« Bush Is Up In Election Results | Main | SoftVote Update Released. Download Now! »

August 02, 2004

Battleground Poll

Battleground Poll. As the election is drawing nearer the focus is on the battleground States. If you look at the map on softvote you can see by hovering over the battleground poll states who is ahead right now. Although this may change at any moment, many feel that the election will be won through careful campaigning in each battleground state. As the candidates go from one 2004 battleground election state to the other battle ground state the race gets tougher.

Visitors who are in the Battleground states please post your comments on the issues such as:

Which candidate is of better character?
Who will protect us better from terrorism?
Whose plan for the economy is better?

Posted by Tuck at August 2, 2004 01:34 PM

Comments

John Edwards knows first hand the importance of creating good paying jobs so that all American families can get ahead because he comes from a place where those jobs have disappeared under President Bush.

John Kerry has a plan to ensure all Americans have a right to health care that is affordable and accessible. John Edwards has been a leader in the fight for affordable, quality health care, fighting alongside Kerry to pass a Patients Bill of Rights and bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 01:42 PM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. Edwards also has more national security experience than Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter did when they became president.

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 02:17 PM

Better character: President Bush
Better protection from terrorism: President Bush
Better plan for economy: President Bush

Posted by: Ron at August 2, 2004 04:15 PM

I live in Florida and will be voting for George Bush - John Kerry with Tom Daschle and Carl Levin wrote in 1998 to then President Clinton "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistant with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respong effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs." Feb.18,1998. Kerry now acts as if Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction , when all the intelligence (including Russian and French ) stated otherwise. Kerry is not an honest man.

Posted by: Charles Hall at August 2, 2004 04:16 PM

Mr. Edwards can not be trusted. When he ran for his senate seat he told us in North Carolina that he was a moderate Democrat. That was just a lie. He became the fourth most liberal Senator and faied to represent the state of North Carolina as he promised. Additionally he ran for either Vice-President or President his entire term and ignored his responsibility to the people of North Carolina. He would not have won reelection to the Senate.

Posted by: LEWIS at August 2, 2004 06:39 PM

As far as bush, reagan, carter, clinton not having the experience of Edwards...those guys had actual governing experience (though I'm not sure if it helped Carter)...none for Edwards

Posted by: Steve at August 2, 2004 06:59 PM

Since I am one of those laid-off, maybe I should be for Kerry. In fact I am for the best person for the position. That person is G W Bush. I would suggest all go to http://www.swiftvets.com/ for information about Kerry's Military Service.
For info about the factual evidence behind either campaigns advertising claims go to http://www.factcheck.org/

Posted by: richard at August 2, 2004 07:16 PM

Better character: John Kerry
Better protection from terrorism: John Kerry
Better plan for economy: John Kerry

Posted by: djones at August 2, 2004 08:14 PM

I live in North Carolina.....Kerry assumed if he picked Edwards (after he trashed him first) that he (kerry) would win NC easily.

Very few that I know in NC support Edwards, we know first hand how he is and what he is about.....which is not much.

I was born and raised in Michigan....its a large democratic state, but the way Kerry has been lieing, the things in his past that have popped up, the way he throws nails at others (he had a 12 yr old girl give a speech at the dem covention and blasted Cheney for using bad language on the government floor, she said he needed a long time out) What about his using the word F**K on the senate floor? Several I know in Michigan.....have actually changed their mind...they might not like Bush as much as I do.....but they will take him over Kerry...that says alot.

He blasted Bush for his military service, but yet he also asked for deferment to Paris so as not to join then and did leave Veitnam after 4 months Voluntarily....

Me and Mine don't want either of them in NC or in the White House.....Edwards would have never made it back in, he doesn't DO anything for the people.

Shanna

Posted by: GreenEyes at August 2, 2004 10:03 PM

For those who waited 8 years of Clinton/Gore for the promises they made and those who waited 4 years of Bush/Cheney for the promises they made.... can anyone say privatization of social security?, I encourage you to look at Michael Badnarik. No, he will not win the election, but a vote for him says you are tired of the same old, same old. A vote for Mr. Badnarik tells the so-called small government Republicans to wake up. The Libertarian message is being heard. If not, why are the Republicans talking about elimination of the IRS? It's an empty promise to bring the disinterested Republicans back into the fold. Don't fall for the empty promise and make your voice heard with a vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for president.

Posted by: Ken Bridges at August 2, 2004 10:58 PM

I find it amazing that there are people who are buying this fourth most liberal b.s. John Edwards is actrually the 39th most liberal Senator and is just a tad liberal than Lincoln Chafee, the Republican from Rhode Island.

If you all want real news that you will not get anywhere else, such as the story below, go to www.pimnews.com.

GEORGE BUSH REMEMBERED BY FORMER PROFESSOR

While Democrats, the national press, Michael Moore and the publishing board of this website have been keeping themselves busy scouring for his missing National Guard records, the years following his "tour of duty" have recieved little scrutiny. That is until last week when one of his old professors at the Harvard Business School blasted him in a scathing article.

Yoshihiro Tsurumi, a visiting professor of International Business at Harvard between 1972 and 1976, says Bush was one of 85 students he taught in a first year course titled, “Environment Analysis for Management.” Bush scored in the bottom ten percent of students in his class and was remembered for being flippant, arrogant, and a right-wing extremist.

As a harbinger of things to come, Bush equated FDR's New deal with socialism and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an ememy of capitalism. According to Professor Tsumuri, Bush "didn’t stand out as the most promising student, but...he made it sure we understood how well he was connected."

Posted by: Paul at August 2, 2004 11:08 PM

President Bush and Vice President Cheney took a shot at John Edwards, suggesting the U.S. senator was ill-prepared to be vice president of the United States. The attack was a cheap shot: John Edwards has served the same amount of time in the Senate as George W. Bush served as governor of Texas when he was elected president. The Texas legislature only meets every other year and the governorship of the Lone Star State has long been considered one of the weakest positions of its kind in America. Add to it that Edwards has sat on the intelligence committee through the days before and after September 11th. You could argue that Edwards has more experience in key areas than George W. Bush did when he ran in 2000. Edwards also has more national security experience than Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter did when they became presiden

WHAT QULIFICATIONS DOES BEING A GOVERNOR IN A STATE LIKE TEXAS THAT HAS THE WEAKEST GOVENORSHIP IN THE UNION GIVE TO BE PRESIDENT NEVER THE LESS THE VICE PRESIDENT? GEORGE W. FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOLKS PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND AND WAKE UP!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 2, 2004 11:14 PM

Better Character=George Bush, He has never waivered on his decision to go to Iraq, although Kerry has. Bush has not changed his mind on decisions such as stem-cell research, abortion, and gay-marriage. For those who support Kerry for stem-cell research, consider this stem-cells can be obtained from a foreskin, placenta, and unbilical chord. I just don't know why they have to kill people just to obtain stem cells. The information was aquired from a genetics conference in Manitowac, WI. Kerry also was "unpatriotic" when he threw away his medals (or as he said "ribbons") same thing, he clearly manipulates situations so he ends up on top.
Better protection=Pres. Bush. Does anyone think or wonder why the terrorists attack under Pres. Bush, the answer is that they are afraid of him because they know he will destroy them. If John Kerry get elected, they have it made in the shade, they do not fear him. His idea of national defense is to "hug" our enemies. While we hug them, they stick a knife in our backs.
Better economy=Pres. Bush. Evidence, WI is in need of thousands of workers. A telephone service provider needs hundreds of new employees. A trucking company needs hundreds of employees and manufacturing plants are expanding. A person like Edwards managed to help out the "little guy" and raise health care. How? he sues good doctors and medical suppliers. the result is his many homes, and the added cost at the pharmacy for insurance purposes(*ABC's JOHN STOSSLE "GIVE ME A BREAK")
That's all folks!

Posted by: Me at August 3, 2004 01:05 AM

On all three issues Bush is far ahead. The RNC will be putting out a chronology of Kerry's flip flops soon; go to rnc.org to view it! Man this guy is just unbelievable. Also once the ads for the Veitnam vets against Kerry get started I think the world will get to know Kerry a bit better than they do now. I am not sure how many people know that of the 23 vets that served with Kerry during veitnam only one is supporting Kerry in his campaign.

Posted by: Tom at August 3, 2004 01:20 AM

Swiftvets is a sham.
See for yourself, inconsitant information, and just plain misleading and slanderous.
Article 1 (Swiftvets website):
http://www.swiftvets.com/images/brothers.jpg
Article 2(Picture on originating site):
http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/KerryVietnamUnit.JPG
-
Thats misleading enough at it is. But not the end by any stretch.
(you'll have to watch a quick ad to get a free day pass to view the whole article on these next few. Well worth it tho. Check it out.)
So lets just get down to it.
"Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed."
--http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/04/swift/
"The hunting of John Kerry has now been contracted to a hired gun.

A private detective retained by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- the Texas-based group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military record -- is contacting veterans who may have information about the incidents that led to Kerry's Vietnam decorations. According to a former Kerry crew member, several of the Massachusetts senator's old Navy comrades have refused to talk with the detective, a former FBI agent named Thomas Rupprath -- and some have complained that the detective tried to put damaging words in their mouths."
--http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/07/16/swift_boat_veterans/
And from this same article:
"Another theme promoted by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is that Kerry somehow exaggerated the injuries that led to his Purple Heart awards, or may even have inflicted them on himself. Kerry's first wound occurred on Dec. 2, 1968, which was the very first night he went on a swift boat patrol. Although several witnesses who were present that night remember that Kerry's arm was creased during a firefight with National Liberation Front guerrillas, a former commander who wasn't there has claimed that there was no report of enemy fire."
Here's the truth behind John Kerry's First Purple Heart.
--http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/17/kerry_purple/index.html
and heres an oppen letter from a vet responding to the previous article's writer.
--http://diodon349.com/Politics_2004/an_open_letter_to_douglas_brinklley_JK_purple_heart.htm

and what about this?:
"Kerry's biggest secret weapon this fall could be the Swift-boat crew he commanded in the Mekong Delta - or at least the 11 of the 12 who have endorsed him. They were a big presence here. Over coffee last Thursday, three of them - the Rev. David Alston of Columbia, S.C., Fred Short of North Little Rock, Ark., and Jim Wasser of Illinois - were in high spirits the morning after their former skipper was formally nominated as president.

All of them gave witness to Kerry's bravery. There is little doubting their affection for Kerry. (Short, who has spoken with a 12th crewmate who has denounced Kerry's leadership, said the crewmate is blinded by conservative partisanship.)"
--http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_ColumnistArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031777033653&path=!opinion&s=1037645509163

What do you all think, does that set the record straight enough? what else do you want to prove here? Wanna go through Kerry's votes in the senate? I'll do that too if need be.

READ THESE ARTICLES, AND GIVE KERRY A CHANCE.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 3, 2004 01:41 AM

Oh, and most importantly, take a look at this:

"Kerry?s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse."
--http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps
Now that you know the slander, look at the records.
--http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Fitness_Reports.pdf
Make sure you read it all the way, cause the dates aren't chronological. But I have no reason to believe there's anything missing. I think thats a false claim, take a look at the records there. He has an exceptional record, with none of the so-called "dings".

Please check your facts people, please. There's a lot at stake here, and we dont need to go spouting lies as facts. Or getting people confused by groups trying to swing our ignorance in a political firefight.

the rest of the records are here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

Check it out for yourself.
GIVE KERRY A CHANCE.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 3, 2004 02:25 AM

I am curious......why do people keep talking about Kerry and Edward's vast experience to run this country?

What have either of them ever done? How does 4 months and 12 days in Vietnam qualify Kerry to be Commander and Chief. Where do they get this supposed experience to fight terrorist? How do men who have voted AGAINST tax cuts, voted FOR higher taxes constantly, how do ones who want higher fuel tax, save the economy?

You think Kerry is a good leader? A good HERO? Why don't all of these men who KNOW him, served with him promote him?

Why are over 250 plus asking him for his FULL records (which he won't submit), yet he wanted Bush's full military records?

Read what the REAL HERO's have to say about Kerry....read how he sold them out...these are COMMANDERS, OFFICERS, CAPTAINS,..A REAR ADMIRAL

Go ahead...go read it...I don't want to waste space posting the whole thing...

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes

Main site is -- http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php

Shanna

Posted by: GreenEyes at August 3, 2004 03:39 AM

Character-no question. One candidate is known for being a so-called flip flopper. He said that Hollywood represent our values.

The other has stayed the course even when he was criticized for doing so. Which brings me to who is better on terrorism. In Kerry's own words. I actually voted for the 87 billion (for the troops) before I voted against it. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it. He went to Vietnam saw that war is not pretty, he came home and disrespected his country. Don't tell me about honor. My grandfather fought in Iwo Jima and went to Viet Nam to do construction work.

Bush respects our country and the military. He understands that although war is not a nice solution it sometimes is necessary to protect our national interests. Some people in the Middle East don't like us because of who we are. We cannot change that. We can only do what we have done since our conception as a country, fight for our existence when it is threatened. We have a coalition. France, Germany and Russia had an interest in Saddam staying in power. The UN is known to have mismanaged the oil for food program. Who do I trust. No question GW.

Remember the innocent lives taken on 9/11. We have NOT had another attack on our soil since. Now while it is entirely possible we still could under GW, he is better fit to lead us through. Kerry voted to slash the intelligence budget. Look it up. Kerry's voting record speaks for itself. That is why he cannot stand on it. The #1 liberal in the Senate. Pro-abortion, anti-military, anti-traditional family.

The economy is getting better. I started my own business inn February of 2003, during the recession. By the grace of God. We are better off than we were before Bush got into office. Remeber the short recession I feel for the people who have been laid off. I have been there too, under Clinton's watch in '94. I have family there now, but everyone has the opprtunity to make it. It is the responsiblity of our neighbors, our churches and and our communities to help our brothers and sisters in need. For those in the top 1% that think Bush should raise taxes on anyone over $200,000 a year I say, live more modestly and donate to your cause. Don't take it away from hard working people who have achieved some financial success. Maybe I don't want to give my hard earned money to a Planned Parenthood. Maybe I want to help a neighbor instead. Bush, if able to stay in office and stay the course will be better for the economy.

Let's not make the same mistake we did with Bush Sr. Let GW continue what he started. Iraq will get better, the economy is improving and we are safer as a result.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 3, 2004 04:15 AM

Fighting international terrorism is not and should not be the responsibility of only the USA. infact, there is no way we can do it alone. We need all our allies and obviously, the arrogant Bush who believed he could do it alone has realised that too. We need a president who can foster international support. We can find that in the Kerrry/Edward leadership

Posted by: Gordon at August 3, 2004 08:14 AM

If your medical bills are too high you can thank malpractice attorneys like Edwards. How's he gonna fix the problem? He IS the problem!

Posted by: pat from Akron, OH at August 3, 2004 09:41 AM

I have to wonder how someone who has been wealthy and pampered all of their life, someone who has never felt real hunger pains can relate to the common people in the United States? John Kerry and John Edwards are both filthy rich and they want me to believe they can relate to me?

I voted for President Bush in 2000 because when he gave a speech it felt as if he was talking directly to me. When Al Gore gave his speeches it sounded like he was talking down to me, as if I was nothing but a peon to be treated as such. I see the same thing in this election cycle. President Bush talking to the people and Senator Kerry talking down to the people. Guess who I am voting for?

Posted by: Wayne at August 3, 2004 10:10 AM

Since when is it the president's responsibility to provide jobs or health care to the american people? The job of the president is to protect us so that we can live our lives free. We need to pick a person who has a record of protecting us, not one that has consistently tried to undo everything that we have come to need in our fight against terrorism.

Besides, would you want to go to a VA hospital for treatment of anything? That's government run medicine.

Posted by: John at August 3, 2004 10:29 AM

John kerry is not qualified to be the president of the USA. He has lied about his military record, he has lied about his senate record,He,s lied about Iraq, He's even lied about his SUV's. He's lied abiut his homes etc,etc,etc,. How can any right thinking american even consider voting for a man who by his own words considers France , Germany and Russia our friends.

Posted by: aradams at August 3, 2004 04:18 PM

I live in Ohio and go to college in Florida for 7 months out of the year. (Soph)
Character: Bush
War on Terrorism: Bush
Economy: Bush

Posted by: Robert (Cincy,Pensacola) at August 3, 2004 05:29 PM

Better Character: George W. Bush
Protection from Terrorists: George W. Bush
Better Plan for Economy: George W. Bush

As Ron posted on 8/2,: John Kerry stated clearly during the Clinton years and since his campaign, has jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, labeling Bush a liar in order to get support from the anti-war democrats. Kerry is NOT an honest man. He is also riding on his military service that is not much more than propaganda and judging from the support (or more accurately, lack thereof) from his fellow swift boat crew, those that proudly serve our military are disgusted with him. I live in Michigan, one of the major battle ground states, although we have Democratic roots, we have in the past elected worthy Republicans. As of two days ago, SoftVote appears to have changed the color of Michigan from blue to red. I'm pretty sure it is going to stay that way.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 06:50 PM

A note to Tuck: John Edwards has nearly single handedly been responsible for the dramatic increase in health care costs and rise in health insurance premiums. Do your research. As a trial lawyer, he has repeatedly voted down health care reform, limits for lawsuits and most notoriously, won the largest single case regarding a child born with cerebral palsy - the award was not only astronomical, it opened the door (more like floodgates) of people to sue doctors for this condition - which has now been scientifically proven NOT to be caused by doctors! To this day, there are fewer and fewer ob/gyns because they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums because of John Edwards. Don't hold your breath that he is going to do a THING to make healtcare more affordable for anyone.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 06:56 PM

If you vote for Kerry, here is what you get: Turning military over to the UN< give France control over american politics, terror attacks, raising of taxes, welfare state, unstable leadership, lies, by the way - his way has offshoring of 57 companies - and kerry created a taxlaw last year to give his wife a break by NOT paying taxes, and so does edwards - he did the same, his anti-war stand and treason during vietnam, his anti-vote on the first gulf war, his plain and simple record of anti-military votes, his wife supports terrorists with the tides foundation, kerry also offered IRAN an apology on behalf of america, promising to make 'GOOD' if elected president - by e-mail on 8 Feb 2004. kerry will sent troops to palestine to fight against the israeli...go to www.kerry-04.com, and you can read up on all of the candidates, incl thereza heinz. she is evil, and when you know, how much financial support is given by her - you can understand why the terrorists like them, kerry will also do away with ALL borders, you will have gay marriage taken over, you will be persecuted if you believe in GOD, you will have abortions, and cloning left and right, incl partial birth abortion to assist 'junk science'. So - go ahead, and vote for kerry.
If you want decency, honesty, strength, leadership, faith based society, NO gay marriage etc....I would recommend to vote for President Bush. I know why I need President
Bush for four more years

Posted by: Inge at August 3, 2004 07:27 PM

This is a DIRECT response to Paul... You stated that Texas' governorship is considered one of the weakest in the nation as far as requirements of its leadership. I completely disagree.. Texas has an economy so large that if it were an independant nation, it would have the 11th largest economy in the entire world. Also John Edwards does sit on the intelligence committee... HOWEVER he has only had 8 meetings to attend and has missed 4 of them. John Kerry has missed 39 of the 48 he has been on. INCLUDING KEY meetings dealing with terrorism in the months before 9/11... Senate experience is a legislative position, not executive experience. Have you noticed how company vp's are called Executives, and not legislators? They run things... they don't vote (or in john kerry's case, NOT VOTE.. seeing how he's missed 2/3 of all votes in this years congress) Gov. Bush ran texas.. and if you don't think he did a good job at it, ask texans ;-) He was the first Gov. to EVER be re-elected in the state... John Kerry needs to keep representing the liberal in New England.. He is not the kind of man I want representing the entire nation....

This is a man that has voted over 350 times to raise or NOT lower taxes... The total amount of his tax votes would result in an 8,000,000,000,000 increase.. thats 8 TRILLION dollars....

He's voted 6 times to NOT ban Partial birth abortion...

He's voted AGAINST funding abstinence programs in the schools, but yet voted FOR funding the morning after pill, for free distribution in high schools...

In his opening lines at the DNC, he claimed he started his career in the political spectrum by fighting for womens rights and crimes against.... BUT he voted AGAINST the laci's law... Which stated that a crime against a pregnant woman which resulted in injury or death of the unborn child was also a crime against the child... I have NEVER spoken to a person that didn't support this law... not a single person... John Kerry DOES NOT support it....

He goes on t.v. and tells the world how irresponsible that it would be for a senator to vote against funding the troops (he even claims he'll vote for it if the first admendmant which woudl roll back taxes for the 200,000 class failed to pass)...he voted AGAINST funding them... and then later says he's proud of his vote...

Take a look at his sponsorship on the bills in congress... 95% of them are honoring figures in america... nothing landmark, nothing needed, nothing that helps this nation function...

Those are some facts... and the final fact, Since George Bush took office, 1.1 million jobs have been lost (not counting july's job market)... If John Kerry were a leader, he would have crafted some kind of a package to stimulate the economy and create the jobs that have been lost... but if you look at what has happened, he's RAN from it.. only criticizing every step of the run away... George Bush had a comprehensive plan and its worked wonderfully, pulling us out of a recession and creating 775,000 jobs in the past 3 months (not counting july), and also... in June 450,000 jobs were created but do to seasonal indexing, it was lowered to 112,000...

Please I urge you all to vote for George Bush...

Posted by: Justin Anderson at August 3, 2004 08:24 PM

Re: pimnews.com - their lead headline is a complete lie. Nancy Reagan has publically come out and said she is "150% behind George W. Bush's reelection". Further, she had no such negative reactions to the use of former President Reagan's likeness in any Republican ads. This is obviously a panicked bunch of liberals knowing full well that Ronald Reagan was a tremendous president and a force to be reckoned with. Anyone upholding his values and principals is a threat to Liberals everywhere.

Posted by: Stephanie at August 3, 2004 08:27 PM

For those of you who think Kerry would offer an apology to Iran I have this. . .

Who criticized the Clinton Administration because it's sanctions on Iran were too harsh and impeded an oil pipeline?

You guessed it, "Tricky" Dick Cheney. So much for a patriot.

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 09:03 PM

BUSH LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN TOLD THAT THE FIRST TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN THE SECOND TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH ALONG WITH HIS FATHER; THE SAUDIS AND CHENEY OWN HALLIBURTON WHICH IS MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS UPON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ - BUSH HAS NO CONSCIENCE; NO BRAIN AND NO HEART - HE DID NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY LAST TIME HE ANNOINTED HIMSELF! HE HAD HIS FRIEND DESTROY THOUSANDS OF BLACK VOTES IN FLORIDA TO ASSURE THAT HE WOULD WIN - DID YOU EVER LOOK IN THIS MAN'S EYES??? THEY ARE VACANT! LIGHTS ARE OUT IN THE CONTROL TOWER AND NO ONE IS HOME - HE'S SCARY.

Posted by: Marilyn at August 3, 2004 09:52 PM

Isn't it amazing that the five states with the lowest SAT scores are Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Wyoming, and Alabama. What do they have in common? Solid Bush states.

The five highest SAT scores?
Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York. All solid Kerry states.

The two that rose the fastest?
Virginia and NC - both have become battleground states.

Makes you think (unless you are a Bush supporter in a red states).

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 11:15 PM

Hands down, all three questions are answered with one simple word: DUBYA!

How can it possibly make sense to vote in Kerry who is screaming for socialized medicine, while dragging Edwards along behind him who has caused us to even CONSIDER socialized medicine! Talk about two cronies! Edwards screws us so Kerry can save us! PUH-LEESE!

Posted by: nicolle at August 3, 2004 11:45 PM

ANYONE WHO HAS HAD ANY QUESTION OR SPECULATES ON WHAT JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS MIGHT DO WHEN THEY GET TO THE WHITE HOUSE, CHECK OUT THIS WEBSITE AND SEE HOW ALL OF THE SENATORS, AND HOUSE MEMBERS VOTED ON THE KEY ISSUES AND THEN DECIDE WHO'S REALLY TRYING TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HERE YOU WILL FIND THE ACTUAL BILLS THAT OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENATIVES VOTE ON AND HOW THEY VOTED. TAKE A GOOD AND I MEAN A REALLY GOOD LOOK AND THE RE-EVALUATE YOUR POSITION.

Posted by: james at August 3, 2004 11:50 PM

what about bush's lies? can we not say that he is not fit to be president? he's got a lot more lies than people even say Kerry does.
Check em out:
http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/02/ground-rules.html

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 4, 2004 12:28 AM

BUSH BETTER: The core of a man's CHARACTER is in his actions not his words. I'm hearing a lot of Kerry "said" and Bush "did" lately. What about you?

BUSH BETTER: Terrorist organizations have all been throwing their freaking dishadasha's lately don't you agree? Since when has Pakistan been so eager to help us? Bush has stirred things up over there and things are getting done. It's gonna take a while but things are getting done. It's about freaking time no?

BUSH BETTER: As far as the economy; can someone please tell Kerry to go run for president of freaking Canada? They would really like him over there. Socialize healthcare!? Is he nuts? What the hell happened to individual responsibility? I bet there more people in America who have cell phones than people who have health insurance. Where are your priorities America? And please, pleASE, PLEASE tell me how it makes sense to anyone that a damn TRIAL ATTORNEY IS GOING TO LOWER THE COST OF YOUR HEALTH CARE.. John Edwards is the problem to begin with..

WHAT DOES ONE HAVE TO SAY? How should one word it? What catch phrases do you have to use to get it through the thick, hard, obtuse skulls of anyone voting for Kerry? Him and his secret plans to fix the war and the economy. Tell us Kerry, what is the freaking plan? Wait... Fix the war? Ohh no, I'm thinking like them now,

HEY, YOOHOO!!!! WAR IS WAR KERRY, WAKE THE HELL UP! THERE IS NOTHING SOFT AND PRETTY ABOUT WAR KERRY. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE, CIVILIAN AND MILITARY ALIKE. YOU KERRY, ARE SUGESTING THAT WE WITHDRAWL SUPPORT WHEN OUR TROOPS NEED IT MOST. THAT'S JUST HOW YOU PEOPLE ARE. WHEN BODY PARTS START FLYING APART AND PEOPLE START DYING YOU GET SCARED AND RUN YOUR YELLOW ASS OFF JUST LIKE YOU DID IN NAM AND AS A RESULT MORE FREAKING PEOPLE DIE MAN!!!!! WAKE THE HELL UP! AND BY THE WAY MR. KERRY, TO SPEND 12 HOURS ALIVE IN NAM IS HEROIC SO I TIP MY HAT TO YOUR FOUR MONTH AND TWELVE DAY TOUR OF DUTY BUT, THE PURPLE HEARTS MAN. AT VERY LEAST SHOW US YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS OR MAYBE A MISSING FINGER OR BIG TOE OR SOMETHING. HELL I'D SETTLE FOR A DAMN SCAR BUT GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK WITH HERE PLEASE. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FREAKING MEDALS ANYMORE FOR THE LOVE OF SAINT PETE!

Fix the economy? Wait did I miss something? What the hell is wrong with the economy anyway? Can someone please explain it to me?

You know Kerry is going to put an end to global warming and the green house effect, right? Maybe he can hop in his little green space suit and go lasso a rope around the freaking sun and take it further away or something. I think that Kerry should change his campaign strategy to something a little more like this;

When it rains, call on Kerry, he'll make it stop. When it's too cold outside, call on Kerry, he'll summon his super human laser vision and heat up your town. When you're late for work, call on Kerry, he'll whisk you away on his shoulders and fly you straight to your job. When you go vote, VOTE FOR SUUUPERR KERRY! (Paid for by the Kerry/Edwards foundation for alleged heroic dumb-a**** who think they can run for president)

I'm tired of being eloquent, tactful, and diplomatic!

(Edited)

Posted by: Carlos at August 4, 2004 04:38 AM

This is a post from another blog and it says it all for all of the message boards

Hello Folks,

I am a Bush/Cheney supporter, through and through. When I read or hear the rantings of democrats who rabidly lash out at our president, all I hear is the same lunatic claims made by the likes of Moore. Only a handful of bogus claims, spouted over and over, ad infinitum, by mind-numbed miscreants who would believe ANYTHING that supported their malignant world view.

Contrasting that, each time I hear or read criticisms of Kerry/Edwards, they are new every day. It's as if for every three anti-Bush claims repeated a hundred times, there are three hundred anti-Kerry claims repeated only once. It would appear that Kerry's negatives outweigh Bush's by a hundred to one. We just don't repeat the same tired accusations as much as the micro-brains in the democrat/socialist party.

John

Posted by: Phillip at August 4, 2004 02:59 PM

A handful of claims? Phillip, you must be jesting. I actually counted 257 lies told by dubya just on one website. Much of the same for Cheney as well.

No, we are not for a socialist America. We are against the semi-totalitarian state your fascist party is trying to create. I can give you about 500-600 reasons not to vote for Bush easily - as a matter of fact I will. In two weeks, go to pimnews.com and check out the database of lies on it. It's taking so damn long because there are so many of them! It's unbeleivable. After working on this project, I am fully convinved now, more than ever, that this is the worst President of the last 100 years and may possibly be the worst of all time.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 4, 2004 05:03 PM

Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2004 09:03 PM

BUSH LIED ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN TOLD THAT THE FIRST TOWER HAD BEEN HIT - BUSH DID NOTHING WHEN THE SECOND TOWER HAD BEEN HIT

You're an idiot. If you'd look at the facts you'd see that Europe along with the Clinton admin. AND KERRY all said there were WMD in Iraq.

Seriously, what are you thinking? Did nothing when the towers were destroyed? I can't see how DESTROYING A MAJOR PART OF THE TERRORIST NETWORK IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. You're stupid, shut up and die.

And for all you morons who think this war is going nowhere... you obviously have no idea what happens during war; people die. And no, the soldier's parents aren't the ones sending them to war, soldiers are VOLUNTEERS, and they know what they're getting into. Kerry's a stupid fool afraid of taking a piece of shrapnel in his shoulder, so he runs back home to safety... HMM, sounds like a GREAT leader to me, running away from everything... during war, bad things happen, but the end result is the protection of millions of lives around the world.

If you're for Kerry, you're voting for the murder of unborn children, the ability for terrorist networks to grow and attack us, the right for gay couples to marry, and the raising of taxes for everyone.

Think about what you're saying and who's getting your vote, fools.

Posted by: Corsair at August 4, 2004 05:07 PM

Paul,

I went to your Web-site and the first allegation of lies referenced the war. If Bush lied then the U.N. lied which may be why they did not act on holding Saddam accountable. Edwards and Kerry lied. Clinton lied. So let's stop kidding ourselves. We can fabricate all we want but the truth remains, there has not been another attack on our soil to date. That is a miracle. The terrorists have to be right only once. Saddam funded the suicide bombers families. He's gone. Libya has rolled over. Pakistan is cooperating. This is good for the world.

Your sight is offering money for information on Bush. Are you guys that hateful, direspectful and blinded by your obsession with getting rid of Bush? Most Americans trust Bush before Kerry.
Sources like yours and Michael Moore are bad for America and frankly dangerous propoganda.

To Paul there has been a population shift from the high tax, high crime and high streess of the cities in the northeast, wonder why?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 5, 2004 02:32 AM

Here's a list of deseptions from Bush's own mouth about Iraq.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program."
Source: President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Discuss War on Terrorism, White House (7/17/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program. The statement also failed to mention weeks of intensive inspections conducted directly before the war in which United Nations inspectors found no sign whatsoever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Source: President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicals with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq?s UAVs were intended and able to spread biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force?s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged "We?ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." This statement also was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war. This statement also was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledge that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing weapons to al Qaeda. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it."
Source: Letter to Cheney/Senate, White House (1/20/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought to acquire uranium despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Department intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."
Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates."
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We not only know he's got chemical weapons, but incredibly enough he's used chemical weapons."
Source: President Talks Tax Cuts and Homeland Security in Iowa, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them."
Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and the intelligence community believed that Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"[Saddam Hussein is] a man who not only has chemical weapons, but he has used chemical weapons against some of his neighbors."
Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"This [Saddam Hussein] is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked a lethal threat to millions of individuals from Iraq's biological weapons but failed to acknowledge that the U.S. intelligence community had reported on Iraq's biological weapons capabilities with qualifiers and lack of specificity. For example, the October 2002 NIE estimated simply that Iraq had "some" BW agents that were lethal and incapacitating, "including anthrax."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . is seeking nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produced chemical and biological weapons. Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed that Iraq?s UAVs were intended and able to spread chemical or biological weapons, including over the United States, but failed to mention that the U.S. government agency most knowledgeable about UAVs and their potential applications, the Air Force?s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, had the following view: the "U.S. Air Force does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological (CBW) agents."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Saddam Hussein . . . is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
Source: President: Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing", White House (10/5/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We know the designs of the Iraqi regime. In defiance of pledges to the U.N., it has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq."
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
Source: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White House (9/26/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
Source: President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, White House (9/26/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof." In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear weapons program, failing to mention that the government?s most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"The first time we may be completely certain he has a --nuclear weapon is when, God forbids, he uses one."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when the intelligence community was deeply divided on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Statement by President George W. Bush
"With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."
Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at August 5, 2004 02:40 AM

I plan on voting for Kerry and Edwards because it is the right thing for our Nation. I hate to be manipulated into being fearful all of the time just because Bush needs a bump in the polls.

I am near retirement age and I need to make sure that the economy is strong and that we have Social Security. I am sure that we are going down the wrong path with Bush!

Posted by: Beverly at August 5, 2004 09:19 AM

Looks like you NRA backers better get ready to give your guns to your kids so they can take them over to Baghdad.

From pimnews.com

ADMINISTRATION SECRETLY PREPARES FOR MILITARY DRAFT

It seems that the Bush Administration is, once again, not being honest with the American people. If you are between the ages of 18 to 30 or are a parent or guardian with children between the ages of 18 and 30, your vote in this upcoming election will be as crucial to your life and your child’s life as it is to the future direction of this nation.

