactly can people say american won the "cold" war?
1/4 of the world is communist
and Russia has 2K more nukes than the US has?*

*number of nukes (somewhat outdated: 1999)
1-Russia 10,210
2- USA 8,226
3- france 449
4- china 395
5- UK 260

what are the requirements for winning a "cold" war? avoiding a "hot" war? not surrending? ????
That's right, JP, all I did was hurl invective and insults at Volcana, no salient, cogent points whatsoever. :tape: :rolleyes:

NEWSFLASH! :secret: America did win the Cold War
The Soviet Union is no more! ;)

Mommy! :( :tears:

Wigglytuff
Oct 11th, 2004, 06:23 PM
That's right, JP, all I did was hurl invective and insults at Volcana, no salient, cogent points whatsoever. :tape: :rolleyes:

at least you owned up to it, thats all that anyone can ask for. :lol: :lol: :lol:


NEWSFLASH! :secret: America did win the Cold War
The Soviet Union is no more! ;)

Mommy! :( :tears:

i still fail to see why you cant address the DICK issue? is that not being on "the wrong side of history"? what are you so scared of?



anyway, i need someone who is less emotional and childish, and more intellectual to break this down for me?

njguido11
Oct 11th, 2004, 07:06 PM
I love how the Bush supporters automatically label anyone who dislikes Bush and says they are going to vote for Kerry a "leftie" or a "commie". I'd rather be that than a blinded robotic moron without my own brain to think with. Hey JustineTime, when Kerry gets elected... GET THE HELL OUT! ;)

This board is filled with people who mislabel bush supporters. what the hell is the difference. ONLY 1 thing they have a difference of opinion. "blinded robotic morons" because people dont share ur opinion.

kabuki
Oct 12th, 2004, 02:12 AM
Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?No. Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many.
Again, no. You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries. And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.
If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason.
The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda. Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.
Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal.
Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN.
China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct.
Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right.
Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?

Volcana, you are the real deal. :worship:

Volcana
Oct 12th, 2004, 03:33 AM
Where to start when there's SO much wrong-headed ill-informed, stupidmindedness in one single post?Try the truth.Well, you're not real good at hearing that, since everything I posted you're objecting to here IS true.
Most Vietnam veterans AGREE with this characterization of events. But they, like Kerry, argue these were the actions of the few, not the many. Lie. Don't know which vets you're speaking with, but the notion of "widespread" atrocities propagated by commie-lovers Kerry and Hanoi Jane are patently false, regardless of hysterical liberal assertions to the contrary.Sorry, the liar here is you. I had enough relatives who served in Vietnam, and observed those things first hand. Beyond, Kerry IS a Vietnam vet. So his words actually count, as do the words of the men who served with him, and the words of the men who’s letters he read before Congress. I also notice that I said ‘the actions of the few, not the many’, which YOU translated into ‘"widespread" atrocities’ while calling me a liar. My words are true. Your attempts to twist them are both lies and laughingly, incompetent lies.You may have notice that fully a quarter of the world's population lives in communist countries. For which you can largely thank Roosevelt and his communist lacky advisor Owen Lattimore. Chiang Kai-Shek sends his regards from the great beyond. Another great triumph of liberalism!Your original statement (Kerry) Also asserted that "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now", which assertion was later proved categorically wrong by the Reagan administration The Reagan administration did NOT prove the assertion 'categorically wrong'. They didn’t come CLOSE to proving it wrong. They didn’t TRY to fight communism all over the world. A quarter of the people in the world is a pretty big hunk to ignore.
And far from FIGHTING China, the Bush administration is busy ACCEPTING LOANS from them. China is, after Japan, the largest holder of US government debt in the world. The surpasses England for the #2 spot under, you guessed, Bush II.Again, spin.No, it’s a cold hard fact. China is the second largest holder of US debt in the world. No spin involved.

BTW, calling every inconvenient fact ‘spin’ doesn’t convince anybody but you.
If it was actually an act of treason, it would have been prosecuted as such. Kerry was NOT popular with the US government. However he was NOT prosecuted, because he did not commit treason. This notion is absurd on its face. So every single crime of treason is prosecuted automatically? Hmm... Then I wonder why Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and yes, John Kerry, aren't all playing canasta with Martha Stewart...Because they didn’t commit treason. John Kerry was pretty much Public Enemy #1 to Richard Nixon. He wasn’t prosecuted for treason because he didn’t COMMIT treason. But then, you think Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore all committed treason, so your definition of ‘treason’ may be breathing.

The systems were NOT, to put it bluntly, vital at all. Not ONE of those systems turned out to be of any use defending against the one enemy that actually attacked us, Al Qaeda.No, you're right, they were absolutely useless against Al-QUED.Thank you.

Fortunately for US, AL-QUED didn't even exist when John Kerry in his infinite misguided liberalism proposed doing away with them. Interesting. You call those weapon systems ‘vital’ for our defense, but they’ve NEVER been used to defend us. If your words are accurate, proposals to ‘do away with them’ are certainly NOT misguided.