The administration has already appropriated funding for a newly built national draft which it will roll out after the November 2nd election. The Pentagon has already begun recruiting to fill 10,350 new draft board positions and 11,070 appeals boards slots around the country. Some of the details were unintentionally leaked by the selective service at www.sss.gov/perf_planfy2004.html.

The Bush Administration is desperate to address its dilemma in filling the need for new troops in the U.S. military. Donald Rumsfeld thought he could fight war on a shoe-string budget and his error has now cost us the lives of 1,000 of our fellow countrymen. With military moral and retention rates the lowest it has been in years, this Administration needs to find more soldiers to fight its war in Iraq. Few are volunteering and a draft will be its only solution.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 5, 2004 11:02 AM

ThinkForYourself:

You bore me. Except for the utter irony in your screen name. Yawn.

Beverly,
Imagine what would happen if one of the buildings that the threats were issued about had been hit and the Bush admin had said it issued a "secret" alert because they are tired of taking the conspiracy theorists heat that the terror threats are only for poll bumps. You'd have his head. None of us can deny that Bush can't win for losing. He is the epitome of Catch-22. Also, if you are concerned with your retirement and coming drug costs, I would remind you that you can blame John Edwards and his ilk for the pinch we all feel.

Posted by: nicolle at August 5, 2004 01:35 PM

Paul,
Maybe you should do a little research before you make accusations about a draft. The talk of a draft was in no way started by the Bush administraton. Senator Hillary Rodam-Clinton has been screaming the loudest about a draft and Oh by the way Senator Kerry has said he would deal with Iraq by sending MORE Troops Said it in his DNC acceptance speech. Now if he is going to send MORE troops then where are they coming from? Dig a little deeper into your research and you will find the Democrats are behind the draft not the Republicans.

Think for yourself, you obviously can't do just that you have to regurgitate stuff you have read from conspiricy websites. It's all the same, cut and paste. I'm sure I could post 10 Kerry outright lies to every one of your so called Bush mis-leading the public.

I for one am glad that we invaded Iraq, my problem with it is that we are giving it back to them. It's high time we started keeping what we earned with the blood of American soldiers. We would then own France, Germany, Japan, and the Philipines.

Think for yourself, I will take on your first lie that you said President Bush made.
I strongly believe that he was trying to reconstitue his Nuclear weapons program. How is this misleading? It's his opinion, it's what he "Strongly believed", what makes it misleading? If I were to say "I strongly believe you are an idiot, would that be misleading? It is an opinion. And oh by the way, you and your friends at your hate Bush websites don't have access to highly sensitive information, "Unless of course you are Sandy Berger" Hmm I wonder why the LIBERAL PRESS has given him a free pass on Stealing National Secrets? Anyway, most of you just spew out M. Moores garbabe and hope some stupid goon will believe it. Just remember Garbage in Garbage out.

Posted by: Wayne at August 5, 2004 03:04 PM

I have a kid. Bush gets my vote, because in the grand scheme of things, we are fighting for our very survival. I get it. GWB gets it. So does the kid. Thank God he believes in something bigger than himself.

Posted by: Webkabob at August 5, 2004 03:58 PM

I have many questions for Bush supporters: Do you not ever think of things such as the economy, the environment, FUNDING education, your civil rights, that we are the number one hated nation in the world, that we now have millions more terrorist wanting to kill us since we invaded (PREEMPTIVELY) Iraq on false intelligence? Or do you just think he has a really nice wife and the fact he cannot put a sentence together that has more than three words, means he is a straight talker (and what does that really mean when you are so incurious and unwilling to listen and learn?) Also, for those of you who are casting a religious vote -- Think about it, A conservative Christian is a contradiction in terms. Christ wasn't a conservative. He fed the hungry simply because they were hungry. He didn't require that they go to work first. He healed the sick, simply because they were sick. He didn't push them into an insurance company, or let the drug companies gouge them on prices. Jesus was a liberal; Herod was the conservative. WAKE UP and be something your President is not -- HONEST

Posted by: Becky at August 5, 2004 07:05 PM

Wayne,

Yet again, another idiotic right winger that I will have to tear down and humiliate.

Last I checked, the selective service was not run by Democrats. It's called an Execuive Department which belongs under the executive branch of the government. Who, Wayne, do you think runs that? The Democrats? The supposed "liberal" media (anyone who believes that is a complete fool).

Your second point (if that's what you call it) is inaccurate. it was started by Chuck Hagel, a conservative republican from Nebraska. He did so to bring attention to the fact that the entire military was made up of kids who come from low socio-economic backgrounds in places with few job prospects. If they have to fight, why not the rest of us? It's interesting how Hillary Clinton has become the default scapegoat for any missing fact a right winger cannot find to substantiate their arguments.

Now for the "strongly believes" comment. It is one thing to go to war when you know there is a threat of imninent danger. It is another to go to war when you supposedly "strongly believe." I strongly believe China will someday be a threat. So is North Korea. Right wingers do not. Why? because the people who do the thinking for them see a huge market for their products. I for one, agree that isolating Cuba is a good thing. But who is thre greater threat? Cuba or China?

Oh yes, Sandy Berger. I'm glad you mentioned that. I find it ironic that you say the liberal press has given him a free pass on stealing national secrets. Just yesterday he was cleared by a government panel made up of people from this administration. I bet you didn't hear too much about it, did you?

But guess what else happened yesterday? Katherine harris talked about a terrorist during a speech in sarasota that got caught on tv. It seems it was info she got that she wasn't supposed to release. Well, it looks like the guy uinder investigation just suddenly disappeared. Oh yes, and another thing - Richard Shelby, a Republican Senator from Alabama, gave away the details of a secret intelligence briefing to none other than Fox News - 10 minutes after the intelligence committee had finished meeting. This happened a month ago.

People, we do not go to war on suppositions. We do not go to war on information we know is flawed intelligence. The facts speak for themselves.

I am patiently awaiting your response. I know it will take some time to lick off your wounds.

Posted by: Paul at August 5, 2004 07:20 PM

Hello. I am a 13 year old boy. My take on all of the things that I have read from various sites and e-mails is as follows: John Kerry is a liar. I say this because from his crew on his swift boat, he talks as if all of them thinks he was a great fighter, an awesome "hero". lol kinda like some of the people I play as in video games. To back this all up he does actually have some members of his crew say this. NOT ALL, some actually 2!!! 2 out of 23 are supporting him. Some of his crew members were in a commercial or 2, and what did they do? They were so outraged that Kerry put them in there, that they DEMANDED to be taken out. Yeash, thats a little harsh you would think. Unless Kerry actually was not a "hero" that he was a usless blob of flesh on the boat. Also, about this thing of Cheney being a "potty mouth" for saying the f word to a person that was being ungodly rude. Ya, I guess that it wasn't a great thing but why do you have to talk about it like he's the devil??? What about the fact that when Teresa Heinz Kerry went past a group of protesters for Bush saying "4 more years" she said, "What another 4 years of hell??!!" Thats just o so much better than what Cheney did. PULEEZ! There are many other things that I think makes GWB a better president than Kerry, but I just want you to think about the things i said.

Posted by: A Kid for Bush at August 5, 2004 09:52 PM

In regards to entry by "Chris" deseptions is written "deceptions". In regards to "thinkforyourself", social security was never supposed to work! Do you know that people were never supposed to live long enough to collect?? I doubt it. Economics 1 taught us that cruel reality. However, with new medicine and better healthcare, people are living past the expectancy for eligibility for S.S. Also consider the baby boom, large numbers are retiring at the same time. We have never been prepared to deal with the problem. So your reasoning behind your vote has no basis. If someone is to blame it is the past presidents, who have not touched the problem and left it for future generations to deal with. I often wonder why the people who are republicans are looked down as being stupid, but those who are democrats are the ones who do not ask questions, find the real answers (not based on the media) or spell correctly. Case and Point is the above paragraph. Many democrats are misinformed and take their cue from the news. Another, "I invented the internet" ~Al Gore. "I did not have relations with that woman (pause) Monica Lewinsky" ~Clinton(UNDER OATH!, BUSH NEVER LIED UNDER OATH!). I think all democrats would be wise to follow Zell Miller, a Georgian Democrat. As a member of the Democratic Party, he does not believe in Kerry/Edwards. Republicans dumb, I think not. For all those who worry about the economy, when the baby boomers retire in a few years, there will be so many jobs; there will be a surplus of jobs. If Kerry is elected, he will play that as his doing. Just wait he'll do it IF he is elected
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GEORGE W. BUSH

Posted by: 007 at August 5, 2004 11:04 PM

Tennessee: Take a look at this. Why???

Tennessee: Unabashed Racist Leads Tenn. GOP Primary

Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 01:18 AM

I'm from Nevada, swing state and future dumpsite of the nation (like any one or two men can stop it...) I myself am something of a left-leaning moderate, and I'm voting for John Kerry.

Which candidate is of better character?
Ugh...two politicians...tough call... I might give it to Kerry.

Who will protect us better from terrorism?
I honestly think John Kerry has an edge here, he was deemed "Bush-lite" by Howard Dean, and I think that might be what we need to track them down in the short term and defuse the conditions that breed their overzelous hate in the long run.

Whose plan for the economy is better?
I really don't know here...the US economy is its own force in so far as I can tell. Bush doesn't seem to have one, and Kerry's doomed to failure in any attempt to give the country universal health care. However, I like his push for alternative energy. Maybe oil jobs will fall short and alternative might or might not meet up with replacing them... I don't know, I can't see the future. So, this I give to neither.

Personal View: Barack Obama kicks both their a****.

Posted by: Eric at August 6, 2004 01:56 AM

Thinkforyourself:
I personally saw Hillary Clinton give a speech and demand, and I do mean demand that the White House look into starting up the draft again, standing next to her was Ted Kennedy so I doubt that you can claim us right wingers made that one up. It's all a political move anyway, gripe about not enough men to fight the war and start talking about instituting the draft and what happens? It gets the draft age votes in the democrates pocket. We have more than enough service men to handle the situation in Iraq. Maybe some day you can get with some active duty members of the Military who went to Iraq and ask them their feelings. I have and do on a daily basis. Except for the few exceptions in mostly the Army everyone supports what is going on and are more than willing to lay down their lives for the cause. The ones that don't are the ones who went into the military for the sole reason of getting an education. I have heard it before and will hear it again. I didn't sign up to fight, I signed up for an education. What in the world did you think was going to happen if you signed the papers to go into the Military? I for one knew what I was getting into and would gladly do it again if the need arises.

As far as your information about Sandy Berger, well I saw the same news item and I also saw one that came out later stating that the information was FALSE and that he was still under investigation. Who do you believe? The man knowingly stole Highly Secret documents and destroyed them and so far the LIBERAL media (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC) have pretty much turned a blind eye to it. You are a fool if you don't think those media outlets are liberal. Go to mrc.org and check it out.

Let's talk a minute about John Kerry's honesty.
If you read on his own website where he posted his military experience it says that when he earned his bronze star for bravery the warrent said that he was wounded from a mine explosion and a member of another boats crew was thrown overboard. He went back and from the bow of the boat pulled him aboard while bleeding from the right arm. Amazingly enough he received his third purple heart for this action, but the informaion provided (which by the way has been conviently removed from his sight since this was brought up) stated he recieved the purple heart for shrapnel wounds to his buttocks and a CONTUSION to his right arm. I'm not a doctor, but from everything I have seen a contusion is a bruise and they don't bleed. I could be wrong, but I strongly feel that's the case.

We were 100% right to go into Iraq no matter what you might think. Sadam was and is a madman and If we did not go in and something terrible happened to the US and it was traced back to him EVERYBODY yourself included would be calling for President Bushs head.

The fact that he harbored terrorist and paid money to the families of every suicide bomber in palastine for their loved one killing the zionist means he was supporting terrorism and President Bush put every nation on alert when he said "We will pre-emptivly attack any nation that harbour terrorist, you are either with us or against us."

I am glad that we were not blessed with Al Gore the last four years, who knows what asprin factories might have been bombed.

Stepping off my high horse now.

Posted by: Wayne at August 6, 2004 12:27 PM

Uh oh. Jobs report looks really bad. Especially considering that it's summer and this is not supposed to happen.

August is Bush's month to rally. This will be a huge and dramatic setback, unless he can scare up more terror alerts.

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 6, 2004 12:50 PM

Remember that 87 billion dollar plan Kerry and Bush keep mentioning? If you want the truth, here it is.

The 87 billion dollar plan first had Tri-Med insurance benefits and medical aid for troops and White House officials wrote to the senate saying Bush would veto the bill if the medical benefits for troops weren't taken out. Kerry voted FOR the package with medical benefits, and then when it had to be revised because Bush was going to veto, Kerry voted against the package that didn't include medical benefits. Kerry did not want to vote for a package that did NOT include medical benefits.

Don't let bush fool you, he wanted to veto it.

All of these commercials saying "Kerry didn't want to fund troops" is just distraction from the truth, Bush didn't want to fund it in the first place if it included medical benefits or insurance.

Who's the flip flopper now?!

Posted by: Jason at August 6, 2004 07:57 PM

007,

It was Paul the liberal who mis-spelled deceptions, although I am guilty of typos, without spell check.

Paul, don't you worry about the job numbers. Unemployment is at 5.5% right where it was when your boy Clinton re-elected. Let's not be over zealous.

Things will change from day to day and those who have little interest in the election will make up their minds in November. At least you stand for something,even if I disagree. The so-called independents/swing voters don't realize what is on the line.

Finally, If Bush didn't warn us and it got out that there was a threat you'd complain, so your accusations are once again without merit.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 6, 2004 09:09 PM

When contemplating the upcoming election, I refuse to impress anyone with a strong conviction, rather, assess accurately Bush's failures juxtaopposing Kerry's. First off, one must contemplate the economy, where statistics, although bent by most, never lie. The truth is the surplus Clinton created during his presidency, 511 trillion dollars, I believe, was squandered, perhaps beyond repair. Furthermore, Bush is pro-outsourcing of jobs...which means that people can work outside the US for no taxes which further burdens the already grieved middle class on their's. Kerri however, who seems to provide solutions to what in my mind is a growing threat of economic chaos, is against the outsourcing of jobs...Hooray. Plus our Bostonian candidate is working to relieve the taxed and distribute the burden evenly among the taxed and the tax exempt! Hooray again, I say! Yet it is easily to formulate these kind of issues in hindsight, seeing where Bush failed and capitalizing on that. Unfortunately for Bush, he's made enough mistakes to render an entire platform according to his blunders. I continue: Kerri calls for co-operation with the UN, which shows his desire to resume respect for the United States...hip hip hoorah! Yet, this all seems to be too good to be true, whats the catch? Here is is folks: If there is one thing I admire in George Bush is his willingness to operate fast and without hesitation when it is rightfully appropriate, such as the case of Afghanistan (NOT Iraq, however, which unlike the attack of the Taliban against the US, which was justified due to the close relation between the government of Afghanistan and the terrorist cells working there, there was no reason for the US to attack Iraq, since we were not provoked, and that, albeit a tyrannical force to reckon with, Iraq was one of many dictatorships that could be attacked. Isn't it a coinkidink that it happens to have one of the world's most abundant sources of oil? And that our commander in chief owned, although unsuccessfully, a large oil company?) This is truly admirable of Bush (speaking of his attack on Afghanistan) and left with the choice of attacking or not attacking Afghanistan, Gore would have hesitated, fearing the consequence that the World would hold on him. For this I do nothing but commend him. Kerry seems like he'll respond well to threats when necessary, due to his military involvement in the rivers of Viet Nam, yet Bush has the experience I suppose.
However, the choice is up to you, I'm just expressing my most modest of opinions.

Posted by: Tim at August 7, 2004 01:35 AM

President Bush repealed the marriage tax penalty, increased the child tax credit to 1000 per child and understands that the only way to revive the economy is to give people back more of their own money.

John Kerry voted against the ban on partial birth abortions,against the Laci Peterson law, and against the banning of burning our flag!He is wrong on the economy, bad for small business and wrong on terror!My vote goes to the President!

Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2004 07:20 AM

Have you ever read the bottle of Heinz Ketchup.Let me help you, MADE IN MEXICO!I am sick of hearing that Bush let jobs go overseas!Kerry and his wife have several operations outside the U.S.

Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2004 07:25 AM

Jason,

I think you should watch this so that you can avoid being called umm... something nasty.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

Posted by: Carlos at August 8, 2004 06:38 PM

Mark,

I am a Bush supporter. I believe that he best represents my beliefs as the president and incumbent. I will vote for Bush again this time. I do however, have to ask you to clarify the whole made in Mexico thing with the Heinz Ketchup. When I saw your post I walked...nay, RAN to my fridge to whip out the old bottle of Ketchup. I was so hoping to find made in Mexico printed on the label that I was salivating. When to my surprise, it read; "MFD IN U.S.A. BY H.J. HEINZ CO., L.P. PITTSBURGH, PA 15230". Please do not try to strengthen your position by spreading rumors it just makes us all look bad.

Posted by: Carlos at August 8, 2004 07:10 PM

Mark,

You say the only way to revive the economy is to give people back more of their money? Other than what you have said (which is very little), what has he done? Give tax cuts to the rich...that only benifits the top 5% of the economy. Encourage companies to move their operations overseas...well, that only benefits the rich again. So what has Mr. Bush done other than increase our defecit so much that our kids are going to be paying for it?

Posted by: Jirai at August 8, 2004 09:43 PM

Here is one for everyone to read. Maybe it will put it into perspective!!

Consider the following information
by Bob Reynolds

There were 39 combat related killings
in Iraq during the month of January.....
In the fair city of Detroit there were
35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following ...

FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...
finished that war and started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

Kennedy...
invaded the Bay of Pigs.
Cuba never attacked us.
And in 1962 Kennedy started the
Vietnam conflict.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban,
crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and
North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of
chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to
find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division
and the Marines to destroy the Medina
Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy
to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank
at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 9, 2004 11:01 AM

From www.PIMNEWS.com:

So much for being Patriots.

ADMINISTRATION COMPROMISED INTELLIGENCE FOR POLITICAL GAIN

It was troubling enough that the Bush Administration issued a fake terror alert for Washington, DC and New York City based on old outdated four year old information. Arguably worst is that members of the Bush administration compromised an ongoing terror probe that reached deep into Al-Quada and was leading to the locations of the terror group’s top leaders and sources in the U.S.

Government officials leaked the name of Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan as an excuse for the heightened terror alert that has virtually stopped morning and afternoon commutes and activities in Washington, DC and New York City. Khan is a computer expert who helped Osama Bin Laden and his top level associates communicate with their terror network.

Immediately following the announcement of Khan as a suspect in the alert, there was an immediate and significant drop in communication between Al-Quada members. Even more remarkably, the FBI was in the midst of an attempt to round up persons who email addresses and phone numbers were stored in Khan’s computer.

The Pakistani Foreign Minister as well as the British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, both severely criticized the Bush Administration for the information leak. According to sources in both countries, intelligence operatives and law enforcement personnel were both in the midst of tracking down Khan’s contacts. George Allen, a Republican Senator from Virginia, uncharacteristically criticized the Administration, “in my view, they should have kept their mouths shut.”

Posted by: Paul Pimentel at August 9, 2004 04:19 PM

Becky- Let's take your ridiculous post one point at a time.
Economy - everyone of the dozens of indicators that signal the condition of the economy point to a strong US economy. The Jobs Report that has made so much news lately is a slanted view or a great jobs situation. The overall unemployment rate is 5.5%. That is better than the average over the last 20 years and on par with the "glorious" '90's. But why do they say the economy is so bad you ask? Take a nonbiased educated guess.
Environment - The world is BY FAR cleaner than it has been in 40 years. The EVIL US is not the ruiner of the environment you would have us believe. Rather we lead the way in innovation to produce cleaner companies, machines, cars, products.... the list goes on and on.
Funding Education - I have to admit this one made me laugh. President Bush increased education funding dramatically. He has spent more money on education than any person in the history of the world. He put Teddy Kennedy in charge of the program and allowed him to write the education bill. What the hell else do you want from the man???
Civil Rights - Playing the race/sex card is a old and worn as it gets. The days of trying to paint Republicans as evil haters of minorities and women is nothing short of pathetic. Instead, I challenge you to discuss the advances the Democrats have provided for minorties. Be prepared for my follow on question - Oh yeah, then why are minorties so bad off today if they've been voting for you guys. You've controlled the House and Senate for decades. And a hate filled diatribe won't suffice either.
Hated Nation - Substitute "envied" and you would be more correct. The US in simultaniously the most free, prosperous, strongest and envied nation in the world. It is little wonder that the liberators of the enslaved are hated for doing so considering your attitude.
Millions of terrorists - Please! Surely you're not equating Muslims and Terrorists? If you're not I would like to see those ridiculous numbers backed up.
Preemptively - Can you say Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam, Cuba... Get a military education and we'll talk.
False intelligence - Incorrect intelligence provided by the Clinton administration, the Russians, The Brits, The French, The Germans and the beloved UN would be more accurate. Incorrect only on the issue of "stockpiles" of WMDs. WMDs have been found and every other reason given to go to war to liberate 30 million people is still valid.
Religous vote - Christ performed miracles to prove to unbelievers he was God not to convince them to vote for him for president or did you miss that. He tought about love, compassion, mercy, responsibility and countless other things. Loving someone into poverty certainly wasn't one of those things.
Wake up and be something your Senator is not- Informed, Honest, Intellegent, Moral, a leader and worthy to hold the office. XOXO

Posted by: Teresa G at August 9, 2004 07:09 PM

Great job Teresa!

Posted by: Carlos at August 9, 2004 09:08 PM

Why not John Kerry? One word LIBERAL. Yes it is a bad word and always will be.

Posted by: Bill at August 9, 2004 11:18 PM

TO: Teresa and Carlos,

Teresa we aren't buying any of that. The jobs that are being created are at much less pay and much harder work. We have not turned the corner as GW JR states; but, we have made a complete "U" turn back to 2001.

Just Today Aug 9th,

DAYTON, Ohio _ Washington Mutual Inc. will shut down lending and loan processing offices in Ohio and 15 other states, resulting in about 1,840 lost jobs, company officials announced Thursday.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards Take America Back!
(Edited)

Posted by: d. jones at August 10, 2004 03:31 AM

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL!! Geeze that's the only reason the US attacked IRAQ. I'm so tired of the people crying that same sad old song.

If it was really about the oil, why attack Iraq? Doesn't Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and a host of other countries in that region have oil? It's not like they are in a position to stop us if that's all we were after. Why attack a country that we know used chemical weapons on Iran, not to mention their own people, when there are so many other ones that are easy pickings?

Let's talk about this reasonably ok? We know Iraq had chemical and possibly biological weapons right? We know that by the fact that they have used them before, can we agree on this? There have been at least 20 artillery shells with mustard or VX gas in them found.

Now let's suppose for a minute that there might be terrorists welcomed into Iraq. It's possible, right? Let's say that Bin-Ladens guys or any terrorist for that matter gets ahold of just one of those shells with VX in it. VX is a nerve agent that will kill you in less than a minute. One drop can kill a person, these shells had a half a gallon at a minimum in them.
We know our borders are too hard to defend against people coming into this country.

So what happens if this shell were to be exploded in NY city? One shell, in a city of millions? You can count on 9/11 looking like a walk in the park. Hundreds of thousands of people will be killed in less than a hour. AND THE DEMS WOULD BE CALLING FOR President Bush's head for not protecting us from it.

THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE ATTACKED IRAQ! NOT OIL! If it was for oil, why did we give the country back? Why is gas still so high? OIL had nothing to do with it. PROTECTING the UNITED STATES CITIZENS is what it was all about.

Posted by: Wayne at August 10, 2004 11:13 AM

On character KERRY ALL THE WAY
On protecting us from Terrorism: KERRY ALL THE WAY
on the Economy:KERRY ALL THE WAY
The average American has got to wake up and see that a vote for Bush is a vote against our grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren's FUTURE.
READ READ READ. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WRITING BOOKS THAT SPECIFICALLY SAY WHAT HE HAS REALLY DONE TO THIS COUNTY, BUT THERE ARE NONE BLINDER THEN SOME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SEE WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY ALL THE UGLY THINGS THAT BUSH HAS DONE TO OUR TREATIES, ENVIRONMENT, AND WOMENS' RIGHTS. READ WHAT SOME OF HIS FORMER TEACHERS HAVE SAID ABOUT HIM. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS THE PERFECT PUPPET IN GEORGE BUSH. THEY WIND HIM UP IN THE MORNING AND HE DILIGENTLY FOLLOWS WHERE THEY LEAD HIM.

Posted by: Jackie Wilson at August 10, 2004 11:35 AM

It is amazing to me to read all of the posts where the people who support Kerry supply facts about their canidate but the Bush supporters only give opinions.
Below is an example of another kind of post, one that misleads and misinforms people by leaving out certain information that would discount thier opinion.
Paul,

I went to your Web-site and the first allegation of lies referenced the war. If Bush lied then the U.N. lied which may be why they did not act on holding Saddam accountable. Edwards and Kerry lied. Clinton lied. So let's stop kidding ourselves. We can fabricate all we want but the truth remains, there has not been another attack on our soil to date. That is a miracle. The terrorists have to be right only once. Saddam funded the suicide bombers families. He's gone. Libya has rolled over. Pakistan is cooperating. This is good for the world.

Your sight is offering money for information on Bush. Are you guys that hateful, direspectful and blinded by your obsession with getting rid of Bush? Most Americans trust Bush before Kerry.
Sources like yours and Michael Moore are bad for America and frankly dangerous propoganda.

To Paul there has been a population shift from the high tax, high crime and high streess of the cities in the northeast, wonder why?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 5, 2004 02:32 AM

First of all, the attack on 9/11 was NOT the first attack by terrorists on US soil. We all know of several attacks most of them were foiled by previous administrations, Democratic and Republican. The most important of those was the first attack on the WTC where the criminals / terrorists were actually caught and put in jail. I would ask the people who support Bush to list how that trial and information from the trial helped this administration to stop any further attacks from happening?
I would also like Chris to show me where any of the suicide bombers have come to the US and blown themselves up? I would like Chris to tell me if this administration has been able to stop any of those suicide bombers from accomplishing any of their attacks? What has this administration been doing to help stop those attacks?
Chris, please explain you logic about if Bush lied them the U.N. lied? Where does the U.N. get thier information? Who interpreted that info? Do you or anyone you know have the original information documents that needed to be interpreted so that you or someone else could make a determination if they were interpreted propertly? Why didn't this administration give us all of the facts (after the fact so that it would not be a security risk) so that we as citizens could make up our own minds? Or do you believe we are not smart enough to make that determination having ALL of the facts?
One last thing, when did it become hateful to make sure we had honest people serving in government? I seem to remember a short time ago when there were hundreds of web sites offering money for anyone that could come up with information about a FORMER president! Why is this different from then?
Chris your post is only one of dozens of posts from supporters of this administration that have not done the basic homework and research to find the facts to actually support your opinions. At least you could fake it better by posting some web sites that the people who do research things could follow up on. You have that right as a citizen to be free. I hope and pray that you start to actually use your freedom and not be lead around by people who, in my opinion, could care less about you. Here is just one article that I found that supports my opinion, I challenge not only you Chris but all of those peopel out there on both sides to take charge of your opinion by finding the facts thaq either back up your opinions or not.
For Poor, As For Rich
by Carol Casey

The booming economy has benefited all, right? A group of University of Maryland researchers wants to test that hypothesis.

Eric Uslaner is onto a trend and he wishes he weren't. "Trust--that is, faith in people you don't know--has fallen dramatically over the past 40 years, and our society is becoming more balkanized and polarized," he says.

Uslaner's observations are reiterated by conservatives as well as by liberals. Charles Murray, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote last year in The Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. is culturally compartmentalizing itself. Name just about any aspect of American life, and a case can be made that the country is going in different directions simultaneously."

Uslaner, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, has a suspicion of what's to blame--growing economic inequality in the United States. His assertion is one of many to be evaluated under a new research consortium in the university's College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. The research effort, called the Demography of Inequality Initiative, will examine a range of issues that deal with the broader theme of social and economic imbalance.

"The rise in income and wage inequality over the past 30 years has been one of the more interesting trends in the U.S. economy," says economics professor William Evans, who is a key member of the initiative. "As the wages of highly educated workers have advanced, the incomes of less well-educated workers have fallen further and further behind."

For example, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies, while corporate profits rose 118 percent during the last two decades and pay to corporate CEOs increased 535 percent, middle- and lower-income workers took it on the chin. Adjusting for inflation, minimum wage fell 15 percent between 1980 and 1997, while the average hourly wage declined by 3 percent, according to the institute's findings.

Those findings may come as little surprise to the millions of Americans who were left out of the economic boom cycle of the last decade, most of whom had little or no money in the stock market. Despite the laudatory tone in much of the press during the 1990s about the economy, stories have continued to appear about overcrowded homeless shelters, families working two and three jobs just to keep ahead, millions living without health insurance.

But the existence of economic hardship has not translated into political action. Uslaner's hypothesis of civic disengagement may help explain it. "When economic inequality increases, the bonds of unity in a society are strained. This makes it difficult for society to reach collective decisions," Uslaner says.

In the past, middle- and upper-class Americans were forced to acknowledge the problems brought about by poverty because they found themselves face to face with them. Now, however, it's easier for more affluent Americans to isolate themselves from society's poor and struggling. Busing, which put middle-class children into classrooms next to poor children, has been abandoned as a solution to educational inequities. The homeless have been banished from the streets by vagrancy laws and remain out of sight in shelters. And the criminals are safely locked up in overcrowded jails--out of sight, out of mind.

Americans, Murray suggests, ignore the problem of inequality at their peril. The veneer of economic stability that came to characterize the 1990s actually obscures a more complex story that "begs to be disentangled," he says.

Uslaner, Evans and other faculty at the University of Maryland are doing just that.

"As the gaps between rich and poor increase, people at the bottom have less reason to be optimistic about the future, and thus they become less trusting of others," says Uslaner. "Participation in civic life is a sign of people's commitment to their society. The decline in participation in both political and social life bodes ill for civil society."

Disengagement Fosters Apathy, Pessimism

Uslaner's hypothesis is bolstered by his preliminary findings that those U.S. states with the largest increase in income inequality between 1970 and 1990 also saw the largest drop in voting over the same period, a trend that continued with the 2000 presidential election. Last November, 50.7 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. While that number was slightly higher than in 1996, when a record-low 48.8 percent of voters turned, it was still below the 55-percent turnout of 1992 and well below the 1960 voter turnout record of 62.8 percent in the Kennedy-Nixon election.

Uslaner says it's little coincidence that voters turned out in higher numbers in 1960 than ever before. "This was a time in America of the greatest levels of optimism in American history. We had a booming economy, low inflation and unemployment, a general sense of purpose and a can-do attitude," he says.

Troubling though these statistics are, Uslaner finds others more disturbing. Volunteering and charitable giving have fallen sharply since the 1960s. "People become pessimistic as the gap between the rich and the poor gets larger. When inequality is rising, people at the bottom see those at the top as privileged and powerful. Pessimists distrust others and opt out of participation in civic life, especially those activities that reflect a deeper commitment to one's community such as giving to charity or volunteering time."

This overall loss of civic engagement may have repercussions in education as well. Evans, along with Robert Schwab, professor of economics at Maryland, and Sheila Murray of the RAND Corporation, has examined how the distribution of spending on K-12 education has changed over the past 30 years. "We've seen a rapid rise in spending inequality during the 1980s and early 1990s," says Evans. "The bulk of evidence suggests that population heterogeneity along any dimension--age, race, education or income--reduces support for local public programs."

Evans, Schwab and Murray will track data on school district financing over the past 20 years to see whether support for schools changed as income inequality within districts increased. "We're asking, if one becomes less attached to the local school and funding goes down, does the quality of public schools decline?"

Healthcare Suffers From Economic Imbalance

For millions of Americans too poor to buy health insurance, the effects of income inequity can be a matter of life and death. Sociology professor Leonard Pearlin points out that discrepancies between the rich and poor in terms of public health and life expectancy have been recognized for many decades. And while "statistics show that Americans are living longer and healthier lives, disparities still exist--the poor and people of color still are not up to the level of the more affluent," Pearlin says.

Data from the National Center for Health Statistics support Pearlin's observation. In its report on the relationship between socioeconomic status and adult health, NCHS states, "Persons of lower socioeconomic status experience higher death rates and lower life expectancy. Furthermore, there is evidence that socioeconomic disparities in death rates have widened since 1960."

Pearlin believes that health disparities are exacerbated by the stress of living in poverty. "When people face involuntary unemployment or underemployment, live in unsafe neighborhoods and lack access to ordinary health service and facilities, their health is likely to be worse," he says. Other research shows that those kinds of stresses could lead to unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, excessive drinking and illegal drug use. His research is based on data from Medicare beneficiaries in Washington, D.C., and Maryland's Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

Evans is interested in the pathways that lead to higher mortality rates in the poor. His upcoming research stems from his extensive work on tobacco regulation. "When looking at smoking rates over time, one sees two different patterns for highly and less-educated adults," he says. "Among those with a college degree, smoking rates have fallen considerably since 1975. In contrast, among those with only a high school degree, there have been only modest drops in smoking. I want to know why."

Evans will investigate the hypothesis that health-compromising behaviors are correlated with widening income disparities. "The single most important health habit is smoking," he says. The American Heart Association claims that cigarette smoking alone accounts for nearly 20 percent of all deaths in the United States. Evans will examine whether greater income inequality and relative deprivation leads to poorer health habits such as alcohol abuse, overeating and cigarette smoking.

Families Bear the Brunt

The rise in income disparity among families with children is also well documented, yet no complete picture has emerged about how the income gap affects children. Sociology professor Suzanne Bianchi wants to find out whether income disparities affect the ways parents in different economic classes are involved in their children's lives.

This question arose from her research on maternal employment and its effects on how much time parents spent with their children. Bianchi found that, on average, parents' time with children had changed less than she expected, even as more women have entered the workplace. But those results made her wonder: "Is there more and more time and money for children at the high end [of the economic scale] counterbalancing less and less at the low end?"

Maryland assistant professor of sociology Steve Martin focuses on families, particularly how they are adapting to changing social patterns, such as mothers spending more time away from home to work.

"I specifically want to study changing outcomes for children as well as the life successes, goals and values of the parents," Martin says. He notes that as income inequality has increased, young adults seem increasingly diverse in how they manage, or even omit, major life transitions such as careers, education, marriage and childbearing.

"I'm trying to find out two things," Martin says, "First, do the well-off have increasing flexibility to choose the optimal order of their life events while the less-well-off have less flexibility? And, if that is the case, I want to discover whether such flexibility has tangible benefits for adults and children."

For some of the researchers, the work on income disparity represents more than just academic inquiry.

"I am interested in the issue of inequality first as a moral issue--it is important that we do as much as we can to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor. Second, but not unrelated, are the consequences of inequality to individuals and to the country," Uslaner says.

Bianchi also sees her work in terms of social justice. "It seems particularly important to assess whether economic trends in the country--that is, growing income inequality--might be working at cross-purposes to the goal of greater equality of opportunity, a goal that has characterized the rhetoric in the U.S. since the Civil Rights movement," she says.

"Society is paying for economic inequality--in prisons, in the high cost of health care, in crime and violence," Pearlin says. "To better distribute the economic rewards takes a society willing to commit to giving a little now to reap long-term benefits."

Uslaner agrees, "The only way to make progress against the increasing disparities between the rich and the poor is a real attempt by the political system to reduce economic inequality and social tensions."

A Glimpse Into America's Emerging Trends
by Patty Henetz, Carol Casey
Jeffrey Milem, and Daniel Cusick

Some Things Never Change
by Judith Bair

History Writ In Water
by Christopher Shuman

Posted by: Barry Benjamin at August 10, 2004 11:42 AM

D. Jones,

You know what your problem is, you may not mind picking lettuce for a living but you want $19.50/hour, 6 weeks vacation, sick pay, medical insurance for you and your family, paid medical leave, 5 personal days, paid legal holidays, tuition reimbursement, 401K, pension, and a company car. Quote : "Before you know it, Americans are going to be paying for a head of cabbage what they do for their Volvo." (Quoting Rush Limbaugh)

You may not be "buying it" but the fact still remains (whether you like it or not) that, Jobs are up, inflation is down, interest rates are low, home ownership is high, and the stock market is following the flow of a stable economy rather than one that is over-inflated.

Posted by: Carlos at August 10, 2004 12:50 PM

Michigan:

I have more respect for a man who does what he says if I agree with it or not than for a man who changes how he feels dependant on who he is around. How can you feel that life begins at conception yet still support abortion? That really means that as long as you are responsible for the person than murder is ok doesn't it? I could care less but common sense is common sense. Another item, I could never vote for anybody who disrespected his country and fellow soldiers like Kerry did. He should be ashamed of himself and go back to living his nice life with that wonderful wife of his.

Michigan for Bush.

Posted by: Jeff Payne at August 10, 2004 03:35 PM

Well done Carlos! If D.Jones wants to look on the blog-"it's the economy stupid" he will see that we are well on our way up! Unfortunately many dems think that the Clinton years were the best not realizing that he rode on Reagan and Bush Sr. coat tails!! By the end of Clinton we had an over-inflated economy that burst. Add in 9/11 and we should APPLAUD this administration for the work they have done. Remember the surplus Clinton bragged about? He SCREWED the military and defense funding all those years!!!

Well, it will be interesting to see how they spin the new one-Where in the world was John Kerry? Was he in Cambodia or elsewhere? Did he lie to Congress or is he lying now? Hmmmmmmm tune in tomorrow for "Flip Flop Flip Flop...Mr John Kerry"

Posted by: Teresa G at August 10, 2004 04:43 PM

Carlos at August 10, 2004 12:50 PM

Of course Carlos, Rush has all the answers! Another reason to vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 10, 2004 07:16 PM

Carlos,

In the world of you and Rush Limbaugh (a die hard racist) viewed through rose colored glasses, America may be on the uprise. The rest of Americans still feel as if the country is not moving in the right direction. I feel a man deserves fair pay, for a hard days work. You are wrong, I am from the South, I don't like picking anything even if it includes a 401k plan. If that were the case, I own 30 acres raw land and could pick anything I wanted. I have a college degree and choose to use my intelligence against Right Wing Conservative nuts like the Bush Administration who feel we should all live in a trailer and hunt squirrels and rabbits for dinner, and use home-made remedies made from leaves, cow chips, and tree sap for medical attention. I can honestly tell you. This will not happen for me or the American people. We are smarter than that and will not be fooled anymore by GW JR and his Administration with silly political games. The stakes are to high to let him win again, and he won't.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 11, 2004 01:58 AM

D> Jones,
I have a question- You said "right wing conservative nuts" want all of us to live in trailers and hunt squirrels and rabbits for dinner...." You can't have it both ways! All Dems cry that the tax cuts were for the rich (hence all right wing nut jobs) So which is it? Are we poor crazies who live off the land? Or are we living it up in our mansion's screwing the working class?

We are all allowed to have our views. That is why Amerca is GREAT!! I want to protect that freedom which is why I am voting for Bush. He is truthful, moral and has values. He doesn't take a poll to see what he should do. He honestly has our country in his best interest when he makes decisions. Right is Right, even if it isn't always the most popular decision. He proved that with Iraq.(Even Kerry slipped and said he would have gone in without having to find WMD'S!!)

I fear Kerry because he did some horrible things after he returned from Vietnam. He LIED to jumpstart his political career. Even his own campaign advisors had to "get back to you" on that one because they couldn't ignore the cold, hard truth of what he had said!!

I agree that we need affordable healthcare but socializing it is not the answer. If you believe that a man deserves to earn fair pay for hard work then lets not tax him at a 50% rate to pay for everyone's healthcare. It is better to give more of his money to him and let him choose his healthcare provider at affordable costs. Don't you think that if a man or woman works for his money, he deserves as much of it as possible and he is smart enough to do with it what he needs? (BTW, the rich pay most of the taxes that is why their tax cut looks bigger! If you only pay $1,000 in taxes you can't get $20,000 back!)

To keep healthcare costs down we would need to put caps on lawsuits (Edwards and Kerry would be against that) to keep malpractice down. I know that lawsuits are sometimes neccessary because there are gross injustices in the world but in Florida they are losing OB/GYN's because they have to pay around $270,000 a year for malpractice insurance!! In California, they have caps and their insurance is ALOT less.

I would like to encourage anyone to read a great book..."Letters to a young conservative" by Dinesh D'Souza. Hereally makes sense of many of the issues before us today.

Posted by: Teresa G at August 11, 2004 07:03 PM

In Response To Teresa,

This is not about Democrats and Republicans they both have the rich and the poor, its about the current GW JR. Administration in office today. Its about the self righteous, arrogant, stubborn, racist, spoiled Americans that try to intimidate those whom they think of as a lesser race or dumb by invoking fear, and stretching a long arm of Government over everyone. It's about lying to the American people in every political arena! It's about greed and corruption in Government. We as Americans have come to far and don't deserve this now. We need a leader to do what the majority of Americans want even if they don't feel its right, not one that takes matters in his own hands and lies at every opportunity.

God Bless America!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: D. jones at August 11, 2004 08:17 PM

John Kerry now thinks he may have had dates wrong when he was in Cambodia.This guy is too much. If nothing else this is yet another example of John Kerry saying anything he thinks you want to hear. Kerry's ability to dupe himself is one thing. His ability to dupe those that defend him are beyond belief.

Posted by: Debbie Button at August 11, 2004 08:40 PM

VIVA BUSH AND THANK GOD FOR President BUSH FROM MIAMI WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF LOVE WE CUBAN AMERICAN WILL BE VOTING FOR PRESIDENT BUSH AGAIN 4 MORE YEARS!

Posted by: maria at August 12, 2004 12:55 AM

yeah, we gave Kerry a chance, BEFORE we didn't give him a chance.

anyway, Its the Liberal and Democratic way, when you can't face the true facts, say the other side is lying, I believe the Swiftboat veterans and I belive in George W. Bush

Posted by: Chris at August 12, 2004 09:34 AM

John Edwards, what a joke. He has done nothing for the people in NC. I know, I live here. After he was elected to the senate, he bypassed Washington and headed straight for the campaign trail. He used us to further his own agenda. He missed 93% of votes in the senate, and the few he made he didn't help the people of NC at all. He voted against the farm bill which has in effect killed the small farmers in NC> Secondly, his lawsuits have spiked our insurance premiums to the point where even the rich can't afford insurance. You should ask yourself what is wrong when one's own state doesn't support him.

Posted by: brenda at August 12, 2004 10:58 AM

OK lets talk about integrity and character. A president should be the kind of person you can respect and expect to do the right thing for all or the majority at least of the people he is meant to be serving. We should also be able to expect openness and honesty.

Now lets look at what's been happening in this country.

Who is REALLY benefitting from the tax breaks
of the Bush administration . . . the majority? No, the corporations and the extremely wealthy . . .the people Bush calls his base. "The haves and the have mores". His buddies. They are having to raise the cap on the deficit as it is far beyond the highest it has ever been and about to surpass the limit they've already had to raise it to during this administration because of the outrageous spending.
(Which our children's children will pay for). Makes sense to give a tax break to his buddies though, doesn't it? While the majority got hundreds back the corporate boys (including Bush and Cheney) got back big fat cash.

Who is REALLY benefitting from shipping jobs overseas?? Corporations (owned by very wealthy people) not the majority . . . and to be a little more clear let me say that the majority is you, me and our children and their children. We are losing jobs (and by the way, unemployment is NOT down, its up from when Bush took office, much of it goes unreported because many have been unemployed for so long that they no longer receive benefits which makes the stats look better but is completely deceptive - which this administration knows very well - and which is why they chose not to extend benefits to these people)while Bush's "base" - the only people he has associated with all of his life - the extremely wealthy - (not the majority of which Edwards was one) because they can pay their employees less.

Who benefits from allowing immigrants to work here legally?? Corporate buddies of Bush. The majority??? No. You and me?? No.

Who benefits from decreasing and sometimes eliminating overtime pay??? Bush's buddies. His base. The people who have contributed to him and known him since he was born with that silver spoon in his mouth.

Who benefits from the massive environmental deregulation of this administration?? You, me our kids (with increasing asthma and pollution in their futures)? Corporations.

Who benefits from increasing the amount of co-pays for medical benefits??? Corporations. Less out of pocket for them. Who owns the corporations?? You?? Me??? No. Bush and his buddies.

Who has benefitted the most from this unjustifiable war which was planned by NPAC (a Republican think tank with members like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) almost a decade before it began??? Corporations like Halliburton (11 billion) Kellogg, Brown and Root (also a Cheney company) the Carlyle group (Bush family defense contractor - remember all the failing helicopters?? They own them. Any apologies?? No. These corporations and others owned by Bush "elite" as he called them did not even have to bid for these contracts - they were awarded to them without any pretense of fairness to the American public. These companies have been caught red-handed overcharging repeatedly. One more thing . . . although Cheney no longer works for Halliburton he does receive humongous dividends from them. He makes a lot of money when they make money and they are making a LOT of money right now. Someone complained about Kerry and Edwards being too wealthy to be able to relate to the little man (you and me). Bush and Cheney are dramatically wealthier (especially Cheney - look at their tax filings for this year) and have been their whole lives.

But that is only one way that Bush's buddies - not you and I - are benefitting from this war. Things have gotten so bad over there that the soldiers are basically holed up in their compounds trying not to get shot before their tour of duty is done (if it doesn't get extended because we're desperately undermanned). They are not building democracy, they aren't looking for terrorists anymore - they're hated and they're hiding. The only thing they ever do outside of their compounds anymore is guard the convoys. What's inside the convoys??? Oil. Who is benefitting from that??? You and I? Those soldiers?? (nearly 1000 dead) The Iraqi civilians (nearly 30,000 dead) or the emotionally and physically mamed soldiers, civilians and their orphans??? Their heartbroken parents?????
In this case there are two groups who benefit from this war. Bush's corporate base buddies and terrorists. Why???? Because this war has given the Osamas of the world proof that Americans
are greedy and ruthless and should be wiped out. And guess what folks?? Their numbers are rapidly on the rise because of this administrations policies. Not only that but everyday normal people -like you and me - around the world now hate us too and have a lot more sympathy for the "terrorists". This killing of innocent people for larger corporate profits doesn't make us look good. We had the goodwill and support of the world after 9/11 and not quite 3 years later we are the most hated country in the world. Bush promised to enter into foreign relations with humility during his 2000 campaign. He also promised not to nation build. Two more broken promises by this administration. And watch the oncoming build up to war with Iran. Also completely unjustifiable and beneficial to no one but them. Not surprisingly, almost every single member of this administration has HUGE connections to oil. Halliburton, under Cheney at the time, even made the video tape that taught Enron (another Cheney company) their accounting practices.

By the way this raising the deficit cap again thing is making them nervous - they're trying to raise it as far before the elections as possible but if they can't they can always take the focus off their irresponsibility by starting another war in lets say mid to late October. Its called wagging the dog, folks. If the economy continues to sink and more and more lies are exposed - like the swiftvets thing (which Arizona Republican John McCain has condemned as completely inaccurate)(EVERY man in Kerry's boat supports him wholeheartedly and respects him and people don't award themselves medals they are recommended for them and his general, Franks who originally went along with the swiftvets BS has now said he was pressured into signing by the white house and that Kerry very much deserves respect and those medals), or the fact that Bush was AWOL or that he drove his girlfriend to have an illegal abortion before Roe v Wade in the early 70s. Maybe the can partly deal with this deficit situation by reducing more military benefits again?? That'll be good for Americans like you and me. Makes you want to enlist doesn't it??? Its having the same impact on others.

And when they get us into a 3rd war, this time to take the focus off of their multitude of blunders and moral bankruptcy, who will be fighting for us???? Re-enlistment is way down. The men over there are trying to survive and they're livid with Bush and Cheney for keeping them there to guard their oil not to mention there aren't enough of them in Iraq now - makes sense to add another front doesn't it?? Who is going to protect us then??? Maybe all of our UN and/or European buddies that we've alienated? They can't wait for this administration to get its comeupance. Maybe the crumbling coalition of the willing (made up mostly of small countries without militaries who wanted to gain better relations with the US for trade reasons). Maybe the guys whose military benefits are being reduced while they risk their lives away from their families for much longer than they were told so they could protect someone else's oil? Who's benefitting from all this??? You?? Me???
You guessed it.

All those people I just mentioned who are totally unwilling to help us (because of this arrogant, blundering, corrupt administration) now that we're stretched too thin and brilliantly want to go to war again as the terrorists build their numbers. Guess what they're doing right now???
They're watching us. They're watching this election. In fact, for the first time ever in our history, an international team is coming to "monitor" the process of our elections. It is so crucial to the world that this time we have a fair election where the majority's choice ends up in the white house - and they realize it more than we do. Why do you think this is happening for the first time ever??? Is it because our commander in chief is known throughout the world for his integrity??? We are like a humongous train wreck waiting to happen. No matter how painful it is to watch you can't take your eyes away. We are poised on the brink of destruction and they know it and they care only because it impacts them too.
What do you think all of them (the UN, NATO, EU, Taliban, Al Qaeda, our men and women over there, etc., etc., etc..) will think of us if we let ourselves get duped by this group again??? They will think we are stupid and arrogant and greedy and deserve what's coming to us. Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us.
We are setting ourselves up to be blown off the face of the earth to the cheers of the rest of the world and if we let these guys back in office especially if they get in legally this time, we deserve it. Do we love our corporations and their greedy owners that much that we're willing to die for them??? Do we really think they deserve the biggest tax breaks???? Do we think that we should allow them to lie about every single person who has tried to expose the truth even if they hired them in the first place???? An unprecedented number of government workers have quit during this administration at all levels because they're not being allowed to do their jobs correctly and they're not allowed to tell the truth about the mismanagement of their departments which are now being run by the very guys who used to oppose them. Very wealthy lobbyists for big corporations. Bush's buddies. Who benefits when we turn over our privacy, our resources, our military men and women, etc., etc., etc. to those who have always sought to undo those very things??? The majority?? You, me, our children???? CORPORATIONS!!!! BUSH'S BASE!!!! "THE HAVES AND THE HAVE MORES" he calls them.

SO . . . .

Character??? Bush and his cronies are completely devoid of it. Cheney quote "integrity is good to a certain point but if you start to lose it becomes necessary to lie". And the evidence of that perception is absolutely everywhere.
Terrorism??? They couldn't possibly be doing a worse job.
Economy??? Same as terrorism. But why are we surprised??? EVERY business venture he ever entered failed miserably as has this administration.

Whether you like Kerry or not at least he showed up for military duty. He is not withholding his military records as our current dictator is. He had the integrity to speak out on something he didn't agree with even if it wasn't popular but in the long run most did come to see that Vietnam was a mistake and that was his point. He was willing to take a strong stand against something that was very wrong and that shows character.
Having any military experience (unlike Bush) at all and a much better grasp on the reality of the world and diplomacy clearly makes him better prepared to deal with terrorism and his eagerness to get away from dependency on foreign oil by developing alternative fuel sources means that he is more fiscally, environmentally, diplomatically and militarily responsible. He will not lead us into another unnecessary war after having been the spokesperson to end our last unnecessary war.

Even if that statement's a little too complex for some of you and sadly, it says a lot about our country that it definitely is too complex for people who choose to vote for someone who uses terms like "fuzzy math" because they can relate to it, instead of someone who actually understands the math and can then obviously be better equipped to fix the math and the other messes that this administration has gotten us into what we need to think about deep down here is do we want to be governed by the haves and the have mores (the corporate elite) or by the everyman which is the very principle that this country was founded on and what has made us great in the past until the entire system was thrown off track in November of 2000. I prefer to be governed by the majority. The people. The yous and mes of this country not by people with no regard whatsoever for our needs and wants who have one interest - their gain - which they are willing to risk our lives, our money, our futures, our children to get.

If you vote for more of these atrocities you are shaming yourself and your country. We are not the Hitler youth that we need to blindly follow their ridiculous propaganda while people die, lose their jobs and homes, are tortured, disappear without warning, have lost every last bit of their rights to privacy, a fair trial, etc. . Voting for anyone but Kerry, although he is human and imperfect, is an embarrassment to yourself because its admitting that you're not smart enough to see what's been happening here and that you don't mind not being represented and that your best interests are far less important than those of corporate America - Bush & Cheney's buddies. We have become a laughing stock. Heaven help anyone and us all if we let it happen again because folks, this will only be the precursor to the real nightmare. When they've lost the need to get re-elected the last little bit of restraint they've shown in trying to cover up their corruption and avarice will be GONE!!!! And we will pay in more ways that you can begin to imagine.

Posted by: Kris at August 12, 2004 10:59 AM

Kris,
Where do you get your info from- Michael Moore? First off, Kerry has not released his records. The ones he released weren't even his!! He was trying to take credit for some other officers work!! BTW- we are a military family. My husband is an officer in the Navy. I will tell you that the Bush years for the military have been better. The military has had SIGNIFICANT pay increases and the morale is 150% better then it was under Clinton. Military personnel were getting out in droves during his years that they had to offer bonuses to stay in!! Also, the air force and Navy are cutting back their people. So you are not accurate in the enlistment area either. They are offering for sailors and air force members to go over to army or marines if they want. I can also tell you that the majority of military is for Bush. Why do you think that Gore fought so hard for their vote not to be counted? Why do you think that the Dems are excited that we have so much military overseas for the election? So hopefully they won't get counted again. The democrats are the dishonest ones when it comes to voting. Giving out cigarettes to the homeless for their vote and dead people coming out of their graves to voted for a Democrat.
Kerry only went to Vietnam because he wanted to have a political career. He was there for 4 months ONLY. The guys who support him were around him for at the most 3 weeks. Rasmussen, was there for 24 hours, he was being transported. I agree that he pulled him out of the water but I don't believe his account of the fighting. There are too many descrepancies with the other accounts of the rescue. He is also a cop from LA. He is getting 5 star hotel stays and his 15 minutes of fame with a pres. candidate. The WEALTHIEST to ever run. I can see dollar signs in his eyes for saying what Kerry wants him to. His comrades did not like him. The ones who bunked with him. The ones who served as equals with him. HE LIED about Cambodia. Even now they are coming out and saying that he was there at sometime just not Christmas Eve. (which he said he VIVIDLY remembered Christmas Eve!) His fitreps (only the ones he chose to release) show that he was at the BEST, an average officer. Most of them are unobserved which means that he wasn't there long enough to be ranked! It says nothing about him. If he is such a hero, why hasn't he released the papers that show his injuries for the purple heart? He was not given them, he applied for them!!!
The Dems didn't think military service mattered when it was Clinton, The Draft Dodger against Dole, A True Military Hero. Now, all of a sudden, that is all that matters. Kerry hates the military as much as Clinton did. He has NEVER voted for a pay increase for the military!!! Last night we saw him screaming into a microphone that the military needed and deserved a HUGE pay raise. My husband almost fell off the bed laughing. Kerry sounds like a REPUBLICAN!!
We are not a laughing stock. We are ENVIED. We at an extremely young country but yet the most powerful. Do you know why? Because of democracy and capitalism!! What is wrong with someone making money? Edwards is a millionare by being an ambulance chaser. Which means the companies he sued had to raise their prices and now you scream about high health care!!
We are hated by the terrorists. Not because we are wealthy and have big corporations but because we are who we are. If we bent over for them, like Spain, they would laugh and then attack us. (Spain, even after pulling out of Iraq and re-electing someone new, are STILL on Al Qaeda's hit list!) We are, to them and their religon, the INFIDELS. They believe that the only way is to rid the world of us. We can't compromise and try to make friends with them. THEY HATE US and EVERYONE WHO IS NOT OF THEIR RELIGON!!! The UN isn't going to change that. Our so-called European allies aren't going to either. Nothing is. So the best way to deal with it is to rid the world of them BEFORE they can attack us!
If it takes a longer wait at the airport for my safety. I'll do it.
If it takes profiling of EVERYONE in the US. I'd do it.
If it takes national ID cards, I'd do it.
You see, I have nothing to hide. I think ANYONE who doesn't have anything to hide would agree with me! It is for our protection.
THe poeple who are being held in Gitmo are not some ordinary person who they took off the street. They have reason to believe that they are associating with terrorists. Until they clear them of wrongdoing- keep them there! IS your family's life worth a little inconvienence? Mine is!!
We have an Electoral College which gives the state over for who has the majority in that state. If by chance you ever look at which counties really went for Bush in the 2000 election you will see that most of the US was for him. Yes, Gore did get the majority of votes by about 500,000 (which is not many considering 10 million voted!) But we elect by the amount of votes from the Electoral College. JFK did not have the majority of votes in 1960 but yet he was president. I assure you that if Gore had won the electoral votes but not the popular you would be saying the same thing-just about your candidate.
I am very smart and do have my family in my interest. There is more then "corporate money" at stake. There are morals and values at stake too. My oldest was born at 26 1/2 weeks. He cried when he came out. If Kerry had his way, a child could be aborted almost up to delivery date. That is WRONG!! I have seen first hand what a "fetus" looks like at a time that people feel they should be able to kill it. He was a human being with his own soul, not some appendage of me, his mother. He is now a healthy, normal, teen ager.
I believe in Bush. He is the best for our nation. He has a lot more intel then we do and does what he feels is best. I trust him. I trust and respect him as my husband's boss, the commander in chief. I trusted him when my husband was over in the Persian Gulf after 9/11. I trust him in any future deployments of my husband too. I trust that he will make the right decisions for the military.
It also looks like a minor majority of this poll is going his way too!
Bush/Cheney 4 more years!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 12, 2004 05:13 PM

Its hard to believe people really believe this c*** about Kerry. Kerry is a rich liberal who is married to a multi-billionairess. How could he possibly "know" about us regular working folks? He doesnt have a clue, and neither do those who listen to his c***.

Posted by: Patriot at August 12, 2004 11:33 PM

Teresa G, Your comment that you posted, deserves a Big ten!!!!!! I was very impressed on the information that you wote! No one could had said it any better.... I hope this will help others, on the information that you have share with us. May God Bless you.

Vote for Bush/Kerry
November 2, 2004

Posted by: Lori at August 13, 2004 12:15 AM

Anyone who truly does their "homework" on the choices for President of the United States in the 2004 election could not possibly vote for Kerry/Edwards! My dad fought in the Korean War, was injured, and was awarded the Purple Heart. As his daughter, I am highly offended of what is now coming to light about Kerry's antics during his short time in Viet Nam. How could anyone vote for a man who pulled what Kerry did to be our Commander and Chief? WAKE UP AMERICA!!! Electing a lying, cheating, arrogant man like Clinton TWICE is one thing, but Kerry? George Bush may not be perfect, but he's certainly miles above Kerry in every way! Should I now mention what is coming to light about Kerry's wife and the Heinz Company? All one has to do is stop listening to the mainline media and get on the Internet or listen to abundant sources of non-mainline media to get at the truth! So, why don't you liberal, "open-minded," mostly Democrats practice what you say you believe and open your minds and do your homework? Or, do what you usually do: sit back with your closed minds and hypocrital ways, elect Kerry, and see where he takes this country? One last point: The same Democratic "leaders" who are claiming that Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction were singing a much different tune BEFORE Bush took us into Iran to do something about him! It's only the truly closed-minded who are convinced they are right that will not get off their duffs, type in a few key words, and search out the truth. A good starting point is the real Veterans who searved with Kerry while he was "earning" (what a joke) those three Purple Hearts. Links will take you to more truths.

Posted by: Debbie at August 13, 2004 12:22 AM

I have read many comments on many web sites, on the merits, of the war on terrorism, and have come to the conclusion, both sides are missing the real point,– the world wide point. The world (not just the US, not just Europe, not just Asia, not just South, or North America) is in a struggle against EVIL.

Has evil always been in the World? Even the most casual observer of history will, if ask, has evil always been with us, will answer yes.

One particular evil we face today, as a Country, is the evil of Islamic Fundamentalism. This EVIL has many names, many forms and different ideologies, but these many names, forms, and ideologies have important things in common. They all have a hatred of freedom, they all hate western secularism, they all hate western religion, and they are all evil. To the Islamic fundamentalist, Al-Qaeda, The army of God, or whatever name they use, the West is hated, with a hatred that is beyond the comprehension of most of us.

THEY DON’T HATE US FOR WHAT WE DO, THEY HATE US FOR WHAT WE ARE.

To get some idea of this hatred, you have only to visualize, with horror, the planes, loaded with jet fuel, being flown into buildings, whose only purpose was to kill as many people as possible. To you and I they were innocent victims, but to the Islamic fundamentalist they were the hated enemy of their belief, and deserved to be eliminated. Their only remorse was, why couldn’t it have been more?

The Islamic Fundamentalist has taken their belief to the ultimate extreme. They believe the killing of innocent people, to further their beliefs, is perfectly acceptable. That is why they can be heard, in the background, calling their deity’s name, as they beheaded Nicklaus Birg.

With such hatred can there be negotiations?

With such hatred can there be appeasement?

With such hatred can you sit and wait?

With such hatred can there be any limits, to their actions?

To any rational person, the answer, to these questions, is a resounding no. Even in some quarters of the moderate Islamic world, terrorists actions, by there fellow Muslims, are viewed with contempt.

Because these terrorist have no country to lose, they can roam the world, killing and destroying where ever the opportunity presents itself, and most fearful of all, with what ever weapon they have at their disposal.

Make no mistake about it, if they had had an atom bomb, they would have gleefully used it. We on the other hand, cannot use an atomic bomb just to kill a few terrorists located among the general population. The same is true for Biological warfare, or any other weapon of mass destruction ( WMDs if you will). They can use them, with malice, and we cannot, for humane reasons.

Against such a foe an old saying comes to mind “kill or be killed”.

No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by grousing about the price of a gallon of gasoline. No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by grousing about how evil Haliburton is. No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by grousing about how much the war on terror cost. No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by saying the President is sending our boys over seas to die, which is a false premiss, since we have an all volunteer service. No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by propagating the lie that Saddam Husain was not trying to get yellow cake, from an African Country, for the purpose of building an atomic bomb. To sum it up No gain against this determined enemy can be accomplished by arguing among ourselves. To the contrary, it plays into the hands of our enemies, as they smile with joy, while plotting their next horrific act.

Picture this if you will. There are three on the field of battle. Two on one side and only one on the other. The two are arguing with each other over whether to fight while the third is charging the two with raised blade, and murderous intent. In this instance the two have only seconds to make up their minds, or they are dead. Thankfully, or better stated hopefully, we have more time.

Unfortunately time is on the side of the terrorists. If we wait too long, the raised blade will surely become a doomsday bomb, a vile of germs dipped into our water supply, or an anthrax letter sent to millions disguised as a sweepstakes offer. With such an ominous occurrence, the willing as well as the unwilling will die, along with their wives and children.

Ladies and gentlemen Osma bin Laden, and many like him, long for such a day.

Unfortunately we are in a presidential campaign and politics has raised its ugly head. The opposition is using the war on terror as a political football. The war is unnecessary, we were misled about weapons of mass destruction, Its all about oil and the Presidents oil buddies, are all slogans the opposition is using to stir up unrest among a large segment of our population.

More pointedly, this unrest is a disguise to cover their true feelings. Hatred, of the President. Many, in the opposition, who are otherwise good people, would use sanction almost any method to get rid of the President. They simply have an abiding hatred of the man.

Most of the opposition could care less who their presidential candidate is, as long as he beats the president. Therefor, when they vote this Nov. they will not be voting for their candidate as much as they will be voting against the President.

Hatred is a poor reason for voting, for or against anything. It blinds the voter’s reasoning power, and makes him susceptible to proposals he otherwise would never think about adopting.

Hatred in any form is an evil unto itself. Certainly no virtue can be ascribed to it.

I would urge those in this category, on both sides, to reexamine themselves, and if they find hatred is their main motive for voting one way or another, to purge themselves of it. Hatred is a debilitating emotion and very little good can come of it.

I do urge, most strongly, everyone eligible to vote, to go to the polls this Nov. and vote.

Posted by: William Bill Keys at August 13, 2004 02:26 PM

My husband attended a Navy retirement ceremony today and brought this home for me to post. This is read, very solemnly, during the flag passing where the retiring service member is given a folded US flag to remind him/her of why they served and of those who sacrificed so much more.

I am the Flag of the United States of America-my name is Old Glory!

I fly atop the world's tallest buildings, I stand watch in America's halls of justice.

I fly majestically over the great institutions of learning, I stand guard with the greatest military of the world.

Look up and see me.

I stand for peace, honor, truth and justice. I stand for freedom!

I am confident, I am arrogant, I am proud.

When I am flown with my fellow banners, my head is a little higher, my colors a little truer.

I BOW TO NO ONE; I am recognized all over the world. I am worshipped, I am loved, I am feared.

I have fought in every battle of every war for more than two hundred years: Gettysburg, Shiloh, Appomattox, San Juan Hill, The Trenches of France, The Argon Forest, Anzio, Rome, Pearl Harbor, The Beaches of Normandy, Guam, Okinawa, Japan, Korea, The Persian Gulf, and a score of other places long forgotten by all but those who were with me. I was there.

I led my Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. I followed them and watched over them. They love me.

I was on a small hill in Iwo Jima. I was dirty, battle worn and tired, but my Sailors and Marines cheered me on and I was proud! I have been soiled, burned, torn and trampled in the streets of Countries that I have helped to set free. It does not hurt, for I am invincible.

I have been burned, soiled, torn and trampled on the streets of my own country, but when it is by those whom I have served with in battle, it hurts!

But I shall overcome, for I am strong. I have slipped the surly bonds of earth, and from my vantage point on the moon, I stand watch over the uncharted new frontiers of space.

I have been a silent witness to all America's finest hours.

I have flown over the top of the World Trade Centers and after September 11, 2001, I have flown over it's rubble to remind the evil in our world that my spirit will not be crushed. The American people will not be broken.

But my finest hour comes when I am torn into strips to be used as a bandage for my wounded comnrades on the field of battle. When I fly at half-mast to honor my Sailors, my Marines, my Airmen, my Soldiers. And when in the trembling arms of a grieving mother, at the graveside of her fallen son or daughter.

I am proud- my name is Old Glory!

Long may I wave, Dear God. Long may I wave.

I am voting for President George W. Bush because he gets it. He understands that we are the good guys, that we fight for freedom for those who are not grateful and those who can not fight for themselves. We fight and die and do not ask for gratitude. Thousands died to bring freedom to France 60 short years ago and today they spit on the worlds greatest cyclist for being American.
The President understands that no US serviceman has ever been sacrificed for freedom, they gave their lives willingly because freedom must be paid for and the price is very high. John Kerry, Michael Moore and their ilk will never understand. They wallow in the gifts given them by our military but will never understand what is meant by this writing. I respected Kerry for serving in Vietnam but will never get past his actions every day since.
I know that this poem was passed along after Sept. 11th. Please cut and paste it to all you know so they can remember what our great Country stands for!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 13, 2004 04:54 PM

No, Teresa, Carlos and the rest of the uninformed,
I get my information from the many respectable people who left this administration due to the complete lack of integrity and competency shown by this administration and felt that they had to say something so that the truth could be heard even by people like you who are still completely oblivious.

Posted by: Kris at August 13, 2004 09:06 PM

Debbie,
Did you miss the "election" of 2000?? You're the first person I've ever heard be so out of touch as to not realize that it was Gore fighting to get the votes counted and Bush stopping it. And when they finally were Gore won under every scenario imaginable.

Posted by: Kris at August 13, 2004 09:12 PM

Becky,

On you comment about how Christ healed people simply because they were sick etc. Christ also said, give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Christ must have been a republican... I only jest, of course, but you know what I mean...

Posted by: Carlos at August 14, 2004 01:52 AM

I currently have a 19 year old son serving this great county in the USAF, The thought of Kerry as president freightens me to think my son's very life could depend on decisions he might make. My vote will be for Bush.