Further, no less than Mikhael Gorbachev has pointed out repeatedly that the Soviet Union was NOT bankrupted by the arms race, and could have easily continued building weapons. What the Soviet Union couldn't compete with, according to Gorbachev, was the human rights initiatives of Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter won the Cold War?! Now I've heard it all!It's good you can hear it all, because you don't read at all well. The was an awful lot written about the end of the cold war when Reagan died. Including the effect on Russia of having to compete with human rights initiatives, the war in Afghanistan, the inefficiency of the Russian Agriculture system. The idea that the American military buildup ended the Cold War is mythology. The Russians never argued that they had all the luxuries that SOME had inthe United States. They argued that the United States was even more repressive than the Soviet Union. Carter's initiatives were what undercut that arguement.

(For anyone reading this as entertainment, go to Google.com, and type in Gorbachev and "Cold War" and read eight of ten articles. You'll see what I mean.)
Riddle me this, Batman: why was SDI, a purely defensive system, such a sticking point with Gorby in Iceland? Because if it worked, all the missiles they had pointed at US would have been useless!
That doesn’t make wasting huge amounts of money on it a could idea. Exactly how much use was SDI against plastic knives and box cutters? Gorbachev had a better idea. Both sides get rid of a lot of missiles. Read what he has to say on the subject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32927-2004Jun10.html

Do you even read the things you post? Kerry was repeatedly right on Nicaragua. First, he was right that Congress wouldn't allow troops to be committed to Nicaragua. Second, he was right the Sandanistas wanted peace with the USA. Only an idiot would even pretend they could fight us. Further he was correct that even calling Nicaragua a threat to the USA repeated the same errors of judgement that concluded Vietnam was a threat.
Like he was on Vietnam, no doubt. I know, YOU think he actually was... Of course the Sandinistas wanted peace with their northern neighbor who could obliterate them with little more than a fly-swatter! So they could set up a communist regime on our doorstep at the behest of the Soviets. But Reagan wasn't havin' it!

If you’re going to call Vietnam or Nicaragua an actual threat to the United States, you are the biggest fool ever born. Kerry WAS right on Vietnam. We LOST the fucking war! Remember? And how did that hurt us, outside of billions of dollars lost and 50,000 American lives we never had to lose because Vietnam was no threat? And in the case of Nicaragua, recall that the ‘northern neighbor’ had already invaded their country more than once. Why would they NOT want an alliance with one of the few countries capable of standing up to the USA?
THEY were defending themselves from us. From a country that previously had invaded them, and supported terrorists who preyed on them.

Reagan stuck by his policy of supporting terrorists who murdered civilians, burned crops, blew up power plants and destroyed water purification facilities. It was under Reagan that the act of importing drugs INTO the USA to sell to get money for illegal arms sales to the contras began. You know, the Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan was not a knowing party in the Iran-Contra scandal, and was righteously PO'd when he found out. Put bluntly, says who?

Negotiating with Iranian terrorists on any scale was totally against his policies.Supporting terrorist in Nicaragua however, WAS his policy. And of course, the same people he supported in Afghanistan were the people who protected Al-Qaeda. The Taliban. Reagan had bigger fish to fry than Daniel Ortega.He still supported terrorism in Nicaragua. Iran Contra came about when Congress made it explicitly illegal for Reagan to continue to support terrorism in Nicaragua.
Terrorism, drug dealing, illegal arms sales. Kerry opposed all that. I call that the RIGHT side of history. Bully for him. Pity he didn't oppose worldwide communism with at least equal ardor.A pity Reagan didn’t oppose terrorism and drug dealing. But Kerry did.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a response to Kuwait drilling under the border and stealing Iraqi oil. I don't agree that invasion was a justified response, but in driving Iraq out of Kuwait, we were NOT coming to the rescue of an innocent party. Rather, we came to the rescue of a repressive dictatorship where women lack property rights and the right to vote. The exact kind of regime Bush II now says he wants to CHANGE in the Middle East. If you support Bush II's initiatives NOW, then Kerry was correct THEN. Point conceded.
China and South Korea CURRENTLY hold bilateral talks with North Korea. These have not undercut the six party talks. All Bush's way has accomplished is helping North Korea move form one nuclear weapon to six or seven. And guess what? Now that they have extras, they can SELL THEM TO AL QAEDA. Bush II's approach has FAILED, and made the world more dangerous in the process. Kerry advocates a different approach. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. But Bush is demonstrably wrong. In seeking a different approach, Kerry is clearly correct. The fact that North Korea is in favor of bilateral talks and eagerly awaits a Kerry administration is all I need to know. Spin on! Bush’s stated reason for NOT holding bilateral talks, namely that they’d undercut the six-party talks, are false. No spin, fact. Claiming facts are ‘spin’ doesn’t convince anybody but you. Really.

Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. And of course, he was right. Yet another liberal lie: "the administration didn't force General Shinseki to retire. In fact, The Washington Times reported Shinseki's plans to retire nearly a year before his Feb. 25, 2003 testimony. The Times article was published April 19, 2002" You're quoting the Washington Times, which is a propaganda arm of the Unification Church. 'By their sources shall ye know them'

Shinseki was relieved of current authority immediately after his quotes became public. His retirement date didn’t move. He was just relieved of command. And he was RIGHT about us needing 250,000 - 300,000 troops. A much more salient point as Americans continue to die in Iraq. and please, do NOT tell me, 'well Kerry said'. I'm not a Kerry supporter. I just realize that he's a better alternative than Bush. (Hillary is my Role Model:)) "by their Goddess shall you know them'.
Judging by all the things you got wrong in this thread, you're clearly the authority on getting things wrong. Why don't YOU tell US how it feels?Sorry, I'm not a liberal. I make decisions based on fact, not emotion!
If your decisions were based on fact, not emotion, you’d BE a liberal!
Let’s have a look at YOU call ‘fact-based’ decision-making. You’re the guy who wrote ....
So every single crime of treason is prosecuted automatically? Hmm... Then I wonder why Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and yes, John Kerry, aren't all playing canasta with Martha Stewart...So naturally, you’ll have no trouble providing examples of these people committing treason. After all, YOU base things on FACTS, right? Start with Howard Dean. This should be good.
Here’s another....The fact that North Korea is in favor of bilateral talks and eagerly awaits a Kerry administration is all I need to know.1) How do you know North Korea ‘eagerly eagerly awaits a Kerry administration’. Since you rely on fact, not emotion, it should be easy to provide a quote from Kim Jung Il.

2) That fact that North Korea is in favor of additional talks is a POSITIVE. They could just as easily drop one of the extra nukes Bush let them get on out troops stationed in South Korea. But no, YOUR decision-making is, a dangerous opponent wants something, let’s NOT give it to them.

If Ronald Reagan thought the way you did, the Cold War wouldn’t have ended. Because he agreed to give Gorbachev what GORBACHEV wanted. Reductions in nuclear weapons.

You’re one of THE most emotional, least fact-based decision-makers on the board. You’re not even a thinker, you’re an ‘emoter’. You have your emotional biases, twist what yousee to fit those biases,a nd then CALL those things facts!

Volcana
Oct 12th, 2004, 03:53 AM
Volcana, you are the real deal. :worship:Thanks Kabuki. That's sweet.

JustineTime
Oct 12th, 2004, 04:57 AM
All I can say is hopefully some peeps here will do some research of their own, and not just on liberal websites that tell them what they want to hear.

Volcana, you're outta yer ever-lovin' mind! I refuse to go point by point again. I just wasn't givin' you a pass the first time.

Class is in session, fellas. Let those who are honest do some actual homework.

Hint: in spite of what Volcana tries to imply, opposing opinions don't frighten me. Whatever your slant on things, make a concerted effort to prove yourself wrong! ;)

:hatoff:

Volcana
Oct 12th, 2004, 05:39 AM
All I can say is hopefully some peeps here will do some research of their own, and not just on liberal websites that tell them what they want to hear.

Volcana, you're outta yer ever-lovin' mind! I refuse to go point by point again. I just wasn't givin' you a pass the first time.I went point by point with you because it was EASY. You aren't just wrong. You OBVIOUSLY wrong. I have VERY conservative friends in the real world, and they make much tougher debate opponents than you.

If you're going to imply Howard Dean is a traitor, AND brag about basing your statements on facts, then it's best to have fact-based proof around that Howard Dean IS a traitor. You constantly undercut your own arguements. As a result, you aren't very convincing.

We do agree on one thing. The hope that people will do research on their own. And not just on conservative websites that tell them what they want to here. Not just on AMERICAN websites that avoid inconvenient facts for fear of the Bush Administration and their amen chorus.

It's a big wide world people. If you want decent info on Iraq, check out www.bbc.com (http://www.bbc.com) AND http://english.aljazeera.com/ AND http://www.world-newspapers.com/iraq.html AND www.washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com). Even www.FoxNews.com (http://www.FoxNews.com) (but avoid anything that even sniffs of opinion. They cherry pick their facts, but I've found they generally don't lie, by commision. They lie by OMISSION a great deal, but so do most news sources.

Then, check out the newspapers from Zimbabwe http://www.allyoucanread.com/newspapers.asp?id=C32, and realize that to a lot of the world, Iraq is a page 17 story.

Philbo
Oct 12th, 2004, 05:55 AM
Well as out outsider who honestly doesnt know too much about the events you are debating, I will say this from observation - At least Volcana can back up his statements/viewpoints etc with some logical reasoning/facts etc..

Justinetime - Whenever you get your ass kicked on a point by Volcana you fall back on the word 'spin' - whilst I cant claim to know the facts around what you are debating, I can recognise a poster losing an argument when I see one, and mate, you jsut got your clock well and truley cleaned..

But no doubt you'll dismiss it all as 'spin' lol...pathetic.