Posted by: kc at August 14, 2004 09:15 AM

Okay, I'm getting really sick and tired of hearing the same Red Diaper Doper Babies Demoncrat Commie Propaganda. Bush never lied on Irag, even the 911 Commission Report said that. During its investigation the commission was railing its anti-Bush propaganda, but came to the conclusion BUSH DID NOT LIE!! Just this week they found a stock pile of Enriched Uranium in Iraq, but the alphabet channels with their bias won't tell us that!

Liberals watch out the terriorist want to kill you, too! To my fellow Independent Nationalists, quit being tranquil in your homes, with your cars and your investment portfolio. Wake up. Our country is slowly being taken over by socialism. Organizations such as NEA, the ACLU and UN all have to be abolished!

Vote for GW. Oh and by the way, I am a Teamster! I know alot of Teamsters that are also voting Bush.

Posted by: Ken at August 14, 2004 09:37 AM

Kris,

Bush won the election by at least 500 votes in Florida in 2000. The democrats recounted and recounted to try and find loop holes to get more votes for Gore. They ONLY recounted in the Democratic strongholds too!!! They did not recount every county!! Do you remember the whole chad episode? Some buggy eye guy trying to see if the chad had fallen off? Do you think that was done fairly to see who honestly won? No, the democrats were trying in EVERY imaginable way to get Gore in office!! But, in the end they had to concede that Bush did indeed win the electoral votes for Florida. Hence, he won the election. Gore did NOT win in every imaginable scenerio! You are blinded by your hatred for Bush.

Did you think of all the votes that Bush didn't get in the panhandle, which is majority Republican? Gore had been called before the polls closed in that area. How many people stayed home because they thought it was over? I don't think you think about that because it doesn't concern your candidate.

Gore DID NOT want ANY of the military absentee ballots counted, He only wanted those 3 democratic counties recounted. There were ALOT of military that were not counted because of that. (Alot of military have Florida as there state residency too!)

I know that this is a bitter fight because of the 2000 election. It all comes down to the electoral college though. We all know that. As I have said before-JFK did not win the popular vote but was President. President Bush won fair and square!

I am very cautious of your "readings" Kris because I believe that there are many out to destroy Bush. Anyone who has left the administration I don't trust. Look at Clarke and Wilson. They both came out and said things against Bush and they were the ones lying. It all came out too! Clarke was lying to the 9/11 commission and Wilson lied about his findings in Africa.

There are people who dislike (OK-even HATE) Bush because he has morals and values. He believes in God. He prays. He is spiritual. They despise religon. Our country was founded on the freedom of religon. Our money has imprinted on it " In God We Trust" We are "one nation UNDER GOD" Many people want to destroy that. There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is nothing wrong with have morals, values and sticking up for the truth!! I teach that to my kids everyday! To respect and treat everyone equally, to not lie, cheat, steal. To stand up for what they know is right and not waver. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Because of this, they are good true friends to everyone they meet. Teachers love them and friends trust them. I tell them that as long as they keep their values they will be respected through life. Some may make fun of them for it, some may not like them for it but they will always have respect! That is how I see President Bush. He does what HE knows is right, some may not like him for it, but he is respected!

I know that we will never agree, but I feel as strong and as passionate about Bush as you do for Kerry. I respect your decisions and I hope that you respect mine.

Posted by: Teresa G at August 14, 2004 06:44 PM

In response to Barry Benjamin,

A. FACT 1- WE HAVE NOT HAD ANOTHER ATTACK ON OUR SOIL SINCE 9/11.

B. OPINION WIDELY HELD- SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP, HOWEVER WE HAVE YET TO HAVE ONE OUR SOIL SINCE 9/11.

IF GORE HAD NOT WASTED SO MUCH TIME DISPUTING THE ELECTION AND IF THE DEMS HAD NOT UNDERMINED BUSH AT EVERY TURN, IF CLINTON HAD NOT DISMANTLED THE MILITARY AND INTELLIGIENCE, IF CLINTON HAD TAKEN OSAMA WHEN HE WAS OFFERRED...NEED I GO ON. I AM JUST TRYING TO PROVE A POINT SO DON'T BOTHER BLAMING BUSH BECAUSE IT IS FRUITLESS. WE CAN POINT FINGERS ALL DAY LONG. FACT STILL REMAINS PEOPLE HATE US AND BELIEVE THEY CAN WIN BECAUSE OF THE DISSENTION WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY.

YOUR QUESTION: "Chris, please explain you logic about if Bush lied them the U.N. lied? Where does the U.N. get their information? Who interpreted that info?"
Do you or anyone you know have the original information documents that needed to be interpreted so that you or someone else could make a determination if they were interpreted properly? Why didn't this administration give us all of the facts (after the fact so that it would not be a security risk) so that we as citizens could make up our own minds? Or do you believe we are not smart enough to make that determination having ALL of the facts?

ANSWER: THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED IRAQ WAS A THREAT. RUSSIAN INTELLIGIENCE, AMERICAN INTELLIGIENCE...BY THE WAY WHAT IS YOUR SECURITY CLEARANCE? YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS!!!! IF WE HAD THE FACTS I AM SURE SOME OF US ARE SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION.

YOUR STATEMENT: One last thing, when did it become hateful to make sure we had honest people serving in government? I seem to remember a short time ago when there were hundreds of web sites offering money for anyone that could come up with information about a FORMER president! Why is this different from then?

MY RESPONSE: FACT: MR. "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN" ADMITTED HE LIED UNDER OATH AND WAS IMPEACHED. YOU ALL CONTINUE TO QUESTION BUSH WITHOUT THE FACTS, AND DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOU READ ON YOUR WEB-SITES OR HEAR ON CNN. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. I GET MY INFO FROM RUSH AND FOXNEWS.

YOUR INSULT: "Chris your post is only one of dozens of posts from supporters of this administration that have not done the basic homework and research to find the facts to actually support your opinions. At least you could fake it better by posting some web sites that the people who do research things could follow up on. You have that right as a citizen to be free. I hope and pray that you start to actually use your freedom and not be lead around by people who, in my opinion, could care less about you. Here is just one article that I found that supports my opinion, I challenge not only you Chris but all of those people out there on both sides to take charge of your opinion by finding the facts thaq either back up your opinions or not."

MY RESPONSE: YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT I DON'T DO MY RESEARCH. I AM JUST AS INFORMED AS YOU ARE; HOWEVER I ALSO REALIZE WE ARE DRAWING OUR INFO FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES SO THEY WILL NOT MESH. THAT BEING SAID, I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE TIME TRYING TO CONVINCE THE OTHER 48% OF THE U.S. THAT BUSH IS DOING THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE YOUR SOURCES HAVE MADE YOU BIASED. WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE OTHER 4 OR 5% WILL GLANCE AT THIS, SEE OUR POSTINGS AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.

SO AS FOR YOUR SOURCES I DON'T TRUST THEM. WE ALL HAVE AGENDAS...I'LL BE HONEST HOW ABOUT YOU?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 14, 2004 08:35 PM

have any of you seen mrs kerry's pic you national tv this morning ...she is picking her teeth ...i perfect first lady ...LOL

Posted by: walter b makosky at August 15, 2004 09:01 AM

KERRY THE WHO AM I AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME. HOW COULD ANYONE VOTE FOR THIS MAN. WITH PRESIDENT BUSH YOU HAVE A MAN WITH A BACK BONE. IS WILLING TO PROTECT U.S. WITH OUT ASKING OTHERS FOR PREMISSION. HE HAS A BUILDING ECONOMY WITH UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER 6% WHICH IS LOW BY ANY REAL ANALISIS. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB AND SHOULD BE RE-ELECTED BY A LANDSLIDE. NOW AS FOR KERRY, DONE NOTHING AS A SENITOR. IS THE BIGEST LIBERAL AMONG THE SENITORS. THIS COUNTRY WAS NOT BUILT ON LIBERALIZM, AND WILL BE DISTROYED BY THAT LIBERALIZM. AS FOR PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY DO YOU TRUST A BIG LIBERAL WHO WILL GIVE AWAY TO THE U.N. A VETO OVER U.S.A. DEFENCE. SO THE ONLY REAL CHOICE IS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IS G.W. BUSH. HE IS NOT NEAR CONSERVITIVE ENOUGH FOR ME BUT HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AND SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT FOR AN OTHER 4 YEARS.

Posted by: BRUCE at August 15, 2004 12:01 PM

Kris, you definately seems to know your stuff! If GW JR. were to tell his beloved followers that men from Saturn (an oil rich planet) had WMD's and showed a photo of a crater and announced that this crater held WMD's, his followers would believe it and spend billions to send our troops to Saturn; however, I don't believe anything GW JR, says! I even detest seeing him on TV because I know he is going to play another silly political game so close to the RNC! I hate what he has done to our Military and American People, Just watch, GW JR. is becoming so desperate he is going to come up with another lie soon, and it may get him impeached.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 15, 2004 12:14 PM

Now I have seen it all. This administration will do anything to get re-elected! While Florida is a toss up and an obvious swing state, Bush has our scientists that control the weather (this is proven by the reversal of global warming under his watch) send a cold front through Texas giving his home state supporters extremely rare relief from the August heat and then steer these hurricanes through Florida creating such devistation. All so that he can ride in on a white horse (cowboy slang) and offer support in an attempt to buy their votes!

This is an obvious tongue in cheek resonse and I mean no disrespect to the people of Florida and would have them know that my prayers are with them following this tragedy. It's intent is, however, to show the ridiculous claims of the left wing extremists that would blame President Bush for anything. I just figured I would beat them to the punch. "Bush in 04"

Posted by: TIC in Texas at August 15, 2004 03:13 PM

In case you missed the news, the presidential debate schedule has now been set. With the race so close, the debates could have a decisive impact. If you look closely, you will see that all four debates are being held at universities.

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_040813.html

I can assure you that the chance these four particular states were chosen at random is outside the margin of error. Also, the order and format is not random. The first debate, which will get the most attention, is on domestic policy, Kerry's forte. The last debate, which people will remember most clearly on Nov. 2 is on foreign policy, Bush's strength.

Although the format seems strange, Kerry and Edwards will have Bush and Cheny for breakfast! I simply can't wait. Especially for the VP debate! Edwards is going to drown Cheny in his own oil!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 02:14 PM

In response to d. jones:

In the immortal, wonderful words of my great Commander n Chief and his VP, I say to you, "BRING IT ON!" Bush and Cheney will chew them up and regurgitate them out!!

Posted by: Deb Konold at August 16, 2004 06:56 PM

I can't wait to see Kerry flip flop in the debates! Did anyone see c-span last night? They had Kerry debating John O'Neill on the Dick Cavaet{sp} Show. It was from June 1971. John Kerry's worst enemy is himself and what he was back then. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing! He may be more elonquent then Bush but Bush has the strength and character behind him. He is who he is and likes himself. He WILL NOT bend in the wind like Kerry!!

d.jones-The military is better off with Bush in. Where do you get off saying that you can't stand to see what he has done with the military? Are you in the armed forces? Bush has given the military a 21% pay raise in the last 4 years. That is more then Clinton gave in his 8 years combined!! He has raised vet benefits by 41%. That is more then anyone has done since Reagan. You see, Bush believes in our military and supports them. It shows. Did you by chance get the story about the 4 marines eating at the "famous" Wendy's photo-op with Kerry and Edwards? Kerry went to the Marines and made small talk with them. Afterwards, the journalists asked the marines what they thought and they said "he ruined their dinner and they are 100% AGAINST him." Do you think that they believe that Bush has ruined the military? (That story is a few weeks old and I will see if I can find the link!)

Now onto Edwards and Cheney. Man, Cheney will eat him alive!! Cheney is a smart man and very well versed!! I watched him on c-span last night too.
The only thing that Edwards has on Cheney is a full head of hair!!!!!!

BTW-Kerry said, in his June 1971 debate-that if we pulled out of Vietnam quickly and let the South Vietnamese fight for themselves, there would be no mass casualties. Hmmmmm, I guess that he was wrong!!!!!!!!!!! About 2 million Cambodians lost their lives after we pulled out and we still have POW's missing!! Vietcong also overran the South within a few months! I don't trust him on Foreign Affairs and all he will do is RAISE TAXES domestically. He hasn't laid out any plans to do anything!! It would be like his 20 something years in the senate!!

I wish the left would get away from "Bush getting desperate so he raises the terror levels" He does what a President is supposed to do. Protect Americans. When there are NATURAL disasters-he gets the Federal Government moving!!

Kerry isn't doing his job!! When was the last time he was at the Senate? He was too busy to get to the Senate intel meeting because he had a fundraiser!!

With you guys, Bush is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn't. So I think he stopped trying to please you a LONG time ago!!
And it was YOUR beloved Clinton that was impeached-HE DID LIE!! (he even told on himself in his book!)
BUSH/CHENEY 2004 and Condeleeza Rice in 2008!!!!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 16, 2004 07:11 PM

My Dear Teresa,

I had to cut this short. You’ve tried to get my attention and now you have it. First of all, I must say I am very impressed by the nice comment you gave about John Kerry “He may be more eloquent than Bush” (I corrected your mistypes I have them myself) that must have been very hard for you to conceive let alone type on this chat. It is completely out of character for you. Kerry is much more intelligent that GW JR. You seem to be someone of average intelligence so how can you say the military is better off? They are in a war zone and have much to lose right now including their life and families. If GW JR did give them a 21% pay raise in the past 4 years. That’s approximately 5% per year and isn’t enough for sending them to war without bullet proof vests, two way radios and the basic items that would give them the winning advantage. This is 2004 not the 60’s or the 70’s. Don’t even think about blaming Kerry. Bush sent them to war based on lies before asking congress for the money to purchase additional survival items. Instead their families raised money to protect their Children and loved ones. That’s what Americans do. I am not in the armed forces. In the late 70’s, I went to the local Texas post office and registered for the draft as required by the federal government; however, since we were not attacked by Iraq, I understand the reason the draft was not immediately reinstated. I went to college and didn’t volunteer for the service. Did you? Please send me your sources on veteran benefits. I know GW JR, cut health care that affected over 100,000 Veterans; he should give them more than 41% benefits. They also fought for him. Did you find any links on how the family victims of 911 benefited? I would also like to see that. Then you state in the upcoming debates that Cheny will eat Edwards alive! HA! Edwards has much more charisma and is one of the best political speakers I have heard in a long time. Have you every heard one of Edward’s powerful speeches? It’s amazing! I hope Cheny doesn’t get so upset that he will suffer from a heart attack. I also don’t want Edwards to have any sympathy for him. He has hidden like a mole for the past 4 years. I posted something about the 2 million killed in Vietnam, but am not sure about the timeframes. I remember reading that we lost 50,000 American soldiers, and many went insane and took their own lives, and several joined the growing Vietnam protest movement of the 70’s by wearing peace signs, and refusing to obey orders. You can’t blame John Kerry for all of that, he participated and didn’t like what he saw, and neither did I. I can only hope Iraq doesn’t become another Vietnam; however, its looking like that as each day passes. As for the terror alerts, Bush brought that on himself. It’s not the “Left” as you claim it’s the FBI reports, and the trial Courts that have the suspects in custody that discredit GW JR’s alerts. Not to mention the Governor of Nevada who stated on national TV that he was never warned. I believe the Governor, just as you believe GW JR. GW JR is nothing more than a pawn for the Republican Party and he is far too dumb and arrogant to do what a President is supposed to do. He insists on running the Country the way he ran his failed Texas oil companies, and by borrowing money to buy the Texas Rangers for fun, and use his family influence to run Texas as Governor. The current Texas Governor Rick Perry is still suffering from the GW JR fallout. I know because I live here. I would be somewhat impressed if GW JR would actually read the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights. As for Clinton, I really thought Clinton was a strong President simply because he took every punch by the American People and especially the Republican Party for his lying, and remained a President with the highest approval ratings. Clinton was not impeached. He stood his ground, and refused to allow the Republican Party self righteous positions into his bedroom. Once again, they failed, just as GW JR’s attempt to pry into private lives with the same sex marriage Constitutional amendment. GW JR only did that to protect his Party’s interest and image. I could tell by his dumb Deer-Hit-By-A-Truck stare when first asked on TV. I think they caught him off guard with that one. Let me ask you a question? What could Ron Reagan Jr. and Robert Kennedy Jr. possibly have in common? Answer: Like many, they both dislike the direction GW Bush Jr. is taking our country. As for Condi Rice, I am happy she is a woman who served on the board of directors of the huge Chevron Oil Company, and had an oil tanker named after her. I don’t think she has a full grasp or understanding of the GW JR southern good ole’ boy policy. If GW JR says jump, she better ask how high sir! I remember reading a comical itinerary of the RNC. Since GW JR has no solid platform to run on, after the Saadam capture and bashing Kerry several times, Condi Rice will perform a lap dance right before the RNC beer bash. Ha! Ha! I know it was tacky, but I didn’t write it. I am not a “Left” as you so often call anyone who disagrees with the current Administration. I didn’t think Gore had much of a platform, but I knew of GW JR’s record in Texas and didn’t want him as President in 2000. I also liked the agenda’s of Reagan and Perot. I do disapprove of GW JR’s job as Governor and President so much I am taking this race very seriously. Kerry has taken a beating by the Democratic Party and has come out on top. I have watched and researched Kerry and Edwards very heavily and now fully believe they will do great in their roles of President and Vice President of the U.S. Don’t be such a “Right” give Kerry a Chance! I did a google search on “Bush Lies to Americans” and came up with 1, 270,000 pages. They can’t all be lying! Post your links, and I will look for the Marines Photo Opt with Kerry.

God Bless America, and God Bless You!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:45 AM

D. Jones,

CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED!!!!!

You pride yourself on sources and facts. Get them straight.

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 12:35 PM

Ha! Chris,

Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that? Nixon was impeached. I saw him packing his bags. Clinton never packed a thing! Where are your sources? Never mind I don't even want to see those!

Vote: kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 03:14 PM

Both Bush and Kerry were in Portland, OR last Friday. Bush was in an undisclosed location where people had to PAY to see him speak. Kerry spoke to the the public, not the ELITE. What does this have to say for Bush? I am asking you Bush supporters, try to spin this to make him look like the better man.

P.S.
Oregon is a swing state this year - over 50,000 supporters showed up to the Kerry rally.

Posted by: P. Smith at August 17, 2004 05:54 PM

Here is the marine story. Hope you like it!!

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm

Posted by: Teresa G at August 17, 2004 06:16 PM

d. jones,
As this seems to be a point of contention, I would like to discuss the Governmental process known as impeachment. Websters defines impeachment as "a lower house of government bringing charges against a public official with a following trial to be before an upper house". That is what it means to be impeached. It has nothing to do with packing bags or leaving office. Removal from office or private/public censure are possible punishments imposed upon the person being impeached they are not the impeachment "process" itsself. President Nixon had 3 articles of impeachment referred against him but resigned before the impeachment process could take place to avoid the certain outcome that was to follow. Therefore, it is a true statement that Nixon was never impeached. He resigned his office rather than face impeachment. All this is verifiable in your nearest history book.
Just as verifiable are the 21% increase in military pay and 41% increase in VA funding. Both of which far out pace any administration in recent history. I base my opinions of military 11 years as a Navy wife which means I lived what you are not reading about. Life is better because morale is better, pay is up, reenlistments are up, jobs are more meaningful and the list goes on and on. I don't hate President Clinton or Senator Kerry but they lack integrity and that makes them very poor leaders. The job of the US military necessitates leadership and neither of the afore mentioned inspire the military. Obviously an opinion but that of a military officer and a vast majority of those he serves with.
And this ridiculous issue of GW being dumb. Other than the fact that he is from the south, a Christian, a conservative, a capitalist, a Yale graduate, loves his country and believes in right and wrong what evidence do you have that he lacks intelligence? Admittedly, we all know that southern Christian conservative capitalistic patriotic Yale grads are idiots. Please note the heavy dose of sarcasm.
This repulsive hatred for a person you don't even know. GW is a wealthy easterner who turned his back on the elitest snobs. He moved to Texas and is happy with himself. He believes in God and leads by doing what he believes in right. Put your bias aside and acknowledge that fact. You have to respect a man who does what he believes is the right thing even if you don't.
Kery says that he would have gone into Iraq even if there weren't WMD's. He has said that recently.I heard Bush speak and he said even if we never find them (which recent reports have Sadaam sending his Republican Guard to the Syrian border to replace regular Iraqi guards while he moved trucks over the border and then put the Iraqi guards back to position!) we still have taken out a mad man. He cannot give help to terrorists! We found terror training camps there,mustard gas, Ricin, planes buried in the sand. What more could you want besides a nuclear weapon sitting in Sadaam's palace? Bush passed a bill for the 87 billion. There were 12 who didn't vote for it. Guess who was in that group? Kerry and Edwards. Who didn't want armor for our troops?
I am going back to the military issue because it goes along with the deficit. During Clinton's years (who by the way we lost military soldiers with-USS Cole, Army barracks bombed, the embassy in Africa and Somalia with Black Hawk down) Clinton cut the defense budget so much that any pay raises received were always less then inflation. Aircraft carriers were out for 6 month deployments and would run out of toilet paper!! That is how low the funding was to keep our military (and FBI and CIA) going!
Here is my analogy- if you lived in a house for 8 years and did absolutely no improvements and then had to sell it fast, what would you have to do? Put ALOT of money into it!!! That is what Bush has had to do with the defense budget in addition to fighting a war on terror!!!
Ron Reagan Jr. wants stem cell research. That is why he was at DNC. They haven't even proven that embryos hold the key. You can get the same from umbilical cord blood. Of course it is an emotional issue for him. (BTW, heart attacks are emotional for me-my father had a quintuple bypass 5 years ago. His brother also has a pacemaker because of a virus he picked up in Korea during the Korean war. He never was angry AND he is voting for Bush!)
I liked Liebermann. He was the most honest down to earth man running in the Primaries. It is unfortunate that democrats didn't. I feel sorry for the democratic party. They have only chosen a man who they feel can win. They didn't chose him because they feel he will be the best for the country. That is so sad that because of the hatred for Bush-they would put our country in an unworthy man's hands!!
I get alot of my information from military.com You can check that site out if you want to. Oh and Foxnews too!!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 17, 2004 07:41 PM

I am amazed at the bush supporters and the extremes they will go to to discredit John Kerry. There is no question that Senator Kerry has changed his mind about certain issues. He thought about them and realized his orriginal belief was wrong and changed his mind. I guess if President bush had the ability to think he probably would change his mind occasionally too. But when his thoughts are controled by his puppitmaster Tricky Dick C, it is pretty dificult for him to change his mind. Remember he is the one that told us "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Or maybe you remember this bush briliants "You're working hard to put food on your family. = -- Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce. (New Hampshire), Jan. 27, 2000. Or maybe when talking about education you remember this bush line "We want results in every single classroom so that one single child is left behind." And maybe one of you bush supporters can explain to me what in the hell he meant with this gem "I appreciate the desire for flexibility, I support the governor's desire for flexibility so long as, one, federal monies going to the states are used only
for Head Start. In other words, what we really don't want to do is say we're going to focus on Head Start, the Head Start money goes for, you know, the
prison complex -- I know that won't happen with Governor Ehrlich, but there needs to be a guarantee that the federal money spent on Head Start, only go
to Head Start. Secondly, states and local governments must put money into the program, which would lock in the Head Start money for Head Start. So, the
flexibility given to the State would not allow the state's budget flexibility. Governors ought to have that flexibility to hope that Congress will provide
that flexibility so that when the accountability systems kick in, fully kick in, that a governor can truthfully say, well, I've had the tools necessary
to make sure the Head Start program fits into an overall comprehensive plan for literacy and math for every child in the state of Maryland, in Governor
Ehrlich's case." So I guess if changing your mind about issues is wrong then John kerry is wrong. If thinking about a situation and realizing your first thought was wrong makes you a bad president then I guess John Kerry might be a bad president. If however thinking is not required to be president then you all should again elect George Bush because he seems to think less than anyone I know.

Posted by: roger at August 17, 2004 10:23 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice today by a divided House of Representatives, which recommended virtually along party lines that the Senate remove the nation's 42d President from office.

D., You need to sit down. Are you kidding?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 17, 2004 10:42 PM

The ONLY man for the job is George W. Bush.
Kerry cannot be trusted especially not with the future of our country

Posted by: diane e at August 18, 2004 01:35 PM

D. Jones,
You really need to check your history better. Nixon was never impeached, he resigned before he was impeached and was given a full pardon by Ford.
Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

You really show your colors when you state "As for Clinton, I really thought Clinton was a strong President simply because he took every punch by the American People and especially the Republican Party for his lying, and remained a President with the highest approval ratings. Clinton was not impeached. He stood his ground, and refused to allow the Republican Party self righteous positions into his bedroom." If Clinton had confined his adultery to the bedroom it never would have come out, but he didn't did he? No! He had to do it in the OVAL OFFICE. You know where that is, don't you? The White House, the peoples house. He was getting it while Yasser Arafat was waiting to meet with him. He has a serious mental problem for what he did to that poor cigar.

BTW President Bush had the highest approval ratings ever for any president. Get your facts right

Why is it you can't have a civil conversation with anyone? Why is it you have to demean the President and his staff? Saying things like Condi Rice will be giving lap dances. Just what kind of human being are you anyway?

As for the Military I can honestly say that President Bush has brought honor to them. They are finally proud of their Commander in Chief. 95% of them back him in this war.
Every person I knew who served under President Clinton could not stand the man. To a man they love President Bush and will do whatever he says. Not one single Marine went to war lacking the equipment to protect himself and get the job done. It was your beloved Kerry who voted against funding the troops, funding that eventually supplied them with any other items they needed.

On Thanksgiving day, who do you think they were more proud to see, President Bush or Senator Clinton? The guys who were unlucky enough to have the Senator visit them had to wait 2 hours for her to arrive, then wait another 45 minutes, while her whole entourage went through the live in front of them. They booed her when she spoke to them. They begged for volunteers to sit at the table with her and no one would.

President Bush showed up unannounced and they gave him a 20-minute standing ovation when he walked into the room, he made sure everyone was served before him and he walked around the room and personally talked to every military member there. He has brought pride back to the Military, they are no longer the UN peace keepers they were under President Clinton.

Do you know anything at all about John Edwards? Anything? Oh yeah, his speeches or should I say his speech. That’s all he has is one speech he gives over and over about two Americas. The ones who have and the ones who don’t have. BTW here is a little known secret. Shhhh don’t tell anyone. John Edwards is a Multi-Millionaire. Yep, you heard it first here. I let the cat out of the bag.

What state are you from? North Carolina? I am! That’s the state the John Edwards claims to represent in the Senate. Do you have any idea what his approval rating is in the state of North Carolina? I’ll tell you, 36% that’s what. No wonder he decided not to run for a second term. He ran on a platform as a conservative democrat, but has the 4th most liberal voting record in the Senate. He lied to the people of North Carolina, not unlike his running mate has lied about his time in Cambodia. By law Senators and Congressmen are supposed to respond to your written letters sent to them by the people they represent. John Edwards has not replied to any letters from people I personally know who have written him with problems. Yes, he is in touch with the American people. He comes down to Figure Eight Island to rest and relax. Know where that is? It’s a place only the rich and famous can go to. Yet, I feel so close to the man, as if he were my brother. The man didn’t even know the price of a gallon of milk, or a six-pack of beer. Had no clue at all. It must be nice to have so much money that you don’t even have to consider what the price of something is. I sure hope some day I get to that point.

All you do is rant rant and rant some more, then you resort to name-calling. You are no better than the one you intend to vote for.

May God help us all if Kerry gets elected?

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 18, 2004 03:22 PM

I know my history.

Clinton impeachment trial never passed in the Senate. Therefore he was not impeached! Give me a break! The Republican tried tried to put Clinton out of office and many of them sided with Clinton in both the House and the Senate, and a couple of high level Reps. House Reps resigned because they had extra marital affairs. Please get the story straight. Clinton wasn't going anywhere unless they dragged him out of there and even then he would have fought all the way. He is not a weak man that doesn't have a mind of his own. One who will run from Repulicans with his tail between his legs!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:08 PM

Mr. Jones. Welcome to History 101:

RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury.

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

(1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee;
(2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him;
(3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and
(4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

(Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998)
(Passed 228-206 in the House of Representatives at 1:25 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998)

Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case.

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:

(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

(Approved 20-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998)
(Failed 229-205 in the House of Representatives at 1:42 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998)

Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case.

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

(Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998)
(Passed 221-212 in the House of Representatives at 1:59 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998)

Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee.

Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

(Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, December 12, 1998)
(Failed 285-148 in the House of Representatives at 2:15 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998)

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 18, 2004 08:24 PM

Thanks Jim,

I wonder if D. Jones is just a little girl?

Posted by: Chris, OH at August 18, 2004 09:09 PM

Well, Jim Rodkey, I don't confess to be a rocket scientist like you; however, Clinton was not forced out of office as you would like. I can remember GW JR. and his band of Wealth attempting to waltz right in before the Florida recount was completed, because they claimed the had "The Country's business to take care of" I now really understands what that means. If you want to know the truth. Here in Texas the NUT set up a temporary Presidential office in Austin.
I have the respect for his father President George Bush Sr., but GW JR. has to learn that he has to work for something sometimes, everything shouldn't be handed to you on a silver spoon. You tend to loose the ability to think for yourself as is in GW JR.'s case.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 09:24 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

Obviously you don't know as much about politics as you think. He was impeached and that meant he had to stand trial to see if he would be removed from office. During that trial they voted not to remove him from office but the fact remains-HE WAS IMPEACHED.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 18, 2004 09:32 PM

Well Mr. Jim Rodkey you found it faster then I did but I am still posting! I also found that Nixon left before being impeached! (That was a source of contention in a few posts up)
Clinton was impeached by the House. It is more difficult to get through the senate. The only other President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson. He was also "acquitted" through the senate. Clinton was "censured" (or reprimanded for his actions) The house stands as the impeachment SO Clinton will go down in history as an impeached President. The senate rules on IF he should be taken out of office and that is what they did not agree with hence the censure!!

Here is my cut and paste from the site. It was under a government website on historical impeachments.

"On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

The One That Got Away

Source:Library of Congress Picture Collection
Of thirty-five attempts at impeachment, only nine have come to trial. Because it cripples Congress with a lengthy trial, impeachment is infrequent. Many officials, seeing the writing on the wall, resign rather than face the ignominy of a public trial."

So there-I killed 2 birds with one stone.

Devil Dawg- I am with you!! You can see it on TV, how much the military approves of Bush. We feel it on base and in the morale of the military EVERYDAY!! My husband went to the Persian Gulf after Sept 11th and he is PROUD to serve under Bush. He had the opportunity to have Cheney aboard too! The men and women aboard the carrier loved that!! Poor Hillary thought that she would be loved over there. No way!! The military were asked to NOT wear their uniforms in the White House under Clinton because Bill and Hillary HATED the military and it was a constant reminder of what they were actually in charge of!! (This is from Dereliction of Duty by Buzz Patterson)

d.jones-No Bill wouldn't have gone anywhere unless he was dragged out!! Unfortunately for us and our teenagers we all know about oral s@# and cigars!! We have an epidemic of kids now thinking that oral s@# is less intimate then kissing and we have girls offering it to our boys on school buses!! I know because I have a 12 year old boy and have had to discuss the repercussions of these actions and why he needs to say no to it!! And the only person who Bill would walk away from with his tail between his legs is Hillary!!

Now to all you democrats. I have done my research and have looked at the sites that you post from (when you leave links) I have never seen such hate filled half truths in my life!! They are all so Michael Moorish!!( OOH! can that be a new word?) Michael Moore takes truth's and breaks them up and reconfigures them until he gets what he wants and sells them as 100% truth!He has been cornered on so many issues that he misquoted that he can't be trusted at all!!
One of you said that Bush ran and hid in Arizona after 9/11. That is crap! I know that he was supposed to land at an AFB in the center of the country then was diverted to Nebraska. They did have the top secret name for Air Force One. He also INSISTED he got back to the White House that night! He slept in the bunker there!! YOU have your facts wrong! (There are things called transcripts that keep track of history!)
Lastly, you have to get to name calling and slanderous jokes- (Tricky Dick C? Condeleeza doing lap dances...PLEASE!) That is what is on all these hate filled sites! I get my information from very unbiased places. They don't just scream HATE HATE HATE everywhere. Why don't you try something other then airamericaradio and bushlies.com...how about foxnews?

BUSH/CHENEY 4 more years!!!!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 18, 2004 09:51 PM

Sorry Teresa,

Fox new is controlled by the Republicans! I remember reading a report that they were not even allowed to mention the name Osama Bin Laden. Your sources are old and biased.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 12:21 AM

d jones,

i noticed you said texas was still suffering from the bush governorship, that makes me wonder why 68% of texans voted for his re-election (read: LANDSLIDE!)?? It made him the first texan to ever be elected back to back...

and one more thing d jones... you're a 'girly democrat' haha.. you wont' even respond to the impeachment claims you posted... wait wait, i know!! you'll flip-flop on it, and say... 'well he actually did get impeached, before he didn't get impeached'....

i know so many people who have been to iraq and fought for our country, i haven't heard a single complaint of lack of equipment... i have heard 100's of complaints of john kerry's vote against funding them though... not a smart move, the 5% of the military that might have voted for kerry before hand, well.. he lost them too!

Posted by: justin anderson at August 19, 2004 12:43 AM

Thanks Teresa,

I for one, am sick and tired of the Liberal Left re-writing history. Constantly denying the truth inspite of the evidence to push an agenda.

That this country was founded under the basis of a faith system that express thankfulness and gratitude to God is a matter of historical record. That the very basis of the formation of our entire structure of representational government was taken from the Presbyterian form of church government is also a matter of historical record. They can scream foul all they want but it's the truth of history.

Please, thank your husband for me. Your family has honored this country, not only by his willigness to serve, but by his and your support of a commander in chief who is guiding and directing the country with a strength and vision the John Kerry doesn't seem to understand. A vision of freedom, not just for a few, but for all. Not just for America, but freedom from tyranny from any force that seeks to restrict, supress and destroy any voice that disagrees with it.

I was only 15 when John Kerry defaced the name of everyone who served in Vietnam but I remember it well. It is, as he states, seared in my memory. I had older friends who were serving and the thought that any of them cold have commited acts like Kerry described left me sick in the stomach.

After I graduated, I worked in an Army-Navy store and got to know a lot of the local vets, and some not so local since we have a Veterans' hospital just outside the city limits. They remember John Kerry very well, they called him a liar.

Last year, a very close friend of mine who served 2 tours in Nam died of cancer. AS he was dying he wanted to make sure that none of us ever believed he ever tortured and killed anyone needlessly in Vietnam. He still carried that with him. When I go into the voting booth in November and I pull that lever for George Bush I do it in memory of Floyd, for every name on the memorial wall in Washington D.C., and for all those who served and continue to serve with honor.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 19, 2004 01:25 AM

Fox News Poll

I don't agree with it. I feel Kerry has a much larger lead; however, here it is.

08/05/04 Poll: Small Convention Bump for Kerry
Thursday, August 05, 2004
By Dana Blanton

The latest FOX News poll shows Kerry receives 46 percent to incumbent Bush's 43 percent in a head-to-head matchup among registered voters. The results are unchanged when independent candidate Ralph Nader (search) is added to the race, with two percent backing Nader, 46 percent Kerry and 42 percent Bush. Kerry's advantage is within the poll's three-percentage point margin of error.

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 01:52 AM

Posted by: justin anderson at August 19, 2004 12:43 AM

Justin, Don't try me.

GW JR. won in Texas because of the Respect and admiration of his Father and the name Bush. The people who own Bush Beans not related to the GW JR. family has received a enormous boost in sales due to guess what "The Bush Name". GW JR. has been riding the coat tail of his famous father all his life. I won't even get on his priviledged service record at the moment. Kerry is not even playing those type of dirty politics.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 19, 2004 11:25 AM

Sorry to break it to you d. jones but foxnews is fair and balanced! In the 2000 election, they called Gore for Florida before Bush had won it!Is that republican run? I was horrified to see O'Reilly defend Kerry against these swiftvets! If he was a republican could he have done that? Anyways-ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS are all ran by democrats! My news is NOT old since I watch it everyday! If you are talking about the Marines dissing Kerry, yes it is a few weeks old but it is TRUE!! And what a story it is!!

Your websites are HATE filled and conspiracy theories. I have come to realize that according to you, republicans are the liars. There is NEVER a word of truth that comes from our mouths! You would believe anything that A democrat said!! (Hmmmm- I did not have sex with that woman!) Didn't they believe that was a right wing conspiracy? (Hillary went on NBC and said that!) I feel for you because you think of us as "little" people who don't know what the truth is.

If your side had it their way-Lincoln would have never been elected! One of the greatest presidents of all times!!
Wow- ALL men have the right to FREEDOM? What a concept!!

I saw on one of your sites about "neocons." Your side feels that we are here to FORCE freedom on everyone. (an oxymoron?) That we are religious nut freaks who carry guns and hate minorities and gays!! Man!! How can you read that and believe that is what we represent? Do you have ANY friends that are republican? Do you see that in them? I know that I am the far from that "profile"!!

Jim Rodkey-
Thank you for that post!! I am sorry about your friend.He served his country proudly and that is what matters!! I was born in 1971 so I don't remember that era. My husband is a total history buff and we have researched alot of the wars. I dated a guy in high school whose father was spit on when he came home from Vietnam. He was called 'babykiller" and horrible things. (Kind of ironic-they support abortion yet called the soldiers baby killers?)Yes Kerry did not start the "revolution of anti-war" but he willingly jumped on the wagon because it was the "cool" thing to do!!
We don't need cool. We need tough. WE need a "say it like it is" man. That man is Bush. Lara Flynn Boyle said..."I like my president like an agent. He is tough, he gets the job done and has my best interest at heart...." So few in Hollywood feel that!
I can feel the squirming of Kerry though! He is spending $500,000 BEFORE the RNC (which he wasn't going to do)on ads because of the fall out from the swift vets!!

Bush/Cheney 2004

Posted by: Teresa G at August 19, 2004 02:47 PM

Read this and pay attention to the last paragraph. This is cut and pasted from Foxnews.com.

Vietnamese-Americans Back Bush
Saturday, August 07, 2004

LOS ANGELES — "The John Kerry (search) many Vietnamese-Americans remember is not the hero promoted by the Democratic Party, but the ex-soldier who returned to the United States to denounce the Vietnam War.

"His close association and anti-war activity make him known as Mr. Jane Fonda," said Frank Jao, who fought in the South Vietnamese army against the communist North.

Jao emigrated to California, and now is the Donald Trump of Orange County's Little Saigon (search), the largest Vietnamese community outside of Vietnam. In this area, 58 percent of the residents are registered Republicans.

While older Vietnamese-Americans may see Kerry as a turncoat, many younger voters are more open-minded, said Christian Collet, a pollster with Pacific Opinions Research (search).

"There is definitely a handful ... that wants to put war behind them and move forward with a constructive dialogue with Vietnam. And to that extent, John Kerry will get a handful of votes from those people," Collet said.

Another reason Vietnamese-Americans criticize Kerry is that he has worked to block a bill forcing communist Vietnam to clean up its human rights abuses (search). The bill passed 410 to 1 in the House, but Kerry blocked it in the Senate. Kerry has claimed that the best way to improve abuses in Vietnam is to engage the communists, not punish them."

Holy Moly! is that what he means about a "sensitive" war?

Bush/Cheney 2004

Posted by: Teresa G at August 19, 2004 06:00 PM

Hey D. Jones how does it feel to be dodging all of the bullets shot at you? You seem to be in the minority on these boards. He He.

Where did you learn to be such a good liberal. I noticed you only posted one side of the setting up a presidential office. For your's and all the other few liberals out there who might have believed you. Al Gore ALSO set up a temorary Presidential office, just in case his lawyers were able to get the rules changed so he could steal the election. BTW the Democrats beloved President Kennedy was not elected by the popular vote. Clinton won the presidency twice by the lowest precentage of votes in US history.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 19, 2004 09:55 PM

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 19, 2004 09:55 PM

Gore didn't have to set up a temporary Presidental office. New Flash For Devil Dawg. Gore was THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 11:19 AM

OK for all you still deciding on who is best for office read up! I have gotten this information from John Kerry sites, foxnews and George W. Bush sites. So feel free to look at them your- selves.
First off, we all know that Kerry is a flip flopper. He has called Vietnam Vets "baby killers" and now says that wasn't really from him but "others" who had told him that. (His support from Vets has dropped from 47% to 36% too!)
He has said that he didn't own a SUV but then told automakers that he did! It turns out that it is his wife's car that he is "allowed" to drive.
Did you know that Teresa Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican until Kerry decided to run for office then she re-registered to be a Democrat? Did you know that until recently she never had Kerry as a last name? She thought it "looked" better for his running if she hyphenated it! I bet her deceased husband, who was a Republican Senator, is turning in his grave!
George Soros, who is a Kerry supporter, has spent 62 million dollars slamming Bush and telling bold face lies. He has compared Bush to Hitler and said straight up that Bush lied to the American public about the Iraq war. We all know that intel from different countries told all the same thing!That there was WMD's and the power to make them! We know that Wilson lied about the Iraqis looking for enriched uranium. (He at first said he didn't find any evidence and the 9/11 report came out and said that they were looking for it-from Wilson's OWN words!)
Now the Swiftboatvets come out and Kerry is screaming foul! They shouldn't be allowed to say mean things about him. He calls them lies! He says that they are working under the Bush administration. (They are not! They have a wealthy Texas man who has given money to them to run the ads who has also given money to the RNC.) Don't you think that wealthy man George Soros has given money to the DNC? Of course he has!! Does that make him connected to Kerry?
There are over 200 men who have come out against Kerry. 65 men who are telling the same Vietnam story. 1 man disagrees, that is Kerry. Who are you going to believe? What do the 65 men who are registered Democrats, Independents and Republicans have to gain or lose? What about the man who they are criticizing? He has the presidency to lose!!
Kerry's military records are not 100% there. He has chosen the ones he wants to release. Where are his medical records? Why haven't they been released? Why can't we see the records of his wounds? If what the swiftboatvets are saying about him isn't true why is he so outraged? Did you see Bush come out screaming that he wasn't like Hitler? No. Did you see Bush screaming about Fahrenheit 9/11? No because HE himself knew the truth and he knows that the truth will prevail! Bush did what he needed to on Sept 11th and after. We KNOW this because we have not had another attack on our soil. We KNOW this because we have arrested terrorists and have toppled "outlaw" governments! We h ave little girls going to school and women being able to register to vote! Look at the facts!!
If Kerry was so concerned about us as Americans why did he miss 76% of his senate intelligence committee votes? (This is AFTER Sept 11th!!) If he is so concerned about our military why did he vote against the money for body armor? Why has he voted against pay raises for the military in the past? Why did he vote against "The Laci Peterson" law? These are all public records too!! He has not proven himself worthy of running this country!! Not because of Vietnam but what he has done AFTER Vietnam! What he has done as a Senator!!
Now if you are concerned about the hype of taxes and who pays more. Look at it this way. If you make $20,000 a year and your tax rate was 10% you would have paid $2,000. If your tax rate went to 5% under President Bush's tax break you would now pay $1,000. That makes sense right? You are paying 50% less taxes!
Now if you made $200,000 and your tax bracket was 40%. You would have paid $80,000. If under President Bush's tax break it was dropped to 20% you would now be paying $40,000. That is 50% cut too! Do you see that a 50% cut for both those tax brackets is a different amount? It is because the higher amount is paying more in the beginning! When the Democrats scream that the wealthy get a bigger cut it is because they are paying ALOT more! It has nothing to do with it being "Bush's buddies" but a simple mathematic equation!
So please research for yourself. Think about what you hear. What you see. Make a logical decision. Who is better for this country? Who can protect us? Who is helping bring the economy up? Who is helping the military and vets? Who do we need to run the war on terror? Who has the must racially diverse administration ever? Who thinnks of Americans before himself? That person is President Bush.

Posted by: Teresa G at August 20, 2004 01:49 PM

Newsflash d. jones check your facts. Gore set up a Temporary Presidential Office at his ranch in Tenn. Both Gore and Bush did it in order to start putting together a cabinet because they knew they would have less time than normal because of the Florida elections.

Being the VP had no bearing on setting up the temp office, he would not have kept the existing cabinet, he wanted, just like any other President to have his own people instead of the previous Presidents.

You must live in a very small world.

I am 41 years old and have been following politics since 1979. I am able to read and comprehend things, as well as form my own opinions based on that knowledge.

How old are you, and how long have you been following Politics? Be honest, I know it’s not in your blood, but just give it a try.

What’s your feeling on John Edwards only having a 36% approval rating in North Carolina?

You never seem to answer anyone’s questions; you just keep pumping out hate and questionable information at best.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 20, 2004 02:05 PM

John Kerry testified, under oath, before a congressional investigating committee in the early 1070s that: 1) He had, and had witnessed war crimes being committed; and, 2) He had taken part in military operations inside the neutral country of Cambodia. By his own sworn testimony, he is: 1) A self-confessed war criminal and should be put tried before a military tribunal; or, 2) Put before a grand jury and tried for perjury before congress. There you have it. 1) A perjurer (before congress; not the first as of late) or, 2) a confessed war criminal. Which of the two Kerrys do you libs prefer to support. Again, you have a choice of at least two Kerrys.

Posted by: CPE_USMC at August 20, 2004 08:25 PM

If Senator Kerry is such a Supporter of the military Why did he turn his back on his commrads after only 4 mos in a combat zone if he knew that the things he testified about were going on why didn't the hero try to stop them He even said he did them in ignorance I was an enlisted man in the USMC I spent about 19 mos. in country but I knew what the rules of engagement were. as an officer I'm sure he did also, then he said he was told about the Abuse but he didn't bring no one forward to confirm those claims. then he becomes a govenor,then Senator and he spends most of that time voting against weapons systems and fundings for the thing they need. His history After VIET-NAM has been to weaken this countries Defences and inteligence capabilities A lepard cannot change it's spots
We are in a dangerous period of time can trust Senator Kerry not to sell us out again for political ambitions It was the Democrats Who brought up the service records and once again Senator Kerry and the democrats played to the tune of our enemies with there trashing of our president in such vile manner it only serves to up lift the moral of our enemies, making the job of our troops that mush harder and dangerous
God Bless each and everyone of you and get behind our toops and our president. By the way itis Senator Kerry and not President who is trying to squelch the freedom of speech

Posted by: T Dickerson at August 20, 2004 11:28 PM

d. jones hasn't responded to any of my posts on here... i think he/she has been exposed... i have a good feeling that he/she will be changing their name on here really soon ;-)

Posted by: Justin Anderson at August 21, 2004 12:38 AM

d. jones, once again.. you avoided the point that i made.. and threw out some other idea of your liberal viewpoints..

i clearly asked why bush was RE-ELECTED, you can say that bush was elected because of his fathers name... but why was he RE-ELECTED if he didn't do a good job? why was he the FIRST governor of texas to ever be RE-ELECTED (back to back)? why did he get 68% of the vote in his RE-ELECTION?

your response to this..."Bush's Baked Beans... had an enormous boost in sales"?? come on, you gotta do better than that...

as far as his priveledged service record... i think thats a fight i'd like to take... i think that national gaurd service is an extremely respectable service... look at what they're doin even today as i type this: they're fighting in iraq, they're fighting in afghanistan, they're fighting wildfires in california, new mexico, and florida (just to name a few), they're providing security to cities on high alert, they're providing food/water/and rescue efforts in the wake of a devastating hurricane... sure, they're not shooting fleeing vietnamese teens, they're not rescuing people that fell off of a boat that was fleeing the scene of small arms fire while other boats where staying, sure they're not exploding grenades too closely to their position causing shrapnel to lodge in their arms and recieving purple hearts for the brave act, and i can probably safely say that they're not bailing out after 4 months and 12 days of duty...

d jones, you have the most baseless claims ever. every single thing you say is fabricated and quickly disproven.. you backed down from my fight on the economy because 3 people in a row told you how the tax cuts had benefited their small business's... you backed down from your impeachment claims because you had no idea what you were talkin about... you won't respond to the questions your asked... what is your deal? do you get bored and decide it time to go shed some of your liberalism?

i challenge you d. jones...5 things...

1)Show us how George Bush lied to the country and world with his statements on WMD, but yet Clinton, Kerry, and other liberals were truthful with their very same statements on the issue.
2)Show us how the tax cuts for the $200,000+ class is BAD for the economy, and how that more jobs would be created if the taxes were never cut. (keep in mind, small business's pay tax at this rate)
3)Show us how the war on terror is not effectively fought in the bush white house.. how the clinton era's use of lawsuits and legal papers netted so few accomplishments on terror, and how the bush white house's use of force and 'boots on the ground' has arrested an uncountable amount of terror suspects?
4)Show us what the average citizen who has no ties to terror has to worry about with the Patriot Act? allowing the fbi to see what we check out at the library, and what websites we visited while on their computuers (which is federally funded by the way ;-), why is that such a bad thing? I'd turn my computer and library card over to the fbi at this exact moment if i thought it'd help them net 1 more suspect... wouldn't you?
5)Tell us why that if John Kerry has all these 'great ideas', to change the world and to add 9 trillion new jobs by his 100th day, and rid the world of sensitive terrorists, why d. jones.. why hasn't he introduced the legistlation to get it done already?

and just for the heck of it, tell us how abortion is such a wonderful thing? how cutting a baby's spinal cord at the stem of the brain is so compassionate? or better yet, tell us how fair it is that if my pregnant wife is hit by a drunk driver and she loses her baby but is otherwise unharmed, how the drunk driver is only given a dui and no jail time? tell us how keeping god out of the government is a good thing, when the bible clearly states 'there is NO power but unto god'? tell us how in the state of kentucky, 88% of the schools raised their test scores this year, and recieved a large increase in funding.. but yet are 'left behind' like its being reported in the news? d. jones.. don't worry... you're not the only person who's afraid of the truth... there's a few more of you all out there, you're just the only one with an i.q. low enough to try and talk about it...

Posted by: Justin Anderson at August 21, 2004 01:20 AM

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 20, 2004 02:05 PM

What’s your feeling on John Edwards only having a 36% approval rating in North Carolina?

North Carolina is not respresentative of the whole picture. What is your feeling on GW JR.'s approval rating?

Facts: GW JR. Approval Rating!

8/19/04 - 46% approval, 45% disapproval - CBS

8/15/04 - 47% Excellent/Good, 52% Fair/Poor - Zogby

8/5/04 - 44% approval; 48% disapproval - Fox (Worst Fox numbers ever!)

8/2/04 - 43% approval; 50% disapproval - ARG

7/31/04 - 45% approval; 49% disapproval - Newsweek

7/22/04 - 47% approval; 45% disapproval - Fox

7/13/04 - 48% approval; 50% disapproval - WP

7/6/04 - 44% approval; 50% disapproval - ARG

"You must live in a very small world."

I live in Texas, and it is far from small. Where do you live, North Carolina? John Edwards will be a great Vice President. Where are your sources?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:27 AM

Posted by: Teresa G at August 20, 2004 01:49 PM

"Now the Swiftboatvets come out and Kerry is screaming foul!"

The Swiftboats lied on Kerry and was funded by Texas money! Do you read the Washington Post. There is a link on this site! What about GW JR's Military Record. Teresa, could it be that your underclothing is a sooo tight that it is causing problems with the blood flow to your brain! Listen to yourself, you sound like a broken record. At the very least say something new and quit congradulating your GW JR. supporters for their Right Wing Conservative Hate postings. Be honest, resourceful and original if it is at all possible.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:39 AM

NEWSFLASH!!! Kerry is crying foul now that people are being mean to him! He files a complaint with the FCC that the Bush campaign is behind the swiftboatvets. WAAA!WAAA!
I read about it and the Kerry campaign is saying that big Republican supporters who contribute money to the Bush campaign and the RNC have donated money to the swiftboatvets! COME ON! Can we all say Hollywood? Ben Affleck? Alec Baldwin? Whoppi Goldberg? Bruce Springsteen? Moby? Jon Bon Jovi? The list goes on? The worst? Michael Moore!!!! They ALL contribute to Kerry and the DNC! They have all slammed Bush. What about George Soros? He is running ads now against Bush that go against his records during Vietnam. Why? To go against the Swiftboatvets!! This is a horrendous act by Kerry! He thinks it is ok to slam Bush. You can say crude, foul disgusting things about his name and it's ok. (Whoppi Goldberg at the Hollywood fundraiser-the same one that Kerry had to get to so he missed his umpteenth Senate intel meeting and he said "this is what America is all about!" right after Whoopi made those comments!)
This reminds me of "Liar Liar" with Jim Carrey.
"I object, your honor!" the lawyer cries
"Why?" the judge asks
"Because it's devastating to my case!" the lawyer screams.
OK Kerry!!You told Bush to bring it on? Then why don't you? Release your medical records so we can see the wounds received for your purple heart. Release the rest of your fitreps. Not just the ones that are nonobserved or have you in the promotable or early promote catagory. Release them all! (The fitreps are on JohnKerry.com or there is a link from the swiftboatvet.com. The swiftboatvet website explains how to read the fitreps! Very enlightening!)

We cannot sit back and hope that people come to their senses! We need to get out their and volunteer for the Bush campaign. WE need to write letters to the editors of newspapers, to tv stations. We need to make sure that the whole story gets out not just the left side! Let's help re-elect President Bush!

Posted by: Teresa G at August 21, 2004 10:11 AM

I saw a post by "harriet", who stated that "the National Guard was not being used in Vietnam....". This was in reference to Pres. Bush's Guard service.

FACT: Up to the time the Air National Guard left Vietnam in April 1969, the Guard combat pilots had flown 50,000 hours while completing 30,000 combat sorties.

FACT: Our national Air Reserve forces made up approximately forty-seven percent of the combat pilots in the Southeast Asia area.

FACT: The 335th Tactical Fighter Squadron, while listed as a regular Air Force squadron on paper, was composed of 85% Air Guard pilots.

FACT: The same type information applies to the reserve and guard forces during the Korean war.

"harriet's" obvious slur on our military is the same old liberal line of spitting on those who sacrifice so much providing security and safety to her and her ilk's butts. They don't have to love, or even like our military, but they should at least have the common sense and decency to keep their mouths shut about things they know nothing about and do not have the ambition or intelligence to do some elementary research about. You are right; I am angry. I have been angry, ever since I returned from Vietnam (in 1965), at those in this country whose seemingly maniacal desire is to destroy our country. This includes mr. kerry, who has opened wounds that many much more honorable and better men than he have desperately tried to heal over the last forty years. What he said, after he returned to the safety of his beloved country, to slur the memory of the thousands who died and were yet to die, is a total disgrace to himself and any who would defend his actions.

I damn him for his lies, his deceptions, and his re-writing of history.

PS: I, nor did any of my fellow Marines, observe, commit, nor hear of any of the type of "atrocities" as observed and committed by mr. kerry by his own sworn testimony.

CPE

Posted by: CPE_USMC at August 21, 2004 10:32 AM

CPE-
Thank you for your post! I have a friend whose husband is Air National Guard. He has been back and forth to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past year and a half. When Kerry came out and said that "The National Guard isn't really the military" I thought she was going to scream! Even now she says that if anyone she knows votes for him-she will never talk to that person again!

All military service is honorable. Whether Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard or Air Force. It is about protecting our country and DEFENDING it! ( I promise to defend the United States of America from ALL enemies-foreign and domestic) Whether you went to battle during major wars or spent your time in while the world was relatively peaceful. Your duty to your country was done. People don't get it. It is called HONOR!!

My father was called up during the Korean War. His older brother went to Korea. My father was at Camp Pendleton. When it was my father's time to go to Korea the war was over. He was 17 years old and left high school in Virginia and traveled 3,000 miles to serve his country. It was all about honor. His brother traveled ALOT further. HE came back and had to have a pace maker put in because of a virus he had picked up in Korea. He was in some pretty heinous battles during the winter over there. He has never complained. He was proud to have served.

My mom's brother was wounded in WW2. He still has shrapnel in him. He doesn't brag about it. It was his duty to serve. He was proud to. He never came home and complained.

This is the difference between honorable service and dishonorable service. Kerry collected his medals. He came home and destroyed the honor of receiving those medals. He THREW them away. He bad mouthed the country that he had said he would defend! Now he says he loves America? His actions speak louder then words!

There is a new era of war and war heroes that need the support of us Americans. We need to show how proud we are of their service! We need to embrace them and let them know that what they have given for their country is not in vain! My husband spent 7 months aboard an aircraft carrier after Sept. 11th. He was involved with Operation Enduring Freedom. He left when our youngest was barely sitting up. He came back to a 15 month old running everywhere and didn't even know who his father was. My husband knows that is a small sacrifice to make for what he was involved with over in the Persian Gulf. It was worth it to him and to our family. That is what freedom is all about.

Thank you for your service CPE-Kerry has not rewritten history. The truth always comes out. He has a "fictional chapter" in his life that now has come back to haunt him! We must believe that honesty and integrity will prevail this November!
Bush/Cheney 2004

Posted by: Teresa G at August 21, 2004 11:27 PM

For Shame, Justin Wants Some Attention:

1)Show us how George Bush lied to the country and world with his statements on WMD.

Justin, did he find them. DUH!

2)Show us how the tax cuts for the $200,000+ class is BAD for the economy, and how that more jobs would be created if the taxes were never cut. (keep in mind, small business's pay tax at this rate)

This wouldn't be a problem if GW JR didn't spend so much of my money. Taxes will have to be raised to lower the Federal deficit. I'd rather you pay it than me. GW JR, helped you out more DUH!

Still, Bush hasn't exactly been pinching the government's pennies, either, and many economists believe some painful budget decisions will have to be made fairly soon, and that taxes will almost certainly have to rise if spending is not curbed.

)Show us how the war on terror is not effectively fought in the bush white house..

There is no War on Terror! There is a War On Iraq! DUH!

4)Show us what the average citizen who has no ties to terror has to worry about with the Patriot Act?

It violates my privacy rights. http://www.privacyrights.org/ The Software designed by the FBI for internet tracking is old, bulky and antiquated, and it doesn't take NAT, and IPMASKING into account. It causes more problems for ISP's that are trying to maintain a decent customer base. And NO! I would not turn over my library card to the FBI. If they can't do their intelligence job without my PC and Library Card GET A DIFFERENT JOB! DUH!

)Tell us why that if John Kerry has all these 'great ideas',

John Kerry is not the President for right now. I wouldn't tell GW JR anything either. His decisions are based faulty intelligence and a Poor Administraton. IT'S NOT KERRY'S JOB TO TEACH GW JR. how to run the Country. Kerry will do it himself once Elected in 2004'

You know, Justin you are not very bright at all! Why this, Why that, How this, How that! Have you ever picked up a book and read it? Not a magazine, a BOOK! You have no IQ. It seems to me that you are overbloated and suffer from a bad case of GAS, because all you do is ask stupid questions and blow stinky hot air against Kerry. Read Son, Read. That lump a couple of feet above your shoulders contains a brain. I bet than one flew right over your head. DUH!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 22, 2004 05:31 AM

So tell me my Lib. friends, what do you have to say about John Kerrys Pitcher hanging in HO CHI MINGS CITY (SIAGON) thanking him for helping them win the war aganst THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (THERE WAR MUSIUM.)Also to use his statements to throw in front of our POWs to force them to say that they commited war crimes. Is this the guy you want me to vote for to lead this country. I say no thanks. I will vote for a guy who will stand by me if I ever had to fight for this country.

Posted by: don at August 22, 2004 09:19 AM

There is one clear response for your questions....

Better character: President Bush
Better protection from terrorism: President Bush
Better plan for economy: President Bush

The liberal Senator from Mass. should change his name to John Scary. If you do not like his position on any topic, wait 5 days and it will change. That is because he has no clue what it takes to be an effective leader.

Posted by: Americans4Truth at August 23, 2004 02:33 PM

d.

In response to your post to Justin.

Just because we have not found them yet, does not mean we won't.

Remember, we are at war, Sept. 11th, Iraq. Duh!!

Have we been attacked again since 9/11? Duh!!

The Internet is a powerful tool in the fight against terror. If you are not a terrorist then you have nothing to fear. Duh!!

All his great Ideas are smoke and mirrors. He has yet to say how he is going to do everything he says he will do. Duh!!

You are a hateful man or woman. Have you thought about seeing a Doctor, there are great medicines for depression now. Duh!!

Posted by: David Lowery at August 23, 2004 06:03 PM

Better Brain - Kerry
Better political connections - Bush
More support for the working class - Kerry
More support for the rich - Let's just take Mr Bush's own quote:-

"Some people may call you the haves, some people may call you the have mores - I call you my base"

I think that says it all, my votes on Kerry!!

Posted by: A Patterson at August 23, 2004 10:04 PM

You liberals really amaze me. Holding up the New York Times as creditable. They are really a joke and no one takes them serious except the flaming left.

Posted by: Robert Ritter at August 23, 2004 10:38 PM

I believe in John Kerry & John Edwards
I belive they will "MOVE" America Forward
God Bless THEM..........
John Kerry went to war, okay!
I " predict" that he will WIN big!
Even Ohio and Florida.
God Bless these two good men!

Posted by: G.M. GRAHAM, JR. at August 24, 2004 12:27 AM

I find all the hateful comments directed at our President rather disturbing. In all my years of political awareness, I have never seen a President attacked so viciously and so repeatedly. After 9/11, it took only about six months for the partisan split to begin. I rather enjoyed the months where it seemed everyone was for a "united" America. My problems with Kerry exist on many levels. I think I'm bothered most by his actions after returning from Vietnam. I believe people can change- my views and actions and reactions today are far different from when I was younger. But Kerry doesn't seem to regret his words and behaviors upon his return from Vietnam. His words wounded a lot of our Vets. We all know that there were "some" war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam; it doesn't mean they were committed by everyone! What is so difficult today is that people are unwilling to walk a middle ground when it comes to evaluating anyone in political office. Do you really think the President is responsible for the fluctuations in jobs and the economy?? The most any President can ever do is provide plans to stimulate business and then hope they work. Companies fold and flourish all the time, but they don't directly call the President for their decisions. The company I work for has shrunk considerably over the past three years- I'd say it was more because of our own decisions than those of the President. The political world is not pretty, and over the years, it has gotten worse. This is not helped by the myriad of news sources available. I'm dismayed that our news sources seem so biased, and spend more time reporting speculation than reporting the news. Or not reporting stories that might be harmful to a candidate they have self-mandated as the people's choice. There's news sources everywhere you turn- maybe too many. Between radio, the internet, newspapers, t.v., we are bombarded with what seems to be more speculation and sensationalism than actual facts.
If I believed everything I read or heard, I would be so depressed that I'd probably just crawl in a hole.
So what's my point- and I do have one. My life is not much different today than it's been with other Presidents- other than the fact that my taxes went down (I don't make a ton of money), and I feel proud of our current President for bringing dignity back to the office. Regardless of our feelings about war, we need to staunchly support out troops at home and abroad- we should never take our freedoms for granted!! So I don't believe everything about either candidate good or bad. My life is okay. Bush has helped with this and I feel safer knowing he's in charge. I don't get the same feeling with John Kerry, so he won't get my vote.

Posted by: Steve in Ohio at August 24, 2004 09:20 AM

I believe John Kerry is an opportunist who has planned this day for many years from even before the Vietman servise he did.Why would anyone go back an take a movie camera to rein act supposed battle action that long ago? John kerry is cut from the same lying mold as EXpresident clinton, neither can tell the truth: This country was founded on christian principles & lying is not acceptable by a president.We have to protect our selves from terrorist for the must part, we must quit funding all countrys that have any link to these terrorist. Cutting off the money cuts off the snakes head.Bush's tax cut has done more to get economy going than the democrats ever thought possible.Bring our manufactors home and we will have more jobs than can be filled. There are some good consertive Democrats, who still have a God loving attitude about our country; but the John kerry platform is about giving it all away and abortion. NUFF said

Posted by: Jerry O'Briant at August 24, 2004 05:51 PM

After all does it really matter what happened 35 years ago? NO! It does not!

Does it really matter that Dick Cheney avoided the draft through furloughs?
Does it really matter that George W. was missing from duty and not in Alabama?

Does it really matter? The swift boats and everything they are saying?

I guess to Bush or Kerry supporters it does! Does it really, really matter today what these three men purposively did 30 years ago in their late teens and early 20’s? Was it just youthful indiscretion maybe, poor judgment maybe by these young men at the time? Does George W’s DUI back than matter? Does his daughters underage drinking arrests matter? NO< NO< NO! These three men have grown into great leaders and parents in their own respects whether you are rep. or dem. this is a fact!

What matters is what is happening in this country and to this country and what is going to be done to turn things back around and bring us all back together. Who will that leader be the captain of a swift boat, senator or a air national guard pilot, governor? Both are equally qualified leaders and the country must decide which will lead us into the future!

We must stop this division and pull together who ever that person might be! I personally support John Kerry, you may support George Bush! I support Kerry because of where I believe our country is headed and not because I hate George Bush.

I can care less what George or John did 35 years ago, I care about where this country is going today!

Posted by: Louis (Canton, Ohio) at August 25, 2004 10:38 AM

Louis (Canton, Ohio)

I support Kerry because of where I believe our country is headed and not because I hate George Bush.

This states it all, because you hate George Bush.
Please don't vote with hatred. Vote for the man that will protect our country. I don't think Kerry will do that; he will only bow to the terrorist demands! Bush is going after them wherever they are, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. The President has let the world know, that if you harbor terrorist, we will come after you. Look at Libya, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the terrorist states; they are taking this very seriously. Please vote to protect this country, vote for Bush.

Bush '04
4 more years!!!

Posted by: David Lowery at August 25, 2004 11:20 AM

Hey, D. Jones did you miss me? Sorry for not getting back to you sooner I was out of town and did not have access to a computer; believe me when I say I was jonesin for your stupid rhetoric.

Why yes I am from the State of North Carolina and my information comes from the Charlotte Observer and from the Raleigh Times. John Edwards will fit the bill perfectly for you and your dreams. He will be an Al Gore clone, except with the ability to smile.

The great Senator from the State of North Carolina has the 4th most liberal voting record and as I stated before he lied to the people of North Carolina when he ran for office. He ran as a Conservative Democrat, yet all of his votes were even more liberal than Ted Kennedy. He will not be an asset to this country, and the only reason John Kerry picked him was because he actually has a personality, which we all know Kerry does not.
He has not fulfilled a single campaign promise, as of yet, he has not even entered anything into legislation. He decided not to run for re-election because of his low approval rating. IS THAT THE PERSON YOU WANT AS YOUR VP? If so you deserve every miserable thing you get from them, and believe me you will get more than your fair share. If you ever wonder why health insurance is so high you can thank John Edwards for that, he was a trial lawyer and he won multi-million dollar judgments against doctors and hospitals.

Tell me what is his experience with Foreign Relations?

Although you post approval ratings and actually show the source, you do not state what the approval rating is for. Is it overall, job approval, economy, war on terrorism? I noticed you did not include the gallup pole, which by the way is one of the most accurate polling systems out there. They have his overall approval at 51% and his war on terrorism rating at 57%. So I, just like you can put what I want on this board and at least I quantify it by saying what the rating is for. For all I know your post could be his approval rating for forcasting the weather.

Actually I am rather happy with his approval ratings, they are still a sight better than John Kerry's

A.patterson, it’s your turn in the hot seat.

More support for the working class – Kerry

I would really like you to explain that comment.

Tell me how John Edwards and John Kerry, both being multi-millionaires can relate to the working class? Clinton promised it and it never happened. Why should I get my hopes up that Kerry would ride in on a white horse and save the day? Not going to happen. He has his wife’s inheritance waiting in the wings; he isn’t going to upset that apple cart.

Now on to showing you just how lame you really are.

"Some people may call you the haves, some people may call you the have mores - I call you my base"

You liberals always bring that line up when you talk about President Bush catering to the wealthy. That statement got a lot of airplay from the big networks. He made the statement at a political fundraiser, where everyone was having a good time and joking around. He was just going along with the flow having a good time. I mean it’s not like he sat there and laughed at Woopie Goldberg comparing the President to a bushy part of her anatomy and a host of other performers got up and used some of the most profane language to berate our President, and then got up and hugged the performers and said that they represent America. They don’t represent me or anyone I know, show me one person in Hollywood or the music profession that is really mainstream America.

I’m begging you, please find something new to make comments on that one is getting old. If I were to take every single off the cuff comment that Kerry made I could write a novel. Ok, so unless he made the statement in a speech, or in answer to a serious question by the media don’t take it to heart. I actually like a President who has a sense of humor.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 25, 2004 01:27 PM

I found this at www.pimnews.com. According to Robert A. Rogers, a retired fighter and commercial airline pilot, with two years left in his six year commitment to the National Guard, George W. Bush was mysteriously suspended from flying. Since that day, he never again reported for a single day of duty.

Since the beginning of his Presidential campaign in 2000, George Bush has repeatedly insisted that he fulfilled his commitment to the National Guard. However, independent investigations have found that Bush did not just “give up” flying after the first four years of his commitment. He was actually suspended, very possibly as a result of substance abuse.

The crucial evidence, comments from a flight inquiry board hearing, have been missing and supposedly lost, according to military sources. If true, the basic foundation of his claim to having restored honor and dignity to the White House is not just in jeopardy, but even further illustrates his hypocrisy in the face of his criticism concerning conduct regarding John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

While Bush was a vocal supporter of the Vietnam War during his days at Yale, he did not want to put his life on the line the way real men like John Kerry did. According to Bush in an interview when he was Texas Governor, he had no desire “to be an infantry guy as a private” in Vietnam. Instead, he insisted that he wanted to become a fighter pilot like his father before him. Unlike his father, he enlisted in the National Guard and saw no combat during his tenure.

When Bush did join the National Guard, competition was fierce with over 1000 applicants per position. Bush scored an abysmal 25% on his pilot qualification test, clearly disqualifying him from flight duty and forcing him to the jungles of Vietnam. His application for the National Guard also includes an entry that asks for background qualifications. Bush listed these as “none.”

Despite the enormous waiting list and his low test scores, Bush was sworn in as a National Guard pilot several months later. He and his father swear that he received no preferential treatment, though his father was a U.S. Representative from Texas and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, had been a prominent Senator from Connecticut.

Posted by: Don at August 25, 2004 04:17 PM

Hey Don,
Why are we still fighting this war? Is it because we lost? Is it because all the liberals feel guilty for spitting on our American heroes when they returned? Or maybe for the names they were called upon returning? I am to young to remember this war(35). I don't see how this war will protect us today or in the future. I can see what Senator Kerry's record has been for the past 19 years. I don't see how that can protect or help us either.

I will issue you the same challenge I have issued others. Tell me some type of legislation that Sen. Kerry has initiated in the senate to either protect me or help me. I am a middle class family man making 40k a year. My wife needs to work in order for us to make the bills each month, but I don't blame that on GW Bush. I don't blame it on the other side either. I make my own decisions in life, not the Republicans, Democrats or Independents.

Just give me a solid fact of how John Kerry will
1. Protect this nation better than Bush.
2. Put more money in my pocket than I make now.
Just the facts is all I need, and if you can manage that, Kerry has my vote. This is a chance to swing countless undecideds and many Bush supporters if you think your up to it. You would be doing your country a great service.

Posted by: Wayne at August 25, 2004 10:46 PM

Louis,
I ask you how being a Senator who missed 74% of his intel meetings, who has so far this year missed 90% of the votes in the Senate, who spent 4 months in Vietnam and only 3 of those where in combat qualifies him to be the President?

President Bush was at least a Governor twice elected.

Let me help the people who question President Bush's NG service. In the NG or Reserves you are required to attend a fixed set of hours in order to get credit for time served. Usually that is done one weekend a month and two weeks a year. That is not written in stone, you can do all the time back to back if you have reason to. Just so long as you serve your time. President Bush has released his pay records for his whole period in the NG and he was paid. Believe me when I say, the Military does not pay you unless you were there. The Military pay system will stop pay the minute you go into an AWOL status and they are notorious for getting any money overpaid. In the NG or Reserve you have to be present and sign a duty roster in order to receive your pay. So unless you have realisic evedence about him being AWOL, drop your claims because in only serves to show how shallow you are.

I find it shallow that someone would even suggest a person was suspended because of "possible substance abuse" without not one single shread of evidence.

Posted by: Devil Dawg at August 26, 2004 09:15 AM

You know, I'm getting realy tired of the FACTS espoused by liberals who are really turning speculation into reality. The Post by Don is filled with implication and speculation but no real facts. You can't turn a very possible statement into a fact to use against the President. This has been the entire campaign of the Democratic party. First imply, then cite liberal sources for the implications and then repeat those implications as though they were facts.

Look at Kerry stating that there is cooperation between the RNC and Swift Vets. All speculation, no proof, but they repeat the claims as though they were facts.

The facts are that a lawyer served as a representive to the Swift Vets and the RNC. Democrats are shocked, even though two lawyers are doing the same thing for their party, one involved in the much more powerful and aggresive moveon.org. The facts are that a low level volunteer appears in a Swift boat ad, The facts are that Michael Moore had a presidential box at the DNC. The facts are that a single piece of paper promoting a swift boat event was found at a volunteer staffed headquarters while the entire moveon.org organization was featured and prominantly promoted at the Democratic National Convention.

Here's a few more facts. John Kerry had had to go on the record stating that his first purple heart might did not involved enemy fire. John Kerry has had to change his story about his engagement on Christmas Eve in Cambodia. John Kerry has admitted that his testimony on war crimes was exagerated and he should have worded thing differently. John Kerry voted for NAFTA during the Clinton years and now is using NAFTA against President Bush, who did not vote for NAFTA or sign the bill into legislation. John Kerry makes a considerable profit by benefitting from NAFTA through the Heinz coperation which runs over 2/3 of it's factories outside the United States. John Kerry says he is going to cut taxes but has voted to raise taxes and proposed legislature himself to raise taxes more than any other Senator. John Kerry voted and praised the no child left behind legislation and now he is attacking it. John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and now he criticizes it and has shown his disdain by voting against legislation to support the troops in Iraq. John Kerry voted against caps on frivolous lawsuits that allow someone to buy a cup of hot coffee and spill it on themselves and then sue McDonalds for a million dollars, driving up your insurance and healthcare costs.

John Kerry has promised 2 trillion dollars to every special interest group out there (except the faith based initiative programs because Kerry said that this country is founded on a sepeartion of Church and State-somthing John Adams must have missed). Here's what Adams had to say:

"It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship." --John Adams

By the way, if Kerry is going to cut taxes, how are we going to pay for the 2 trillion dollars in expenses that he is going to saddle us while effectively bringing the war in Iraq to a conclusion that will not involve the withdrawl of troops followed by the senseless slaughter of all those who resisted the Al-Sadr type regimes. You see, that exactly what happened to thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodia civilians after Kerry helped persuade the public about the hopless war in Vietnam at a time when the war was turning.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 26, 2004 12:09 PM

Bush is the strongest president for the job he makes a decision and stands by it. We hear alot of different positions coming out of kerrys mouth. Kerry refuses to take a stand on anything he critisises bush for his decisions and yet he refuses to say how he would do it better. Kerry is a true politician will tell you what you wanna here but in the end its all just a bunch of hot air. Besides that i don't wanna pay more taxes and with Kerry as president you know you will.

Posted by: Paul at August 26, 2004 11:58 PM

To all the Bush haters - I have three things to say:

George Bush
George Bush
George Bush

There I feel better already

Posted by: Jim at August 27, 2004 02:05 AM

Hey Don,
Why are we still fighting this war? Is it because we lost? Is it because all the liberals feel guilty for spitting on our American heroes when they returned? Or maybe for the names they were called upon returning? I am to young to remember this war(35). I don't see how this war will protect us today or in the future. I can see what Senator Kerry's record has been for the past 19 years. I don't see how that can protect or help us either.

I will issue you the same challenge I have issued others. Tell me some type of legislation that Sen. Kerry has initiated in the senate to either protect me or help me. I am a middle class family man making 40k a year. My wife needs to work in order for us to make the bills each month, but I don't blame that on GW Bush. I don't blame it on the other side either. I make my own decisions in life, not the Republicans, Democrats or Independents.

Just give me a solid fact of how John Kerry will
1. Protect this nation better than Bush.
2. Put more money in my pocket than I make now.
Just the facts is all I need, and if you can manage that, Kerry has my vote. This is a chance to swing countless undecideds and many Bush supporters if you think your up to it. You would be doing your country a great service.

I know I am repeating myself, I'm just worried Don doesn't know how to scroll up.

Posted by: Wayne at August 27, 2004 08:32 AM

I am a Florida voter...

Which candidate is of better character? Bush. Kerry is nothing but a political opportunist. That's why he flip flops all the time. He makes my skin crawl.

Who will protect us better from terrorism? Bush- no contest. Just look at Kerry's voting record in the senate- it's SCARY

Whose plan for the economy is better? Bush's. Kerry will tank the economy and the stock market by raising taxes (if he can get the congressional votes to pass his programs-luckily I doubt he can). He will also ruin our health care system by trying to socialize it (again, I doubt he could get his programs passed). Of course, the economy under Kerry won't be an issue since we'll all be dead if he gets elected.

IT'S NATIONAL SECURITY STUPID!

Posted by: Floridavoter at August 27, 2004 10:28 PM

I have read alot of your posts and i have one question---Would either parties be concerned about a nation wide voters registration card burning? Thanks to the posts i have read -----I CANT MAKE UP MY MIND

Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2004 06:20 PM

Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2004 06:20 PM

CJ, Because I honestly feel the GW JR. Camp will Cheat again in 2004, as they did in 2000, I can identify with your post. If I thought the election would be fair, I wouldn't have that on my mind.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 29, 2004 02:06 AM

CJ,
That's a good question, I can tell you my opinion. I think that Bush would genuinely care about the system not working. I think Kerry would care he is not the most powerful man in the world. I think both men are patriots and care for their country for very different reasons.

Bush for what this country can do for itself.

Kerry for what this country can do for him.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 12:07 PM

d.jones,
This is the lefts way of calling foul before you actually lose. You can't even wait until Kerry's actual defeat, and it will be that. You have helped convince me of it.

You still can't come up with any facts on Kerry intitiating one bill for middle class America.

This country is the greatest and on Nov 2 they will be heard.

Posted by: Wayne at August 29, 2004 06:59 PM

CJ

If you are depending on the blogs to make an informed vote, you are looking in thwe rong direction. Your decision should be based upon your research of both candidates records and then their public statements. If their public statement back up their record and you agree with them, then vote for them. If their record is different from what they tell you, they are lying to you. Perhaps an even greater indicator is to look at your own life and ask if you are equal or better off than you were 4 years ago and then to honestly assess if your gain or loss was your own doing or if you nbenefitted or lost because of something either the president or Congrees was responsible for.

The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism is also an important issue in this debate and I agree that the tragic loss of nearly 1000 men in this war is something we must account for. I ask this though of anyone using this to frame the debate. Would any black person alive today want the soldiers who gave up their lives in the American Civil War not to have done so? The same question can be asked of the Europeans who were freed from the tyranny of Germany in WWII.

While the future of Iraq and the middle East is uncertain, if we succeed, 50 years from now the peace in the Middle East will benefit the entire world and most certainly all those who died in vain under the tyrannical reign of a political madman like Suddam Hussein? We can not succeed in this war however, if Americans remain undecided and unsupportive of the effort to bring peace to the Middle East and if we fail, we return to a life of fear and uncertainty because the new enemy is really without country but exists through an underground network of terrorism that targets all who oppose them, not politically, but in their ideology. Their goal is militant Muslim domination of the world and the destruction of the Jewish and Christian population they call infidels. Not all Muslims are a threat to us, but those radical elements need to be stopped and they really aren't interested in debate.

Bloggers are passionate about their views and we are often misguided by our own preconceived notions and ideology. We believe in our candidates and we believe we are right. You can best benefit from the blogs by reading what we say and then go out and investigate the claims on your own and see if they are substantiated by facts or not.

I support President Bush and I will defend him, other will support John Kerry and defend him. I doubt very much that I'm going to convert D. Jones or Abel but that's not my goal. I might disagree with them but am extremely thankful for them because they challenge me to keep going back and rechecking what I believe to be the facts of this campaign. Hopefully, I am doing the same with them.

Which ever candidate wins, in the end I still believe in the power of the American people and in their intelligence, Democrat or Republican. Only the fool defends at all cost and only the fool truly belives that he is the bearer of the only truth on any issue. These blogs help us to hear out those who disagree with us and to bring in issues that we might not have considered before.

This election is the most polorized debate I've ever seen. Democrats blame republicans for the division and republicans blame democrats. The truth is that we are all to blame to some degree.

The next four years will hopefully not show us who was right or who was wrong, but what we need to do to move this great country forward making it even a greater country but we can only do that if we are willing to debate, to use our freedom of expression to voice our concerns and fears.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at August 30, 2004 01:35 AM

Kerry vs Bush
Terriost in US, Terrorist in Russia --- Planes crashing, innocent people and children dying....Mass graves, Weapons, EVIL! ETC>>>>>

As the election rounds the corner......Kerry remains focused on his WAR record......Bush is focused on the #1 issue facing us all....putting an end to the terriost attacks which is destroying America and its economy.

Kerrys WAR record is questioned ---- it is an ongoing issue........Does the guy know how to go forward on a MAJOR issue when he can't even let a simple issue as his character go away? How could he ever handle the pressure of an everyday - on going issue as TERRORIST ATTACKS.... I believe he would lead us into our final days before he opened his eyes to what is realy happening out here!

Bush issue is "TERRORIST" saving not only America's population - but the unborn as well----- Any one casting a vote for Bush is saying ---- I want to live, I want a future, I want my family and friends to continue.....I want to feel safe tonight and wake up tomorrow! I want a world of blessing - not evil!

Kerry on the other hand......is bringing in the EVIL -- cast your vote for Gays, Lesbians, Abortions,if there is a vote for him ---- bring it on! Defend him in his own personal battle field......after all --- he has his own personal fame to defend.....that is the center for Kerry ----- Do you think with a mind set as his on the small issues ---- he could ever move away and fend us all in what really matters........ The every day lives of everyone else ---- Man, Woman, Child, Future..................... Can any of you honstely say - "This is what is on Kerrys mind?" Would he give a dime to any of us small folks if we lost our jobs, had a medical issue, lost our homes?

Bush went to Florida admist the storm..... Kerry went when all was calm........and safe on ground!

Remember watching the 911 cleanup on TV ...... Sure people were employeed - they had jobs...... is this the kind of uprising employment we want in America? Employment through "TERRORIST" attacks, a deadly diease of AIDS filtering each state, Empty Play grounds, gay and lesbian halls instead of Grade Schools and churches...... If you think the world is bleek now.....look ahead ......... your one single vote for the right canidate could make the difference in our final days ---- or bring about a bright tomorrow!

Posted by: Bb at August 30, 2004 01:04 PM

Posted by: Bb at August 30, 2004 01:04 PM

BP,

I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh. Do you know how many people have eased through the border of Texas? How easy do you think it would be for Osama Bin Landen (GW JR. didn't capture him) to enter the U.S. I have a news flash for you! MIB IS ONLY A MOVIE! There are no aliens from outer space!

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7189

Contributing to the Wild-West atmosphere is an increased flow of migrants willing to do anything to elude capture. The Associated Press reported that as of March 31, 2004, illegal immigration is up 25% or 535,000 illegal aliens compared with the similar period last year.

But Kathy McKee, director of Protect Arizona Now tells me that two different Border Patrol sources say between 8,000-10,000 aliens cross the Tucson Sector every twelve hours.

That, calculates McKee, is 20,000 aliens a day--the equivalent of a new Arizona every eleven months.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 01:03 AM

d.jones,

I think I am almost convinced to vote Kerry/Edwards. Just tell me how they will stop the aliens from getting in. They must have a plan for this, right?

I bet they won't tell us until they are elected(not selected). Just show mw some facts as I have asked since the begining and you may sway someone's vote.

Take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and try and make some sense.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Posted by: Wayne at August 31, 2004 07:33 PM

Look Curly (Wayne)

GW JR says he can win the War On Terror. You tell me how our borders can be tightened. I am sure he has a plan for this whole War On Terror. He had 4 years to tell us what it is, and I still don't see it. Do you? GW JR is the almighty intelligent one! Of course, he has a solid plan for the War On Terror, or did he say it could not be won? hmmm. I bet, he will continue his War On Iraq and tell the American people that all Terrorist gathered there for lunch and he nabbed them all. Right?

:-)

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at August 31, 2004 11:25 PM

D. Jones

Your statements often amaze me. In order to win a playing poker you don't let everybody else know what you are holding in your hand. You want the president to fully disclose his plan in the war on terror so you can then turn around and attack him for giving our enemies valuable secrets to win the war on terror.

If Bush tells us what his plans are, he tells the enemy. If he tells the enemy, the war is over.

You can see evidence of the plans in the restructuring of Iraq as Muslims are now rising up against the militant factions that disgrace the Muslim religion and telling them to lay down their arms and come to the table of peace for a better Iraq. You can see the evidence of what W's plan for Iraq in the free elections to be held in Afghanistan, to be followed by similar elections in iraq. You see the Bush agenda in the rebuilding of the hospitals, the re-opening of schools as well as new schools. You see the Bush agenda in preemptive involvement for the purpose of breaking down terrorist networks. You see the Bush agenda by facing the American people and telling them the hard facts. The war on terrorism is not a conventional war and it will take a long time with steadfast perseverance to keep the terrorists in check so that countries to do not harbor and support terrorism against any people.

Human rights groups estimate that 1.3 million people were killed in Iraq, that's almost 20% of the population of Iraq while the United Nations and the few who have refused to get involved in the coalition to stop the tyranical terrorist Saddam Hussein stood by and did virtually nothing except debate and sanction the activities of Hussein by their unwillingness to intervene, not just on the behalf of Iraq, but on behalf of the peace and security of the entire world.

The demostrators want to call America and the President war mongers and accuse them of hate while apparently believing we should have stood by a allowed this sort of thing to continue, giving the hateful regime of Suddam a free pass in their atrocities against all humanity.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 1, 2004 01:46 PM

EVERYTIME A BUSH IS INTO POLITICS I WANT TO MOVE. IF YOU DO DECIDE TO TAKE A REAL LOOK, YOU MIGHT BE VERY SUPRISED. ALL THOUGH I LIKE PRES. BUSH, I SEE TOO MUCH OF HIS FATHERS' POLITICTS AND I DID NOT LIKE IT THEN AND I DO NOT LIKE IT NOW. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NON-PARTISAN AND VOTED ON WHAT I THOUGHT OF THE MERITS OF THE PERSON WERE. BUT I LOST MY HUSBAND AND STILL REMEMBER HIS NIGHTMARES OF S.E.ASIA. WHEN THE SWIFT BOAT ADDS STARTED THEY MADE ME ILL. ANYONE IN THAT ERA KNOWS FOR EVERY PERSON THAT SEES SUCH TERRIBLE THINGS, THAT THEY STAY WITH YOU FOREVER AND THE LINES ARE ALWAYS BLURRED, THEN AND NOW, EVERY TIME I SEE A NEGATIVE AD AGAINST ANY VET I BECOME ANGRY. I WORKED THE "LEG" WARDS WHERE THERE WERE ROWS AND ROWS OF WOUNDED . I WORKED IN THE CHILDRENS CENTERS IN ASIA. AND I FINALLY STOPPED BECAUSE I KEPT CRYING IN MY SLEEP AND THE NIGHTMARES WERE TROUBLING MY HUSBAND AND HE WORRIED ABOUT MY HEALTH. IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AND I CAN STILL SEE ONE OF MY WAR BABIES CRYING AND BEGGING TO ME "MOMMY DON'T GO". HE WAS JUST PAST TWO, HIS NAME WAS "HENRY". HIS SERVICE AND HIS DEATH ARE STILL PART OF ME. VIETNAM AND ALL WARS ARE HELL AND THEY CHANGE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE FOR EVER. AND I AM ANGRY AT THE SWIFT BOAT ADS FOR NOW HAVING TO VIST IT ALL OVER AGAIN. DO YOU THINK THAT OUR TROOPS ARE COMING HOME JUST AS THEY LEFT?. I THINK NOT. EVERYONE SHOULD SEE EVERY WOUNDED TROOP AND VISIT EVERY GRAVE AND THEN SEE HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT AND HOW THEY WOULD VOTE. I HAVE JUST PLEDGED MY VOTE TO JOHN F. KERRY

Posted by: sbeach at September 1, 2004 02:25 PM

WOW! Ohio is BLUE on this site! Still an Amazing day. God is good!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 02:54 PM

d.jones,
The plan is to saty on the offensive, something Kerry will not do. Is it sinking in yet? Kerry will not fight these guys and they will attack again on our soil. Think what you want, you have still not named one bill Kerry has sponsored on behalf of middle class America.

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 03:09 PM

According to
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense if a fetus is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman

Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

Heres one for organized labor Able,
Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

Vote to pass a resolution to give no enforcement authority or power to ergonomics rules submitted by the Labor Department during the Clinton Administration. These rules would force businesses to take steps to prevent work-related repetitive stress disorders such as carpal tunnel syndrome. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the cost of the new regulations would be $4.5 billion annually, business groups argue the costs would likely be closer to $100 billion.

Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to adopt the resolution that would condemn the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a crime to pander or solicit child pornography

Yeha, he'll keep us safe,
Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $447.2 billion for the Defense Department and the Energy Department's national security programs.

Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as, "partial-birth" abortion.

Senator John Forbes Kerry did not vote.

Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as, "partial-birth" abortion

This bill passed.

Anyone see a pattern?

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 05:54 PM

EVERYONE SHOULD SEE EVERY WOUNDED TROOP AND VISIT EVERY GRAVE AND THEN SEE HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT AND HOW THEY WOULD VOTE. I HAVE JUST PLEDGED MY VOTE TO JOHN F. KERRY

Posted by: sbeach at September 1, 2004 02:25 PM

How many graves do you think the terrorists will fill when Kerry is in office? We may all be sleeping a long time. He is weak on defense, but don't take my word for it, check his voting record.

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:03 PM

Hi from Minnesota!
Common sense alone is telling me vote for John Kerry. All political details aside, I would like to make a simple point: Have you ever listened to G.W. TRY to talk? He sounds like an absolute moron to me. I try to ignore the mud-slinging, and pay attention to whats really going on. I urge everyone out there to use their Common Sense.

Posted by: Emily at September 1, 2004 07:16 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 1, 2004 07:03 PM

"How many graves do you think the terrorists will fill when Kerry is in office? We may all be sleeping a long time. He is weak on defense"

Well, Wayne did Kerry vote for GW JR's War On Iraq?? I didn't know you had a crystal ball to see in the future. Can I borrow that?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 07:41 PM

Posted by: Emily at September 1, 2004 07:16 PM

He sounds like an absolute moron to me.

Yes, Emily. I am from Texas as well as GW JR., and he is an absolute moron. I've had to put up with him for a long time now. You have just seen the tip of the iceberg.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 08:10 PM

Emily,
Oh sure, GWB is a dummy! He has a masters degree in business from Yale! And D, what's your educational background? Do you have a degree? And before you throw up that he had a C average, so what? Now only Rhodes scholars and magna cum laude graduates are worthy of being president? Emily many very intelligent and very good people do not have the gift of verbosity. In fact, many of the slick talkers you are familiar with are Used car salesman, lawyers, con artists. Just because someone is not quick on there feet verbally doesn't make them dumb! If you're only judging a candidate on their gift of gab, then you are making a serious mistake! John Kerry has said one thing and done another for the last 20 years. He has lied and admitted he lied. Ref: his new statements on his testimony in a congressional hearing! Well, I didn't actually see that, but people I know did! This was after he swore under oath. Lying under oath is called perjury and it is a criminal offense. IF John Kerry gets elected, I hope you guys aren't the ones outraged when he lies to you! He has proven himself a liar. And that's what liars do, they lie!
Fortunately in this country it's hard for a president to do any real serious damage to the nation, because the max they can serve is 8 years. A poor president is usually out in 4, witness Jimmy Carter. It is the assault on our Democratic freedoms, that is the real issue. Justices that think they know better than the will of the people and write new laws. I guarantee that if radical Islam comes to America, there won't be any gay rights! There won't be any religious freedom. There won't be rights for women, reproductive, education or voting! National security and ending the liberal agenda's end-around the will of the people are the true crisis that America faces. Just don't judge the man on how well he communicates verbally. Research the issues and see who is closest in representing you and your beliefs and where you think is the best direction for us as a nation!

Posted by: kathy at September 1, 2004 09:39 PM

Posted by: kathy at September 1, 2004 09:39 PM

Kathy,

I bet my college english scores were higher than GW JR's. What is your educational background? Emily has the right to vote for whomever she chooses for whatever reason. Who do you think you are?

"In fact, many of the slick talkers you are familiar with are Used car salesman, lawyers, con artists"

How do you know who Emily is used to talking to? I think you are over-reacting. And yes, GW JR. is on the bottom of the list at Yale. So what! A dummy is a dummy. He didn't go to college to learn, he was the class clown. It shows in his inability to think clearly and rationally.

"Just don't judge the man on how well he communicates verbally."

Hey, its part of the job as President for all to understand him. Most people are offended at GW JR.'s use of the American language. He sounds like a "Country Bumpkin." Reagan is often referred to as the "Great Communicator.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 12:48 AM

Well, Wayne did Kerry vote for GW JR's War On Iraq?? I didn't know you had a crystal ball to see in the future. Can I borrow that?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 1, 2004 07:41 PM

Right before he voted against it.
Sorry folks that was to easy.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:29 AM

Hi from Minnesota!
Common sense alone is telling me vote for John Kerry. All political details aside, I would like to make a simple point: Have you ever listened to G.W. TRY to talk? He sounds like an absolute moron to me. I try to ignore the mud-slinging, and pay attention to whats really going on. I urge everyone out there to use their Common Sense.

Posted by: Emily at September 1, 2004 07:16 PM

Emily,

Can you give me an example of what Kerry has done? If you go with the logic you have shown here, has anyone heard Kerry say idea?

Another intelligent post.

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:31 AM

Emily,
You know, people from Minnesota have always been known to have a lot of common sense and sometimes that's all it takes to be successful. My warmest regards to you and I'm also going to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

A copy of your Post follows:

Hi from Minnesota!
Common sense alone is telling me vote for John Kerry. All political details aside, I would like to make a simple point: Have you ever listened to G.W. TRY to talk? He sounds like an absolute moron to me. I try to ignore the mud-slinging, and pay attention to whats really going on. I urge everyone out there to use their Common Sense.
Posted by: Emily at September 1, 2004 07:16 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 2, 2004 12:11 PM

For all those who vote democratic just for the pure name sake, WHY? If your jewish WHY do you vote for a party that does nothing but stab you in the back, If your black, WHY do you support a party that has done nothing to better your cause, If your a union worker WHY do you vote for a party that does nothing but spend your money, take it out of your pay check regardless of your opinion on any matter. I am all of the above and I asked myself that same question when the 2000 election happend. I have since changed my party and know that only bush at this time will stand up for not only our freedom and security but our american way of life.

Posted by: Jeff Kangas at September 2, 2004 12:24 PM

So d,
Since your English scores are higher than GWB's, when are you running for president?
I was not belittling Emily and you are right, she can vote for anyone that she wants for whatever reason that she wants. My point is that the future of our country depends on people making thoughtful choices based on how well they line up with our (the people not Democrat or Republican!) own beliefs and opinions! Not just how they appear in a sound bite on TV!

Posted by: kathy at September 2, 2004 01:55 PM

Posted by: kathy at September 2, 2004 01:55 PM

Kathy,

I love my role as an American Citizen. I have no aspirations to become President, and neither should GW JR have.

"Not just how they appear in a sound bite on TV!"

Have you ever heard this man speak live. It's worse than a TV byte, although I appreciate your extraction to Emily. If you haven't had the experience then please don't be judgemental.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 08:13 PM

Zel Miller
John McCain

Posted by: Wayne at September 2, 2004 08:15 PM

Posted by: Jeff Kangas at September 2, 2004 12:24 PM

LOL at Jeff!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 2, 2004 08:35 PM

Posted by: Jeff Kangas at September 2, 2004 12:24 PM

For all those who vote democratic just for the pure name sake, WHY?

Jeff,

Do you honestly feel that is what we are doing? I am a very independent thinker. I honestly don't like the policies nor actions of George W. Bush! This very costly War Of His will leave a permanent stain on our future economy for years to come. Taxes will have to rise from any Administraton in office. America is in trillions of dollars worth of debt. Taking Money?? You don't know the half of how much of your money will be taken if GW JR. is allowed to continue.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 03:36 AM

On the domestic front, Bush said, "We've seen an economy rise to its feet" and ticked off a laundry list of small-bore initiatives to keep it rising - a concept that might be hard to grasp in hard-hit Ohio. He promised more money to train workers and for community colleges and more economic zones offering tax relief to the poorest areas.

He'll simplify the tax code (who wouldn't?) and put health centers in every poor county (why not?) , but he didn't say how. Some of the ideas were leftovers from his first term: health savings accounts and allowing workers to privatize parts their Social Security.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 03:54 AM

Stick with me, Bush said. By a 3-to-1 margin, people think the war in Iraq increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism, and a solid majority don't think Bush has a clear plan for ending it. He offered none in the speech, promising to bring troops home "as soon as possible," when Iraq is secure and democratic.

Bush defended the war by tying it, with the slenderest of threads, to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the dawn of an era of terror, his hand was forced by Saddam Hussein and strengthened by the support of U.S. allies and congressional leaders, including Kerry, the president said.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 3, 2004 03:56 AM

d.jokes,
How did you like Zel Miller(D)? Kind of took the wind from Kerry's sails huh? Can't wait to hear what kind of name you'll call him and what spin you put on this one.

Oh by the way, unemployment numbers fell again, 5.4%.

Another fact you'll spin out of control I'm sure.

Posted by: Wayne at September 3, 2004 02:48 PM

Kerry is not the man for the job.he is a total fake!He has no opinion he only says what he is told to say and can't hold his fact strait,He is a flip flop specialist and has no real plans just alot of hype.Just look at his actual record that he does not want to talk about? it's all right there he is anti everything except for taxes he loves taxes! If you want to pay more in taxes he is your man if you want more goverment he is your man .I like bush he is a stand up guy and says what he belives and is doing a great job.

Posted by: john{california} at September 3, 2004 09:46 PM

The great MISTAKE of the Democratic Party is that these guys still don't know how to play politics. Kerry should have NEVER responded right after President Bush. He just made himself look ridiculous.(LIKE AN ANGRY GIRLIE>> He should have WAITED for HIS OWN TIME... The followers, they just look like a bunch of Hippies and drug addicts that appears like a bunch of MENTAL and UNSTABLE individuals. I am nor Republican, nor Democrat. And the way I have been perceiving all of this, through the eyes " behind a learning crystal, like a student of surgery, is the following:
REPUBLICANS: serious, direct, strict, high moral, religious, good to trust.
DEMOCRATS: funny, crazy, festivale, drugs, inmorals, non religious, How could I or anybody in their correct mental status could trust our home, our nation, to any of them.?
Democrats have the weird behavior of a mad little angry and unstable kid. As an example, THEY STARTED questioning Bush's military record, but when some people questioned Kerry's military record, they cryed like GIRLIES.
Republicans respected their week, their convention, their TV time. However, Democrats did completely the contrary, they did not respected the Republicans week, they tried to mock their convention, THOUSANDS of them ARRESTED for improper behavior, irrespectful of others (including women and children) by appearing NAKED in the middle of New York streets.
Do they expect US to listen to them by behaving this way.? ---- These guys better CHANGE these strategies because the only thing you are doing is PUSHING AWAY independant voters like myself.
I worked as a College Teacher for many years, and always paid attention to the good students, the good behavior, and never, but never, paid attention to the misbehaving ones, bad mouth and loud speakers. Out of the contrary, I drove them out of the class. "ARE YOU INTELIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THIS.?"
JUST A THOUGHT FOR ALL YOU DEMOCRATS, TO RE-THINK YOUR STRATEGIES AGAIN AND BE SMART FROM NOW ON (if you want to call our attention in a POSITIVE way.

IF YOU WANT TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU BETTER START BEHAVING WITH DECENCY, SERIOUSNESS AND RESPECT TO OTHERS....

Posted by: riccardo at September 3, 2004 10:35 PM

WHY I HIGHLY RECOMMENT THE KERRY/EDWARDS TICKET:

We need to know that unless one is wealthy and have powerful resources that Republicans will not represent our interests. Yes, it's really that simple.

George W. Bush may be a very nice fellow but he is a Republican and he definitely will not represent the interests of middle-class or below Americans. If he were representing our interests, do you think he would have given the upper one percent of Americans that tremendous tax break and left the rest of us to settle with perhaps a $600, at best, tax cut?

The Republicans keep repeating that the top one percent of Americans pay the most money in taxes and so they deserved their huge tax break. But percentage wise, the wealthy really pay the least money. The lower wage earners who make the least money already pay the most money, percentage wise. That's our tax system! It is like saying that $1000 to one who makes a lot of money is very little whereas $1000 to one who makes very little is a lot. Think about it like this, the average American requires more, percentage-wise of their income, to buy food, clothes or prescription drugs than the wealthy American does.

The truth is that it's the Democrats who represent the average middle-class workers of America. Why do you suppose that Democrats are always pushing for issues like raising the minimum wage, overtime pay, Social Security, Medicare, etc.? Democrats are not just being nice, they are supported by the Labor Unions of America or Organized Labor and they have to represent the middle-class workers well or else.

We also need to remember that most Democrats never have much money. Why? Because the average wage earners of America don't earn too much money to begin with. Also, with a few exceptions, very few Democrats stay with the party after they become millionaires. Remember the saying that "If you want to live like a Republican, Vote Democrat!" Those few who do, like John Kerry and John Edwards still keep working for the benefits of average American workers and it's to our advantage to help them win this November 2, 2004. Vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket and you won't ever regret it.

Republicans are currently whining that the Democrats spent a lot of money blasting Republicans prior to the Republican Convention but, believe it, they have spent many times more doing the same thing to the Democrats.

We mustn't forget that the Democrats are currently out of power and that the Republicans control all three branches of our government. This means that they have absolutely no excuses for the conditions that we are enduring right now. I mean the loss of thousands of jobs overseas, the rising of state and local taxes, the increase of prices, etc. The Republicans run the country and George W. Bush is the top "Commander-In-Chief" as he likes to call himself. Well, to put it bluntly, George W. Bush lied to us and is leading our country in the wrong direction and no excuse for doing that ought to be accepted by the American people.

"The buck stops here" is the rule that top commanders have always lived by and George W. Bush must be forced to live by the same rule. He needs to be held accountable for the mistakes that he continuous to make.

When President Bill Clinton left office, he left George W. Bush with Billions of surplus dollars in the US Treasury and he misspent all this money, like I said, by passing it on to the most wealthy Americans in the form of tax breaks. As all of us know, these wealthy Americans needed it the least and, because of this unwise action, our country now has a deficit of Billions of dollars. This was a reckless thing GW Bush to do because our children, grandchidren and perhaps even our great grandchildren will now have to pay for our deficit spending. Yes, our country is living on "borrowed money." Do you think that we are being fair to our children? Are the Republicans even talking about this?

George W. Bush has made a lot of costly errors, one on top of the other, in his decisions and the American people must hold him fully accountable. I strongly believe that we, the American people, deserve better. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that John Kerry will make a more responsible and better President than George W. Bush could ever hope to be. My very best wishes to all!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 01:54 AM

Jeff Kangas,

Jeff,
The reason I vote Democratic is because I learned that the Democratic Party represents average middle-class American workers and the Republican Party does not. Listen, if I were a narrow-minded multi-millionaire, I would probably be a Republican too. Like I have said in other POST, Republicans normally represent the interest of Corporations, wealthy Businesses and Institutions like the Oil Industry, Insurance and Banking Industries, etc. Sure, there are some good level-headed Republicans who are good, tolerant and honest people who do their best to represent middle class workers but they bravely do it in spite of their party and not because of it. I have been asking Republicans where they stand on Labor Rights for years and the honest ones always tell me that they don't care to see workers getting organized. They start with bull sh-t about Unions being corrupted, etc., but eventually they come out with the truth that Labor Unions and Republicans don't mix. Why? Well because organized Labor wants (and deserves) good wages, benefits and safe and clean working conditions. Well, it happens that most minorities want the same things for themselves and their families. What's wrong with that? And, for your information, Labor Unions never take political money from your pay check without your knowledge and approval. That would be illegal and is not done. Political money is freely given as a political gift to COPE committees and it is kept in a different bank account as required by law. You really shouldn't talk about issues that you know nothing about.

Your condensed POST follows:

"For all those who vote democratic just for the pure name sake, WHY? If your jewish WHY do you vote for a party that does nothing but stab you in the back, If your black, WHY do you support a party that has done nothing to better your cause, If your a union worker WHY do you vote for a party that does nothing but spend your money, take it out of your pay check regardless of your opinion on any matter. I am all of the above and I asked myself that same question when the 2000 election happend. I have since changed my party and know that only bush at this time will stand up for not only our freedom and security but our american way of life."
Posted by: Jeff Kangas at September 2, 2004 12:24 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 03:05 PM

The truth is that it's the Democrats who represent the average middle-class workers of America. Why do you suppose that Democrats are always pushing for issues like raising the minimum wage, overtime pay, Social Security, Medicare, etc.? Democrats are not just being nice, they are supported by the Labor Unions of America or Organized Labor and they have to represent the middle-class workers well or else.

We also need to remember that most Democrats never have much money. Why? Because the average wage earners of America don't earn too much money to begin with. Also, with a few exceptions, very few Democrats stay with the party after they become millionaires. Remember the saying that "If you want to live like a Republican, Vote Democrat!" Those few who do, like John Kerry and John Edwards still keep working for the benefits of average American workers and it's to our advantage to help them win this November 2, 2004. Vote the Kerry/Edwards ticket and you won't ever regret it.
Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 01:54 AM

Is this how you explain the votes for higher taxes and that the democrats ticket has the two richest senators on it? Edwards is a multimillionaire and Kerry is even richer.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:40 PM

When President Bill Clinton left office, he left George W. Bush with Billions of surplus dollars in the US Treasury and he misspent all this money.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 01:54 AM

He also left him with UBL, didn't he? Can't wait to hear you whining in November when Bush wins.

Keep them coming un-stAble.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:42 PM

Let's not talk about the difference bewteen Republicans and Democrats. Talk about the candidate's representing the Party. John Kerry has voted against lowering taxes more than any other Senator and for raising taxes more than any other Senator. Bush gave all American's a tax break to stimulate the ecnomy and lead America back to the path of economic recovery. He raised the child exemptions helping the poor as while as the child tax credit further helping the lower class. He removed the marriage penalty tax as well, further helping all people. My daughter, a single mother of three who earns less that 22,000 here in Pennsylvania was given a tax return increase of over $1500 from the previous year. Under President Bush's leadership, that tax return will increase next year. She plans on using it to enroll in a nursing school using a grant she's already been approved for because of a policy of Bush's to help those who want to go back into schooling to better their career's.

While the Rebulicans do control a three branches of legislative government, it's not like Democrats are without power. It's called fillibuster and they've used to to stonewall policy more in the past 4 years than during any other previous Administration.

John Kerry doesn't really represent the whole of the Democratic Party, he represents the extreme of the Democratic Party and if he is elected and the Republicans still hold control he will not get the cooperation that Bill Clinton got from the Republicans because Bill Clinton, altough a liberal, represented a moderate appraoch to government. George Bush, although a conservative, is willing to move to a more moderate center and has more in common with Bill Clinton than Mr. Kerry.

George Bush has formed a cabinet that is the most diverse of any administration. There is more minority representation in his cabinet than any President. John Kerry gives lip service to the poor but has done very little to help them. His voting record demonstrates what he will do, not his promises. He has voted for special interests that has restricted Job growth, told steelworkers he will not use tariffs to help them secure their jobs, said that he will increase the military by 40,000 (which sounds good but will be impossible without a draft), promised support of the military even though he has voted against every major pay increase and weapons system to support the troops. I already know that Dick Cheney voted against some of these as well. The key word is SOME, the answer is that sometimes John Kerry was right, mostly he was wrong on the military support.

He's promising the Veterans to do more for them. That'll be a nice change since he has voted against the policies they support every time in 2003 and in his entire career as a Senator has support the wishes concerning policy of the Veterans Adminstration, Americal Legion and other Veterans group less than 4% per cent of the time.

This isn't really about Democrats and Republicans, It's about John Kerry and George Bush and what they will do as individuals. That's why more and more democrats who are public officials are moving to the Bush camp, away from John Kerry. If you want a President who embraces the extremes of his Party Line, vote for John Kerry, If you want a President who is willing to move towards the center and push legislation that is better for more Americans, then vote for George Bush.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. John Kerry is not a Bill Clinton Democrat, he's a Jimmy Carter Democrat and I've been through that and I don't want it again. Weak on the military, crippling on the economy and devastating to the country.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 4, 2004 05:15 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 03:42 PM

"He also left him with UBL, didn't he? Can't wait to hear you whining in November when Bush wins."

Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch! He attacked under the watch of GW JR.! You sould be very cautious of that statement. GW JR. has still not captured the man responsible for 911.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM

Posted by: Jeff Kangas at September 2, 2004 12:24 PM

"For all those who vote democratic just for the pure name sake, WHY? If your jewish WHY do you vote for a party that does nothing but stab you in the back, If your black,"

Jeff,

Let me show you what GW JR. feels about Black People in Texas while he Govenor. He hasn't changed much. His Administration is a false representation of his beliefs and only shown on TV to fool voters.

referring to the death of James Byrd Jr., who was chained to a truck and dragged three miles to his death in June 1998 at age 49. By the time his torso was ditched at one of Jasper County's oldest black cemeteries, Byrd's head had been severed.

http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/byrds/index.html

Bush angers slain man's family

The Byrds harbor deep resentments over the Texas governor's treatment of their family and failure to support a hate crimes bill.

By Jake Tapper
- - - - - - - - - -

October 16, 2000 | Louvon Harris was walking through her modest Houston living room last Wednesday night, not really paying much attention to the second presidential debate on TV, when she heard Vice President Al Gore mention her brother's name.

"I kind of stopped," she says.

The subject was racial profiling, but Gore had changed the subject to hate crimes.

"James Byrd was singled out because of his race in Texas, and other Americans have been singled out because of their race or ethnicity," Gore said, referring to the death of James Byrd Jr., who was chained to a truck and dragged three miles to his death in June 1998 at age 49. By the time his torso was ditched at one of Jasper County's oldest black cemeteries, Byrd's head had been severed.

A hate crimes law would punish criminals for crimes rooted in prejudice, Gore said. "I think these crimes are different. I think they're different because they're based on prejudice and hatred which gives rise to crimes that have not a single victim but are intended to dehumanize a whole group of people," Gore argued. Gore pointed out that Gov. George W. Bush had let a hate crimes bill die in a Texas Senate committee.

That's when Bush responded -- and when Harris got "emotional."

Bush said Texas already had a hate crimes statute, and nothing more was needed, since Texas laws were tough on criminals regardless of the ethnicity of their victims.

"The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them?" Bush said, smiling. "They'll be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It will be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death." In actuality, two of Byrd's three murderers -- John William King and Lawrence Russell Brewer -- have been sentenced to death, while the third, Shawn Allen Berry, was sentenced to life in prison, and will be eligible for parole after 40 years.

Reached over the weekend, members of the Byrd family said that they weren't surprised Bush got the details of the case wrong. Unlike other Texas public officials -- they cite local mayors, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and President Clinton -- Bush was never remotely comforting to their family after Byrd's grisly murder, they say.

"I wasn't surprised that he didn't know," says one of Byrd's younger sisters, Betty Boatner, 46. "I wasn't surprised at all."

Bush "should have known" the details of the trial, says Stella Byrd, James Byrd Jr.'s mother. "But I wasn't surprised about his reaction." She says Bush showed no concern when her granddaughter talked to him in May 1999 to try to persuade Bush to support the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation. "So I'm sure with that lack of interest, he didn't ask to see what was going on."

The Byrd family, however, seems most angry with Bush for his opposition to the hate crimes law Democratic state legislators named after Byrd. They slam him for not supporting it -- as will an ad coming out this week sponsored by the NAACP National Voter Fund. The Byrd family also plans to vote for Gore.

But while the Byrds may have plenty of reasons to resent Bush, the Jasper County prosecutor who tried Byrd's killers says that even had the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act been at his disposal, the outcome would likely not have changed. The law would not have affected his ability to seek capital punishment for any of the three men, he says, and thus its relevance is questionable. How Bush treated the Byrds according to the family, however, is certainly something that the Democrats would do well to publicize.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 07:02 PM

Jim Rodkey,

Our candidates work and coordinate all executive decisions with our Democratic Party but as I now understand it, yours doesn't and your "Commander-In-Chief" runs everything like a "know it all" dictator. It's no wonder that nothing ever gets done without his approval. The truth is that your Republican Party membership has no voice as to how our country is run. Well, my friend, our Democratic Party is different. We have a Democratic Party and it is truly Democratic. Now, for the first time, I can see and understand why you don't want to engage in a discussions of what the two different parties represent. Now I understand why the problems that our country is having with George W. Bush cannot be solved as long as GW Bush controls our government. The truth is that George W. Bush controls your party just as it controls and runs our country. He does it all without benefit of advise and counsel from anyone. This had never been made more clear to me than it is now. Your Republican Party means nothing without George W. Bush whereas our Party always means everything to us. The reality is that your Republican Party represents George W. Bush and you're wrong in saying that George W. Bush represents your Party.

You talk about the Democratic Party having the power to fillibuster and I recognize that they have been using this tactic to delay some nominations for the US Supreme Court but the Republicans are making every effort to change these rules in order to take complete control of the US Senate. You say, "This isn't really about Democrats and Republicans, It's about John Kerry and George Bush and what they will do as individuals." and I say, "You are wrong, it is totally about what GW Bush or John Kerry will do for their party as well as for their country." As an individual, we already know that George W. Bush has been a total failure and completely reckless as a leader and what we don't know is, "How much longer can our nation afford him?" Your failure to see that GW Bush is really splitting our country apart is intolerable. I don't believe we can stand much more of this division within our country while the whole world mistrusts us and the Terrorists are out to kill us. I say, "Enough is Enough." I say, "Vote the Kerry/Edwards Ticket" come November 2, 2004.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Let's not talk about the difference bewteen Republicans and Democrats. Talk about the candidate's representing the Party..."
Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 4, 2004 05:15 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 4, 2004 08:16 PM

Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch! He attacked under the watch of GW JR.! You sould be very cautious of that statement. GW JR. has still not captured the man responsible for 911.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM

d.jokes,
Ever heard of the USS Cole? 93' WTC? your a uninformed idiot. Look these things up.

Posted by: Wayne at September 4, 2004 08:29 PM

The polls tend show a pattern identical to that of election year 2000. If that trend continues, John Kerry will be the next president of these United States.

Posted by: Rodney Sistrunk at September 4, 2004 09:48 PM

HERE WE GOES AGAIN..!!! Have you see Kerry's rethoric after the Republican convention.? It is only attacks, and attacks, and INSULT to our current President. ( He seems to be OSAMA BIN LADEN's and the TERRORIST that have KILLED THOUSANDS of AMERICAN SOLDIERS in IRAQ'S BEST FRIEND.).
Instead of talking about HIS GOALS so people could vote for him..... this is so saaddd... It just reflects himself (before the voting date) that he is just an INMORAL - AMBITIOUS COMMUNIST (LEFT WING) individual in search of HIS OWN AMBITIONS....
He does'nt care about us, the middle class people...
He is a millionare, His wife is a Billionaire... And THROUGH HIS ACTIONS....HE IS NOT FIT FOR COMMAND.!! --
HE IS NOT EVEN THE "CHIEF COMMANDER" OF HIS OWN HOUSE..!!
HIS WIFE IS....
MR. Kerry : IF you want our vote, start talking about what your plans are, instead of attacking THIS NATION'S CURRENT PRESIDENT.

Posted by: riccardo at September 5, 2004 11:52 AM

From a voter in the not so critical swing state of New Mexico my thoughts on

Which candidate is of better character?
Who will protect us better from terrorism?
Whose plan for the economy is better?

Character:

Bush, though not perfect, speaks with a conviction that I can feel, that I can understand. When he says that he did what he felt was best in regards to the war in Iraq, I can hear the sincerity in his voice. Maybe I'm naﶥ, but I can relate to him.

Kerry, seems to me to be very shifty. He says one thing but does another. From what I've seen and heard him say, he doesn't seem willing to take a strong stand on any controversial issue. He seem to be blown about by the wind of public opinion, and I do not understand his obsession with reacting to the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans.

Do you see Bush personally attacking Michael Moore for his excellent piece of propaganda, Fahrenheit 9/11, in which Moore expresses his opinion on Bush's leadership and integrity. Do you see Bush asking retailers to ban the film? Do you see Bush threatening legal action because some parts of the film might not be true? I know Bush has spoken against the negative effects 527 groups can have in an election, but he has done so unilaterally. That is his opinion which he is free to express.

The Swift Boat Veterans are entitled to speak whatever it is they believe to be the truth. As long as what they are saying is not obvious libel or slander, then they are protected by the constitution. If Kerry were truly confident about his integrity and performance during his 4 month tour of duty, if he felt that everything that he did during that time was action befitting an officer and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, then I doubt he would feel the need to "sink to the level" of his fellow swift boat veterans.

His heated reactions speak volumes to me of his true character, and I can see the motivation he has in doing so. He wants both sides of the same coin. He wants the patriotic, veteran vote, and at the same time, he wants the anti-American, anti-war, protestor vote. Well, you can't have both at the same time and we see evidence of that in the polls, now that Kerry's true position and character are being made clear.

And finally, the (potential) first ladies. George Bush's immense love and respect for his wife is very apparent. I feel the same way about my wife, and I don't doubt that he really feels that way. Laura Bush, when she speaks, I can sense the goodness in her. I can relate to her, and her life. Even though she and her husband are very rich, when she speaks of her family, when she speaks of her life, I understand it. The values and ideals that she presents to the American people, those are my ideals and my values.

On the other hand we have Theresa Heinz-Kerry. When she speaks I wonder just what exactly she is talking about. She seems so arrogant and elitist. She says things like "I am opinionated" and "I hope one day, they will say I am smart, just like men".

I just don't get that. I am sure that her message appeals to those elitist academic liberals, but I just do not get it. Is that what America is to her? A social experiment? Do John and Theresa's values and ideals reflect those of America? They seem to reflect the ideals of some, but certainly not the majority.

To me, America is the physical manifestation of that dream of freedom which mankind has carried in its heart throughout history. To me, there is one candidate who better represents what I believe...

Posted by: schex86 at September 5, 2004 03:15 PM

From a voter in the not so critical swing state of New Mexico my thoughts on

Which candidate is of better character?
Who will protect us better from terrorism?
Whose plan for the economy is better?

Character:

Bush, though not perfect, speaks with a conviction that I can feel, that I can understand. When he says that he did what he felt was best in regards to the war in Iraq, I can hear the sincerity in his voice. Maybe I'm naïve, but I can relate to him.

Kerry, seems to me to be very shifty. He says one thing but does another. From what I've seen and heard him say, he doesn't seem willing to take a strong stand on any controversial issue. He seem to be blown about by the wind of public opinion, and I do not understand his obsession with reacting to the charges made by the Swift Boat Veterans.

Do you see Bush personally attacking Michael Moore for his excellent piece of propaganda, Fahrenheit 9/11, in which Moore expresses his opinion on Bush's leadership and integrity. Do you see Bush asking retailers to ban the film? Do you see Bush threatening legal action because some parts of the film might not be true? I know Bush has spoken against the negative effects 527 groups can have in an election, but he has done so unilaterally. That is his opinion which he is free to express.

The Swift Boat Veterans are entitled to speak whatever it is they believe to be the truth. As long as what they are saying is not obvious libel or slander, then they are protected by the constitution. If Kerry were truly confident about his integrity and performance during his 4 month tour of duty, if he felt that everything that he did during that time was action befitting an officer and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, then I doubt he would feel the need to "sink to the level" of his fellow swift boat veterans.

His heated reactions speak volumes to me of his true character, and I can see the motivation he has in doing so. He wants both sides of the same coin. He wants the patriotic, veteran vote, and at the same time, he wants the anti-American, anti-war, protestor vote. Well, you can't have both at the same time and we see evidence of that in the polls, now that Kerry's true position and character are being made clear.

And finally, the (potential) first ladies. George Bush's immense love and respect for his wife is very apparent. I feel the same way about my wife, and I don't doubt that he really feels that way. Laura Bush, when she speaks, I can sense the goodness in her. I can relate to her, and her life. Even though she and her husband are very rich, when she speaks of her family, when she speaks of her life, I understand it. The values and ideals that she presents to the American people, those are my ideals and my values.

On the other hand we have Theresa Heinz-Kerry. When she speaks I wonder just what exactly she is talking about. She seems so arrogant and elitist. She says things like "I am opinionated" and "I hope one day, they will say I am smart, just like men".

I just don't get that. I am sure that her message appeals to those elitist academic liberals, but I just do not get it. Is that what America is to her? A social experiment? Do John and Theresa's values and ideals reflect those of America? They seem to reflect the ideals of some, but certainly not the majority.

To me, America is the physical manifestation of that dream of freedom which mankind has carried in its heart throughout history. To me, there is one candidate who better represents what I believe...

Posted by: schex86 at September 5, 2004 07:22 PM

Terrorism:

I believe John Kerry once said in his testimony after returning from his "tour of duty" in Vietnam something along the lines of "Communism can never be defeated. We should have learned that by now."

And where is that great Soviet Empire? Oh yeah, its gone, it was defeated. But, take Kerry's quote above and replace "communism" with "terrorism". Would that be much of a stretch??

"Terrorism can never be defeated. We should have learned that by now."

Being a member of the military myself (I've actually being deployed for 18 months with my National Guard unit starting next week) my understanding of any war is that you cannot win if you do not retain the initiative, if you do not dictate the terms of the battle. I understand that if we are serious about winning the war on terror, we must adhere to that principle.

Kerry has said something along the lines of "We will respond forcefully once any terrorist attack occurs." Well, as has been pointed out more than once, we have been attacked!

What will be our response? Will we give in to their demands, to their terror, to our fear? Then they are winning. Will we be hesitant, indecisive, reluctant, mired in bureaucracy and political intrigue? Then they have undoubtedly won. Their goals remain the same, regardless of what we do, and their goals are the establishment of their oppression and tyranny and the utter destruction of freedom, our destruction, America's destruction.

It seems strange to me how John Kerry could initially support the war in Iraq, and then so totally flip-flop on the issue. Actually, its not so strange. He was acting on the same intelligence that Bush acted on. Intelligence that indicated Saddam was a very significant threat to the security of the United States. Now, as an intelligence officer myself, I can tell you that such intelligence is never perfect. But still, leaders have to make a decision, based on careful analysis, based on probabilities. And once they make that decision they have to deal with the consequences.

Bush is dealing with the consequences of his administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. It hasn't been easy nor necessarily gone according to plan. Such things rarely do. Kerry on the other hand is simply capitalizing on the negativity of this issue in a play for political power. First he supports it, now he won't fund it. Ridiculous.

And, I personally feel insulted by the fact that he voted against funding US troops to provide them with such protective items as body armor. I am glad that he did not have his way, and that the bill passed in spite of him. I find items like body armor to be very useful and reassuring in times of war.

And John Kerry's support for the military has been severely lacking during his career in the Senate. His voting record doesn't even come close to supporting the war hero hoopla he has made the centerpiece of his campaign. Nor does that record indicate to me that he will support me, that he will have my welfare in mind.

And if you don't support the military, how can you hope to win any war, even a war against terror?

Posted by: schex86 at September 5, 2004 09:55 PM

Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch! He attacked under the watch of GW JR.! You sould be very cautious of that statement. GW JR. has still not captured the man responsible for 911.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM

Not only did Al-Queda attack the USS Cole and the WTC in '93, but the military under Bush has captured or killed 3/4 of known Al-Queda leaders. I don't care what Clinton did or did not do, it's not going to help us today. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 10:00 AM

I am a moderate who loves America; yet Kerry is my choice this time. There must be consequences, righteous judgment for miscalculations. I supporter GW in going into Iraq based on my trust in the government's intelligence about WMD. I argued the government's position against my son, my nephew, and their friends over dinner in a New York Belgium restaurant not far from where the Towers used to be. The war had just begun; it was early June 2003. When I finally realized that our "intelligence" was based on former bathists' wanna be replacements of Saddam, I thought we've been had. The neo-conservatives and Bush bit at the bait hook, line, and sinker. Now, they must be punished in this election cycle because many of expect our leaders to be more accurate than that. If there had been WMD found, then Bush would deserve reelection for his resolve. As it turned out, his team deserves rejection for being duped.

Posted by: Victor Langhorne at September 6, 2004 02:21 PM

When I finally realized that our "intelligence" was based on former bathists' wanna be replacements of Saddam, I thought we've been had.

Posted by: Victor Langhorne at September 6, 2004 02:21 PM

Is this why the UN was trying to inspect Iraq for 12 years? Is this why the UN had 14 resolutions dealing with Iraq's WMDs? Is this what killed the Kurds in Iraq?

Your a Kerry supporter, but no moderate.

Are you saying that the whole world was wrong? That the WMDs never exsisted? That the Kurds commited mass suicide?

Saddam used these weapons once, but Kerry supoorters don't want to bring that up. What makes you think that he wouldn't try and use them again? Try and make these weapons to rid the world of the Jewish population over there?

Why is it that we can never walk a mile in someone else's shoes? After 9/11, I will admit that I think about terroism a lot and it scares me. I would hate for someone to be in charge of this country and try and please the rest of the world, meanwhile putting American civilians at risk. Try and be honest with yourselves.

Most Americans think Kerry cannot fight a war on terror as well as Bush. I know America will make the right decision on Nov 2nd.

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 06:05 PM

Senator John Reid Edwards voted YES.

Vote to pass a joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

Vote to pass a joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Can someone please explain this?

Posted by: Wayne at September 6, 2004 07:51 PM

Victor,

Doesn't the terrorist attack in a Russian school where hundreds of innocent children were brutally slaughter after several grueling days of absolute horror bother you? That's why we're in Iraq. Global Terrorism is a threat to all people and must be stopped. How many people do they have to kill before the world says enough and puts an end to it? The Russians tried Kerry's way of passive resistance and look at how those "reasonable" terorists respected the people. After 9/11 we can no longer sit back and wait until they strike again. We must move forward. Each sanctuary for Terrorism must be uprooted and their ability to regroup must be stopped. What judgment would you have given to Bush if there had been WMD's and they used them and we did nothing? They had the labs, they had the facilities and they were pursuing WMD's. Based on the intelligence of the world, Bush acted and he did in response to what happened to us on 9/11. One reason to back Bush is the fear that John Kerry will do exactly what he said "swiftly retaliate after we've been attacked!" The time of waiting for an attack is over, we've already been attacked, more than once. Besides, how will you know what John Kerry will do? At last count he already has 8 different positions on the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 7, 2004 07:19 AM

Victor
why would you Vote against Bush and vote for Kerry Both thought the weapons were there both thought the government needed to be changed Kerry now has changed his mind 3 or 4 times takes a different position depending on who he is talking to and has said he would still have voted to go to war knowing now what we know. He says he will get us out of Iraq but has not really come up with a plan to do so. So what is it you are voting Kerry for??? Bush must be punished but Kerry is absolved? Kerry sits on the intelligence committe and see everything the President saw. Unless of course that was in the 80% of the meetings he missed. Please explain your reasoning some more

Posted by: wpnsgy at September 7, 2004 02:18 PM

"F" is for failure!

Posted by: RRitter at September 7, 2004 04:22 PM

I am taking a wild guess that we won't here from Victor again.

Posted by: Wayne at September 7, 2004 08:05 PM

Victor,

Yes, I agree that we need to hold all our public servants accountable when they "scr_w up." You know GW Bush fancies himself as being "top gun." but he has never even fired anybody from his team. One would think that they have never "scr_wed up." I guess GW Bush doesn't have the guts that's required to make a strong administrator. Heaven knows, a lot of his Team members needed to have been made accountable and needed firing. GW Bush is running out of time and he'd better fire someone quickly before it's too late or the people are going have no choice but to fire him. Needless to say, I'm 100 percent in agreement with you and I too will be voting the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Your condensed POST follows:

"I am a moderate who loves America; yet Kerry is my choice this time. There must be consequences, righteous judgment for miscalculations. I supported GW in going into Iraq based on my trust in the government's intelligence about WMD. I argued the government's position against my son, my nephew, and their friends over dinner in a New York Belgium restaurant not far from where the Towers used to be. The war had just begun; it was early June 2003. When I finally realized that our "intelligence" was based on former bathists' wanna be replacements of Saddam, I thought we've been had. The neo-conservatives and Bush bit at the bait hook, line, and sinker. Now, they must be punished in this election cycle because many of us expect our leaders to be more accurate than that. If there had been WMD found, then Bush would deserve reelection for his resolve. As it turned out, his team deserves rejection for being duped."
Posted by: Victor Langhorne at September 6, 2004 02:21 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 7, 2004 09:34 PM

Guess Whos Back? Now try and run ME OFF "PAIN"!

KERRY IS BACK IN THE RACE!

SUCKERS!!! HAHA!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1299538,00.html

Kerry is back in the race, says latest poll

Analysis of swing states gives challenger small lead

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian

The Zogby poll says the president has made up ground in many of the 20 battleground states, but Mr Kerry retains a slim lead in most of them - enough to give him a majority in the electoral college, if the vote was held now.

"There's no doubt that Bush got a bounce ... but no way is he up 11 points," John Zogby, the head of Zogby International, said yesterday.

Newsweek showed the Mr Bush with an 11 percentage point lead among registered voters, while Time gave him a nine-point lead. But another survey by Gallup, CNN and USA Today showed only a one-point advantage.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d.jones at September 7, 2004 11:59 PM

wpnsgy,
For you information, Kerry said that he would get our troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. In my opinion, that's too long but that's what he said. Hopefully, we'll be able to change his mind and bring our American troops home earlier. We don't need Iraq's oil. Their oil is not worth even one American life, as far as I'm concerned. I have no sympathy for the Iraqi people and we need to allow them to live the way they want to live. I'm convinced that Saddam never presented an imminant threat/danger to us. Not with the way we had him "boxed in." He couldn't even control his own country so how could he have been any kind of a threat to us? One more thing, don't blame Victor for being smart and for supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I'm going to vote the same way and why would anybody want to support the reckless and failing policies of the Bush Administration? We cannot seem to be promoting such a failure as GW Bush just because we like him, can we? About Kerry, yes he was in the Intelligence Committee too but he was not acting as President, was he? GW Bush was and he needs to be demoted!

Your condensed POST follows:

"Victor, why would you Vote against Bush and vote for Kerry Both thought the weapons were there both thought the government needed to be changed Kerry now has changed his mind 3 or 4 times takes a different position depending on who he is talking to and has said he would still have voted to go to war knowing now what we know. He says he will get us out of Iraq but has not really come up with a plan to do so. So what is it you are voting Kerry for??? Bush must be punished but Kerry is absolved? Kerry sits on the intelligence committe and see everything the President saw. Unless of course that was in the 80% of the meetings he missed. Please explain your reasoning some more."
Posted by: wpnsgy at September 7, 2004 02:18 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 02:11 AM

D. Jones

This last paragraph of your quote keeps this thing in context..."that even had the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act been at his disposal, the outcome would likely not have changed. The law would not have affected his ability to seek capital punishment for any of the three men, he says, and thus its relevance is questionable."

As a Texas Governor, Bush was harder on crimes than most governors. All crimes, not just hate crimes.

Let's put this in another context. If the Democrats are so pro-ethnic why are their cabinets so full or white people. President Bush has the most enthnically diverse Cabinet of any administration. You see, President Bush doesn't just talk about making sure all Americans are represented, he does something about it.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 04:38 AM

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 8, 2004 04:38 AM

Jim, If GW JR thought Deputy Dawg would help him win the election he would assign him a cabinet post. Please be serious.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 12:42 PM

wpnsgy,
For you information, Kerry said that he would get our troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. In my opinion, that's too long but that's what he said. Hopefully, we'll be able to change his mind and bring our American troops home earlier. We don't need Iraq's oil. Their oil is not worth even one American life, as far as I'm concerned. I have no sympathy for the Iraqi people and we need to allow them to live the way they want to live. I'm convinced that Saddam never presented an imminant threat/danger to us. Not with the way we had him "boxed in." He couldn't even control his own country so how could he have been any kind of a threat to us? One more thing, don't blame Victor for being smart and for supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I'm going to vote the same way and why would anybody want to support the reckless and failing policies of the Bush Administration? We cannot seem to be promoting such a failure as GW Bush just because we like him, can we? About Kerry, yes he was in the Intelligence Committee too but he was not acting as President, was he? GW Bush was and he needs to be demoted!

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 8, 2004 02:11 AM

Able,

Didn't Kerry say he was going to increase forces in Iraq? Or bring them home in 6 months? Or bring them home in 4 years? Yes he said all of those things, which one do we believe?

And by the way, I can't keep track so maybe you could be of help on this. Is Kerry for or against the war now? It will help me decide how to vote. And do you think he will be able to stay the track for just 2 more months?

As far as the oil goes, when do you think we will see gas prices drop? If this war is for oil, maybe the liberals can come up with a social program that gives middle class America free gas while charging the rich $50 a gallon.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 06:25 PM

Able,
Here's a website full of Kerry quotes. I'm gonna put this in my favorites.

http://www.kerryquotes.com/

Take a look at let me know what you think.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 09:19 PM

Able,
Here's a website full of Kerry quotes. I'm gonna put this in my favorites.

http://www.kerryquotes.com/

Take a look at let me know what you think.

Here's one of my favorite Kerry quotes;

Mar 2, 2004: "[Ex-]President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second" American Urban Radio Network

You have to love JFK.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 09:25 PM

You have to love JFK.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 09:25 PM

We do love JFK, both of them, Pain-in-the-A**

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 8, 2004 09:50 PM

d.jokes,
Your jokes are as stupid as you.

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 10:59 PM

Why didn't you post the rest of my comment d.jokes?

Posted by: Wayne at September 8, 2004 11:04 PM

d.jokes,
Can you explain how Clinton was the first black president?

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 09:47 PM

CONSTIPATION AND PAIN, HAHAHAHA! LOL! LMFAO!!! PAIN WHAT IS IT YOU WANT ME TO SAY TO YOUR RACIAL MOTIVATED COMMENT? LOL! HAHAHAHA!

Can you explain how Clinton was the first black president?

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 09:47 PM

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 12:30 AM

Posted by: Wayne at September 9, 2004 09:47 PM

Can you explain how Clinton was the first black president?

This is proof that Wayne errr pain-in-The-A** has a touch of racism in his blood. Black Americans loved Clinton and GW JR is appealing the some of them as well. What is your point? Do you want GW JR. to say he is a Black President. I don't get it? Most Black Americans don't want Colin Powell as a President, because believe it of not he is worse than GW JR. when it comes to any civil rights.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 11:55 PM

I didnt' say it, that came from John F Kerry. He said he wants to be the second black president. Your right about it being racially motivated though.

Posted by: Wayne at September 11, 2004 12:10 AM

The Many Lies of D. Jones (Volume 1)

Here are just a few of the many lies that D. Jones has told in the past couple of weeks. I thank him for his advice, that I go back and read all his posts from the past. In doin so, I found out alot of thing I did not know.. I'll bet that alot of this stuff will come as a surprise to even Abel. Get this, The Secretary of State - Colin Powell is actually the 3rd in Line to be president, not the Speaker of the House like the Constitution says. Oh, and Bill Clinton can proudly say that Bin-Laden's network did NOT carry out any attacks against the US and its interests during his presidency, I'm beginning to think that maybe the USS Cole attack was an act of the "Unibomber"? But I think the biggest shock came when I learned that Bill Clinton was NOT actually impeached, I had been under this impression ever since the House of Representatives found him Guilty of High Crimes and Misdemenors, perhaps it was actually just a unpaid speeding ticket? In all honesty though, I have to give thanks to the man that made this all information available! "Prof. of American History - Wang Certified - D. Jones Ph.D" *please see lie 4*
-------------------------------------------------
"Bush inherited a $335 billion surplus from President Clinton. Within three years, he went to a record deficit of $542 billion. That was a swing of $877 billion."

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:38 PM

Lies 1&2 - Bush inherited an $86 billion surplus according to the CBO... The deficit is actually $422 billion, a swing of $369 billion less than you quoted.
----------------------------------------------
"Do you think our Top Military Official's and Secretary Of State (Third in line of the Presidency) is that dumb?"

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:49 AM

Lie 3 - According the the Consitution, Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the House) is 3rd in line to the presidency... Powell is 5th in line.
-----------------------------------------------

"Clinton was not impeached."

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:45 AM

Lie 4 - Clinton WAS impeached.
-----------------------------------------------

"I know my history."

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:08 PM

Lie 4 - See lie 3!
-----------------------------------------------

"Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch!"

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM

Lie 5 - Bin Laden did in fact attack the US and its interests under Bill Clinton.. The USS Cole, US emabassy in Kenya, The WTC in 93, Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down)....
----------------------------------------------

"After Bush learned of the 911 disaster he jumped in Air Force One flew around for some time then headed for Arizona"

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM

Lie 6 - Bush went to Louisiana, and then departed to Nebraska, and then returned to Washington.
-----------------------------------------------

"He also fabricated a lie about Air Force One being threatened to excuse himself for looking like the Coward he really is."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM

Lie 7 - If anyone fabricated anything on that day, it was Cheney, he is the one who provided Bush with the information. But please show us where it was fabricated to begin with? Thanks!
----------------------------------------------

"Ronald Reagan Jr. and his mother Nancy Reagan, are not happy with the way America is headed."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 04:51 PM

Proves that just because someone is unhappy with the direction of the country, it doesn't make them vote another way. Nancy Reagan has publicly and fully endorsed Bush. (in reference to your 'right track, wrong track' poll)
----------------------------------------------
"John Kerry is a Liberal."

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 03:21 PM

Lie 8? - John Kerry claimed in a recent speech that 'he's the one with the conservative values'... hmmmm..

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

"I AM SMART LIKE JOHN KERRY"

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 01:08 AM

Lie 9 - Speaks for itself.

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

" I AM VERY PROUD OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS SITE "

Posted by: d. jones at August 20, 2004 01:08 AM

Lie 10 - At least I hope he's lying, because if not, thats pretty pathetic. Can anyone here say they have been swayed by his liberal views away from George Bush and towards John Kerry?

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

"...be a dummy in college" (referring to bush)

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:39 AM

Lie 11 - George W. Bush is the only president to EVER have an MBA. And just by taking an educated guess, I would assume that degree's from Harvard and Yale probably top the degree that you have from "Hooked on Phonics".

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

"Kerry didn't leave, he recieved an honorable discharge and was sent home. "

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:39 AM

Lie 12 - Kerry was NOT discharged and sent home as you stated. He requested discharge in on Jan 3rd 1970, 9 months after leaving Vietnam.. his request was denied. In 1971 when he offered his 'discredited' testimony to the Senate...Look close, yep.. he's wearing his Uniform and medals. On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive. He was discharged in on Feb. 6th, 1978. His very own website NEVER says he was discharged... it says he requested discharged.
-----------------------------------------------
"...(Kerry)is not claiming he is doing what Jesus wants. That is a huge insult to any Christian."

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 04:50 PM

Lie 13 - It offends me that he would not do what Jesus wants. Look at what God did... he liberated a nation in the old testament. He free'd them from Egypt, and crushed an army in the red sea. If offends me GREATLY as a christian that you or anyone else could say that you'd support a man that 'doesn't do what jesus wants'.
----------------------------------------------

If Bush is supported at the ballot box, you are in agreement with the following:

6. It's ok to support outsourcing of American Jobs (Remember, it's GOOD for our economy the prez says)

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 12:52 PM

Lie 14 - John Kerry supports outsourcing as well. "Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that." And not only does he support outsourcing, but outsourcing supports John Kerry.... Here is a list of 44 execs that publicly have endorsed Kerry for President *They are ALL on Lou Dobbs "Exporting America" list*

Zubaid Ahmad, Managing Director, J.P. Morgan Securities
Crandall Bowles, Chairman and CEO, Springs Industries
Eli Broad, Chairman, AIG Retirement Services, Former Chairman, President and CEO, SunAmerica
John H. Bryan, Former Chairman and CEO, Sara Lee
August A. Busch IV, President, Anheuser-Busch
Vinton G. Cerf, Senior Vice President of Technology Strategy, MCI
Mark Chandler, Vice President and General Counsel, Cisco Systems
Richard Fisher, Chairman Emeritus, Morgan Stanley
John Gage, Chief Researcher, Sun Microsystems
Charles M. Geschke, Founder and Chairman, Adobe Systems, Inc.
Charles K. Gifford, Chairman, Bank of America Corporation
Robert Haas, Chairman of the Board, Levi Strauss
Dr. Sidney Harman, Executive Chairman, Harman International
Alan Hassenfeld, Chairman, Hasbro
William H. Hayden, Senior Managing Director, Bear Stearns & Co.
Leo Hindery, Jr., President, AT&T Broadband
Robert Hormats, Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs International
Thomas S. Johnson, Chairman and CEO, GreenPoint Financial Corp.
Bruce Klatsky, Chairman and CEO, Phillips-Van Husen
Michael S. Klein, CEO of Global Banking, Citigroup
Chris Larsen, CEO, E-Loan
Gerald M. Levin, Retired Chairman and CEO, Time Warner
Raymond J. McGuire, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley
Heidi Miller, EVP, JPMorganChase
John Morgridge, Chairman, Cisco Systems
Phil Murphy, Senior Director and Former Head, Goldman Sachs Investment Management Division
Charles Phillips, President, Oracle Corporation
Jeffrey Raikes, Group VP, Microsoft
Daniel Rosensweig, COO, Yahoo!
Robert E. Rubin, Member, Office of the Chairman, Citigroup
Henry B. Schacht, Director and Senior Advisor, Lucent Technologies, Former Chairman and CEO, Cummins Engine
Dan Scheinman, Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems
Jonathan Shapiro, President, Lillian Vernon
Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google
Lou Susman, Vice Chairman, Citigroup
Stephen Volk, Vice Chairman, Citigroup
Theodore Waitt, Chairman, Gateway, Inc.
Jason H. Wright, Senior Vice President, Merrill Lynch & Co.
Benjamin M. Rosen, Chairman Emeritus, Compaq Computer Corp. (merged with HP)

Below is another list that you might find interesting as well...

HEINZ WATTIE'S AUSTRALASIA - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
HEINZ SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. - Republic of Singapore
HEINZ WATTIE'S LIMITED - Auckland, New Zealand
HEINZ JAPAN LTD - Tokyo, Japan
HEINZ-UFE LTD. - Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
HEINZ COSCO - Qingdao, People's Republic of China
HEINZ KOREA LTD. - Inchon, South Korea
HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD. - Bangkok, Thailand
HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Mumbai, India
PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA - Jakarta, Indonesia
PT HEINZ SUPRAMA - Surabaya, Indonesia
HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES - Manila, the Philippines
HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED - Wanchai, Hong Kong
H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
KGALAGADI SOAP INDUSTRIES (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
OLIVINE INDUSTRIES (Private) LIMITED - Harare, Zimbabwe
CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD. - Chegutu, Zimbabwe
HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD. - Johannesburg, South Africa
HEINZ WELLINGTON'S (PTY) LTD. - Wellington, South Africa
HEINZ EUROPE - Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex,
> > England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Rovereto, Italy
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Telford, England
JOHN WEST FOODS LIMITED - Liverpool, England
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED - Hayes, Middlesex,
> > > England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - Dublin, Ireland
H.J. HEINZ COMPANY OF CANADA LTD - North York, Ontario, Canada
OMSTEAD FOODS LIMITED - Wheatley, Ontario, Canada
ALIMENTOS HEINZ C.A. - Caracas, Venezuela
DISTRIBUIDORA BANQUETE, S.A. - San Josi, Costa Rica
HEINZ ITALIA S.r.l. - Milan, Italy
FATTORIA SCALDASOLE, S.p.a. - Monguzzo, Italy
COPAIS FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPANY, S.A. - Athens, Greece
HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O. - Warsaw, Poland
PUDLISZKI S.A. - Pudliszki, Poland
WODZISLAW, S.A. - Wodzislaw, Poland
ETS. PAULET S.A. - Douarnenez, France
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L. - Paris, France
HEINZ IBERICA S.A. - Madrid, Spain
IDAL (Industrias de Alimentacc, Lda.) - Lisbon, Portugal
MIEDZYCHOD S.A. - Miedzychod, Poland
HEINZ C.I.S. - Moscow, Russia
HEINZ GEORGIEVSK - Georgievsk, Russia
CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE - Cairo, Egypt
HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED - Tel Aviv, Israel
STAR-KIST FOOD DB'OR LIMITED - Haifa, Israel
H. J. HEINZ GMBH - Dm2 m3%ldorf, Germany
SONNEN BASSERMANN - Seesen, Germany
KONINKLIJKE DE RUIJTER BV - The Netherlands
HAK BV - The Netherlands
FOODMARK - The Netherlands
HONIG MERKARTIKELEN BV - The Netherlands
DRUKKERIJ DE GROENBOER - The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ B.V . - Elst, The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A. - Brussels, Belgium
SERV-A-PORTION - Turnhout, Belgium
Arimpex Industrie Alimentari S.R.L. - Rovereto, Italy
Comexo S.A. - Chateaurenard, France
HEINZ EUROPE - UK and IRELAND - Factories: Chorley, Fakenham, Grimsby,
Kendal, Kitt Green, Leaminton, Luton, Okehampton, Telford, Westwick

^^^^^^^^ the jobs that kerry's wife has over seas, that COULD be in the united states (but she obviously understands how businesses work more than D. Jones does)
----------------------------------------------

10. It's ok to cater to the agendas of the rich, yet it's also ok to attempt to CUT funding for our vets, etc.. Is this "Compassionate Conservativism"?

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 12:52 PM

Lie 15 - Nope. But this is: President Bush has provided more new funding for veterans in four years than President Clinton did in eight years. President Clinton averaged a 3 percent increase per year in the VA budget while President Bush has averaged an 8 percent increase per year. Since President Bush came into office in 2001 the VA budget has increased from $48 billion to $65 billion. This represents an 38% increase since Clinton. The President's $30 billion request for medical care in his FY 2005 budget represents more than a 40% increase from when he took office. As a result, 1.4 million more veterans will receive care in 2004 than in 2000 and 194 new community-based clinics will open to be more responsive to veterans' needs. President Bush has increased basic salary and payments for food and housing almost 29 percent since taking office. President Bush has provided historic increases in military compensation. Under former President Clinton, military pay decreased an average of almost 2% per year relative to consumer price index. Since President Bush took office, military pay increased an average of 5.2% per year relative to consumer price index. The average compensation is now more than $40,000 for enlisted members and more than $79,000 for officers. Updates life insurance protections provided to activated Guard and reserve members by increasing from $10,000 to $250,000 the maximum policy coverage that the federal government will protect from default for nonpayment while on active duty. The President took the unprecedented step of allowing veterans with a prescription from their private physician to have those prescriptions filled by the VA - saving veterans hundreds of dollars in prescription drug costs. This will benefit approximately 200,000 veterans. The President's budget allows the VA to pay for emergency room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals. Veterans with life-threatening illnesses should seek and receive care at the closest possible facility. hrough the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES), President Bush is working to restructure VA hospitals around the country to provide veterans with efficient access to quality health care. The FY 2005 budget more than doubles the amount previously request for construction of new and improved facilities. The President has proposed a 20% increase in outpatient health care services, create 48 new outpatient clinics, and construct two new VA hospitals. When President Bush took office, the number of claims waiting to be processed had soared to over 600,000 and as a result, many veterans were waiting an average of over 230 days for a claim to be processed. The VA has slashed its inventory of pending disability claims by 58% to 253,000 and reduced the average length of time it takes to process a claim by 30% to about 160 days. In 2005, 2.7 million veterans will receive $24.9 billion of these tax-free benefits from the VA.he average time that a veteran has to wait to see a primary care physician has dropped 90% since 2001. The waiting list was 300,000 in 2001 and is now below 30,000. With the funding in the FY 2005 request, the VA will meet its goal scheduling non-urgent primary care for 93% of veterans within 30 days and 99% within 90 days.
------------------------------------------------
2)Tax cuts/breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans is acceptable policy. Corporate America thrives, while the working class lose more jobs.

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 12:52 PM

Lie 16 - All who pay income taxes, had their taxes cut. Under John Kerry's plan, small businesses with $200,000 income, will pay higher tax rates than multi-million $$ corporations. (www.johnkerry.com) He'll cut tax rates on corps. down to below 34 percent, and raise small business taxes to higher than 38.5%...
----------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for Volume 2!

Posted by: Conservatism at September 11, 2004 01:20 AM

You know, I watched the local Texas news tonight and I saw a few interesting things that kept me glued to the seat. First of all. Republican Governor Rick Perry or Texas received an Envelope that was triggered to ignite when opened. I know it was wrong, but I thought that was funny since no harm was done. Everyone is just so jumpy now. I just wonder are all these Governors GW JR supporters.

Nevada Inmates Queried on Rigged Letters

September 10, 2004 06:38 PM EDT

CARSON CITY, Nev. - Federal and state investigators questioned Nevada prison inmates Friday after at least 15 governors received letters rigged to catch fire when the envelope was opened.

Letters were sent to governors in Nevada, Montana, Hawaii, Nebraska, Colorado, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Arizona.

Of the 15 governors whose staffs confirmed receiving the suspicious letters by Friday afternoon, 11 are Republicans and four are Democrats.

Posted by: d. jones at September 11, 2004 01:29 AM

I also saw in the news the debate about the Automatic Weapon expiration deadline. GW JR and Kerry seem out to lunch on this Issue at the moment. To be honest, I don't feel as safe as I did when Clinton signed the bill. I feel a bit jumpy myself with all the Right Wing Hate Mungers or Mongers, The Open Texas, Arizona, and California Borders, so much for the War On Terror. The news stated that GW JR said he would renew the Law and it passed the Senate, but the House has rejected it. I guess they feel a little jumpy too. The news also stated that GW JR is looking for an Endorsement from the NRA so he didn't comment other than the Constitution states we have the right to bear arms. Kerry is looking for endorsement from a Womens Rights group against the weapons and he is supposed to take a stand for the ban. Now I remember Navy Vet saying he was in favor of the Ban, and Wayne errr Pain-In-The-A** saying he wasn't for it. I wonder how things will change when each Candidate takes an official stand. hmmmmmmm.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 11, 2004 01:41 AM

Also in the news the most disturbing of all. I saw some of the commentators that covered both Conventions along with a Woman that visited Iraq last month. She spoke of hope and high expectations from the Commanders, but she also spoke of a tour they took along the Tigris River saying a brige was being built and this could be the next San Antonio river walk etc. Then she stated that while on this tour they had to dress in full military gear with some type of gas mask or goggles. She states that security, jobs, ect. are very poor there and the fighting continues, and the so called free elections wouldn't amount to much at this point. She also stated by pulling American troops from there in 4 years as Kerry stated would cause the Iraqis to bargin with the insurgents for security. The Bath Party (Saadam's former regime) or The other Islamic nut cases, I can't remember the name of the resistance group, but either way history would repeat itself and Iraq would once again be under whatever Dictatoral group that seemed to be the strongest. That would put us back to point A. GW JR hasn't even suggested a timeframe for our troops to return. Both Kerry and/or GW will have to increase troops before they bring any home. Especially if they keep getting killed. What have we done? How long will we have to baby sit Iraq? The last I remember U.S. troop there numbered around 144,000. Before I get jumped on by the GW Supporters. That is only a guess. You know, I don't want our troops there anyway. I would rather have them covering our open borders and ports in America for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda terrorist, than in Iraq.

Posted by: d. jones at September 11, 2004 02:03 AM

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

===============================

RUMSFELD MISLEADS ABOUT PRISON ABUSE

Speaking yesterday in Phoenix, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that there was no way that he and other top military officials could have known about the abuse and torture that took place at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. Rumsfeld said, "if you are in Washington, D.C., you can't know what's going on in the midnight shift in one of those many prisons around the world."[1] But a classified portion of a report by three Army generals (the Fay report) - obtained by the New York Times - found that the atrocities that took place in military prisons were the result of actions taken at the top of the military hierarchy.

According to secret sections of the Fay report, the former top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez "approved the use in Iraq of some severe interrogation practices intended to be limited to captives held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan."[2] Moreover, "by issuing and revising the rules for interrogations in Iraq three times in 30 days, General Sanchez and his legal staff sowed such confusion that interrogators acted in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions."[3]

A separate investigation headed by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger "faulted the Pentagon's top civilian and military leadership yesterday for failing to exercise adequate oversight and allowing conditions that led to the abuse of detainees in Iraq."[4] Rumsfeld was cited specifically for contributing to "confusion over what techniques were permissible for interrogating prisoners in Iraq."[5]

Sources:

1. "Rumsfeld: No plans to resign ," Arizona Daily Star, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52360.
2. "Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse," New York Times, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52361.
3. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52361.
4. "Top Pentagon Leaders Faulted in Prison Abuse," Washington Post, 8/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52362.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2327398&l=52362.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 02:22 AM

I would like to officially take my stand on the assault weapons ban. AK-47's... thats the gun you hear about most often. However even with the ban, I'm perfectly able to go to any pawn shop in the country and pick up for about $50 a gun thats more powerful. A 7.62mm Russian... A originally used as a 'tank buster' in world war 2... It has no problem shooting through a bullet proof vest.. Why isn't this gun banned? Because you don't hear about it on the news as being the weapon that some gang used in a drive-by. The weapons ban is completely political. I'm DEFINATELY AGAINST any form of weapons bans.. I do not know fully the views of the candidates, but I myself am AGAINST it. I will NOT change my view if either supports or opposes any portions. Here are some facts on gun control (all different forms, which democrats have historically endorsed in the past)

-Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%
-In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992.

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?"

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:

-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992.

* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

-Florida adopted "Right-to-Carry" laws in 1987. From 1987-1996, the following changes occurred.

homicide rate -36%
firearm homicide rate -37%
handgun homicide rate -41%

-221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

-As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

The Brady bill --

-John Lott's crime study found mixed results regarding the adoption of waiting periods. The data showed no overall beneficial effect on violent crime rates. There are instances where enraged people buy a gun and quickly proceed to commit a crime with it. There are also instances where people attempt to purchase a gun for self protection because they have been threatened, and are murdered during a waiting period.

The Assault Weapons Ban
-The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law.
-To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns
- For example, semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor.
-An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does NOT include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon.
-Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.
-As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.
-As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

Armor Piercing Bullets
-In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw armor piercing bullets.
-Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved.
-As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

School Shootings

-Seven days after the 1999 Littleton, Colorado school massacre, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Bill Clinton stated:

"And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."

"Do we know for absolutely certain that if we had every reasonable law and the ones I'm going to propose here that none of these school violence things would have happened? No. But we do know one thing for certain; we know there would have been fewer of them, and there would have been fewer kids killed in the last several years in America. We know that for certain. We know that."

-In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres." (53)

- About 6,000 children were caught with guns at school in 1997 and 1998. Out of these, 13 were federally prosecuted.

-Federal law 18USC Section 922 generally prohibits civilians from having guns in school zones.

-In the 1997 Pearl, Mississippi school massacre, sixteen year old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then proceeded to school where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. An assistant principal using a gun stopped Woodham. The assistant principal kept the gun locked in his car outside the school zone and ran to his car to obtain the gun. The assistant principal controlled Woodham for four and a half minutes before the police arrived.

-John Lott's crime study found that states which adopted concealed carry laws saw an 84% decrease in the number of multiple victim public shootings, resulting in a 90% decline in deaths arising from such instances.

Other Facts:

-1995 Fatal Accident Totals

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)

* For Children 14 and Under

Motor Vehicles 3,059
Drownings 1,024
Fires 883
Choking 213
Firearm 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls 127
Poisonings 80

-There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995.

- There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996

-In the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

Posted by: Conservatism at September 11, 2004 10:58 PM

d. jones,

I really wish that we had more "open minded" people reading our POSTs. There is enough information available right here for everyone to learn about the recklessness and failures of George W. Bush.

Guess what? Some readers don't believe that our soldiers ever committed crimes against the villagers in Vietnam? Maybe they'll change their minds after they see all the crimes we have committed against the people of Iraq. Especially at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Hey, but I don't blame our military enlisted men, I blame the higher ups in Washington. I especially blame George W. Bush and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

However, in my mind, I don't feel it's really Bush's fault, GW Bush just simply wasn't cut out to be the President of the most powerful country in the world. Can you believe that GW Bush still hasn't learned to accept responsibility for anything he does. I don't believe that he has ever read about the "THE BUCK STOPS HERE," rule that our Presidents always follow and live by.

It's plain for any OPEN MINDED INDIVIDUAL to see that many things have gone wrong for George W. Bush, e.g., not realizing the difference between fighting the Terrorists and attacking Iraq and Saddam, exaggerating and outright lying to the American people to convince Americans that we needed to invade and make war with Iraq, not being able to convince our usual European allies to join us in the mistaken and illegal fight against Iraq, not preparing for making peace in Iraq, not preparing our troops with adequate armor to fight, not preparing for the fall of Saddam Hussein and the criminal looting afterward, not preparing for the Abu Ghraib POW scandal, and the list goes on and on.

George W. Bush has gone wrong on so many things and he has yet to find the courage to fire anyone or even to apologize to the American people. Can you believe that?

I know, it's hard to believe. We really have no other option but to vote for John Kerry and John Edwards. What else are we to do? We have to change the direction that George W. bush is taking us and begin to make things right again.

For those who insist on "proof," let me just shout, "OPEN YOUR EYES AS WELL AS YOUR MIND. THE PROOF IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE!"

Your condensed POST follow:

"We are getting a lot of new information now. What's going on? It seems that people are finally coming out and talking reality. Lets all become informed citizens prior to the election."

Able, I knew it would happen.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:00 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 11:11 PM

SOUNDS TO ME LIKE D. JONES SHOULD SHUT UP AND DO SOME REAL RESEARCH.

Posted by: TIM DAVIS at September 12, 2004 10:01 AM

d.jokes,
I never said I wasn't for the assault weapons ban. I said I didn't know how this would stop criminals from using them. How is making it illegal going to stop a criminal? Clinton also said after signing the bill that he thinks it cost him 20 seats in the senate.

Why do you twist things so much? I don't give a cr** about assault weapons because I have no interest in owning one nor do I have any.

Just asking a question as to how this ban will keep me safe from a terrorist.

Posted by: Wayne at September 12, 2004 01:02 PM

Posted by: TIM DAVIS at September 12, 2004 10:01 AM

SOUNDS LIKE TIM DAVIS SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH PERIOD!!!

Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 09:33 PM

Posted by: TIM DAVIS at September 12, 2004 10:01 AM

SORRY, I FORGOT THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS TIM DAVIS. PROBABLY ANOTHER GW JR. SUPPORTER.

Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 09:34 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 11, 2004 11:11 PM

Abel, we only have a few more weeks to try and sway these DUMMY'S that GW JR has proved very incompetent as President. Did you read my post regarding my visit to Austin? An AD detailing GW JR's horrible militarty record funded by a Texas Kerry/Edwards group will soon start airing in the battleground states. It's about time that Texas started to funnel some money towards the Kerry/Edwards Campaign. I feel we have done an excellent job! When I fist started posting, Louis (Canton, OH) was the only Kerry/Edwards supporter on this site. The only blue states were the west coast, New York and a few others. Now Ohio, Michigan, Indiana???, Iowa, Minnesota and a few others are blue. Great Job. I know it's tiresome, BUT KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! They are nitpicking our post with no revelant point, at this point that means at least the dedicated GW JR. supporters are reading our post. God Bless.

D. JONES
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 10:08 PM

Just asking a question as to how this ban will keep me safe from a terrorist.

Posted by: Wayne at September 12, 2004 01:02 PM

Look "PAIN"-IN-THE-A**, I worry more about people like YOU than I do the terrorist. I haven't taken a stand on this issue. I did state that I don't feel as safe as I did when President Clinton signed this law. I am reading over some sites for numbers regarding how effective the law is in reducing crime. I really don't see how it has helped. Now go back in your closet and play with yourself. Take a couple of your GW JR's supporting buddies along with you.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 10:52 PM

d. jones,
Of course, I have been reading All your POSTs, although there are so many that I might have missed a few. They are good and make a lot of sense--no matter what the pro-Bushites think. You know they're good when the pro-Bushites insult and try to put them down. Honestly, I have almost given up on the pro-Bushites--based on what they say, they don't seem to have brains inside their heads. Teachers have this noble practice of thinking that most people have open minds and want to learn but, obviously, that's not always necessarily true. My hope now is that some open-minded individuals will sometimes visit and begin reading our POSTs. I must admit, however, that Progressives or Liberals always fall into the practice of "preaching to the choir," and we need to get away from that. For whatever reason, we usually make the mistake of simply "sticking together," and not trying to bring in or convince others to our way of thinking. I'm working at changing myself on that score but I have to confess that I have that weakness too. Again, keep up the good work and learn to be more tolerant of the pro-Bushites regardless of their lack of thinking abilities but don't make the mistake that they'll ever admit errors or mistakes. Hell, even George W. Bush wouldn't accept that he had ever made any mistakes--after he had made countless mis-judegments and miscalculations during the invasion of Iraq. He still continues telling us that attacking Afghanistan's Taliban and the attack and invasion of Sadam's Iraq were both about fighting Terrorism. That's why most Americans think he is a "dummy." It's not that Americans want to insult him or speak badly about him but what else can one expect? When people act dumb, aren't they usually called "dummies"? Can you imagine what is going to happen to this country if George W. Bush finally wins a national election? No, that couldn't happen--I don't believe the American people would make that terrible mistake.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, we only have a few more weeks to try and sway these DUMMY'S that GW JR has proved very incompetent as President. Did you read my post regarding my visit to Austin? An AD detailing GW JR's horrible militarty record funded by a Texas Kerry/Edwards group will soon start airing in the battleground states. It's about time that Texas started to funnel some money towards the Kerry/Edwards Campaign. I feel we have done an excellent job! When I fist started posting, Louis (Canton, OH) was the only Kerry/Edwards supporter on this site. The only blue states were the west coast, New York and a few others. Now Ohio, Michigan, Indiana???, Iowa, Minnesota and a few others are blue. Great Job. I know it's tiresome, BUT KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! They are nitpicking our post with no revelant point, at this point that means at least the dedicated GW JR. supporters are reading our post. God Bless.
D. JONES
Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004"
Posted by: d. jones at September 12, 2004 10:08 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 13, 2004 02:04 AM

BUSH 'TOOK COCAINE AT CAMP DAVID' Sep 6 2004

And wife Laura liked dope, says book

By Emma Pryer


GEORGE W Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David, a new book claims.

His wife Laura also allegedly tried cannabis in her youth.

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.

She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either."

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine".

Bush has admitted being an alcoholic but, asked during the 1999 election if he did drugs, he said: "I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes.

"I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honour to the office."

Later an aide clarified his remarks saying Bush hadn't taken illegal drugs in the past 25 years.

Kelley says that the Bush family covered up scandals because of their wealth and influence. She claims George W started drinking at school and continued at Yale university to overcome shyness.

Former student Torbery George says in the book: "Poor Georgie. He couldn't relate to women unless he was loaded."

Another says: "He went out of his way to act crude. It's amazing someone you held in such low esteem later became president."

His supporters have slammed the allegations as outrageous.

The White House said: "This book appears to be filled with the same trash discredited years ago."

What a SICK FAMILY!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 02:58 AM

Abel,

I'm calling you out... You have just taken the stance.. "Of course, I have been reading All your POSTs, although there are so many that I might have missed a few. They are good and make a lot of sense--no matter what the pro-Bushites think." Please tell us exactly what you think about the lies that I caught D. Jones up in... You have refused to comment on them thus far, and I, along with everyone else think that you should denounce his lies and otherwise misleading statements.. This is a very good opportunity to show the true character that you possess. I hear John Edwards and John Kerry calling on Bush to do certain things, each and everyday.... This is your chance to stand apart from the 'lies and lying liars who tell them'... Whether you agree with George Bush's policies, whether you are a democrat or republican,a leftist or a right wing extremist.... christian, mulism, jew... black, white, or asian... WE ALL CAN AGREE ON ONE THING! D. Jones has repeatedly lied to make his false points. He has been caught up in them, and has refused to respond. This is your chance Abel. You can seperate yourself from his lies... or you can lose all credibility. D. Jones has stooped soooo far that he has taken on "alter ego's"... KerrySupporter IS D. Jones, how do I know this? Because they both used the same email address... dsj**@*****link.net.... How low do you have to go to prove that you've 'swayed' a voter? Abel, you have been tested... I can only hope you pass this test, and rise above the lies of D. Jones.

And to you D. Jones....

I would like to say a few things about your drug charges. Its apparent that you have no heart whatsoever. I'm saying these things with the idea in mind that these charges are true. (However my personal belief is that they are not.) These charges that you make have hit me directly in the heart. What I mean is... I am EXTREMELY proud to say that I am a recovered drug addict. With the help of friends, family, and God.. I found my way of life to be less than acceptable and downright humiliating to those around me. After losing much of what I had in my life, and pushing those who care the most about me away... I took the courageous step of entering drug treatment and have since been a fully devoted N.A./A.A. member.. I am now a sponsor to a man who's life was flipped upside down by a disease called alcoholism. I can tell you first hand that your comments are heartless, desperate, and without understanding. There have been many people who have risen above problems like this in the past and led extremely successful lives. With comments of ridicule and stupidity, its apparent that you have NO dealings with the situation, and it would be MUCH better if you left it alone. You should be much more than ashamed for your slander. If you want to talk about election issues, go ahead and do it. I encourage it. But do NOT sit here and place yourself of anyone else above ANYBODY who has ever done drugs....

But in keeping with tradition... Here are some important facts to consider:

-At the "Rock the Vote" debate, the moderator inevitably asked,. "Which of you are ready to admit to having used marijuana in the past?" "Yes," said John Kerry, leading off. "Yes," said John Edwards .

-Vote to increase penalties on certain drug-related crimes. The amendment would specifically target the manufacturing or trafficking of amphetamines & methamphetamines and possession of powder cocaine, and set stronger penalties for dealing drugs. John Kerry's vote? NO! (Bill S.625 ; vote number 1999-360 on Nov 10, 1999)

-Vote to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding. John Kerry's vote? NO! (Bill HR 3540 ; vote number 1996-244 on Jul 25, 1996)

-President Bush on Jan. 20th 2004, proposed an additional $23 million for schools that want to use drug-testing as a tool to save children's lives.

-President Bush announced a 3-year, $600 million federal treatment initiative to help addicted Americans find needed treatment from the most effective programs, including faith-based and community-based organizations. This new investment will make treatment available to help 300,000 more Americans combat their addiction over the next 3 years, by providing vouchers to individuals identified as needing assistance. (august 29th 2003)

No one person is perfect. Although I would find it hard to believe that D. Jones would admit to having any flaws... Yet its obvious is first flaw is his support for John Kerry...

Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 04:25 PM

Some interesting poll numbers....

Bush Approval Ratings:
Approve: 52% Associated Press - Ipsos 09/09/04
Approve: 56% Time 09/09/04
Approve: 52% ABC - Washington Post 09/08/04

Heads-Up:
Bush 50% - Kerry 45% Newsweek 09/10/04
Bush 47% - Kerry 45% Zogby 09/09/04
Bush 50% - Kerry 47% Democracy Corps 09/09/04
Bush 54% - Kerry 42% Time 09/09/04
Bush 47% - Kerry 45% Fox News 09/08/04

With Nader:
Bush 49% - Kerry 43% Newsweek 09/10/04
Bush 46% - Kerry 42% Zogby 09/09/04
Bush 48% - Kerry 45% Democracy Corps 09/09/04
Bush 51% - Kerry 46% Associated Press - Ipsos 09/09/04
Bush 52% - Kerry 42% Time 09/09/04

Right Track/ Wrong track:
Right Track: 39% - Wrong Track: 53% Newsweek 09/10/04
Right Track: 46% - Wrong Track: 48% Zogby 09/09/04
Right Track: 44% - Wrong Track: 52% Associated Press - Ipsos 09/09/04

D. Jones asked why people thought we were on the wrong track.... The question should have been, why are people still picking Bush over Kerry? The answer is obvious.... Even if we're on the wrong track, Kerry isn't the answer.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 07:07 PM

C. Why do you hate Senator John Kerry so much?

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 07:35 PM

I dislike Kerry because he cant get his story straight..with all his talking we still dont know what he would do about terrorism. He is a socialist in my book ..He is a pacifist . and at this time we need a strong leader, not one who can only criticize everything wrong with our country. If you read his fathers history, you will find Richard kerry did the same thing, criticized America...never defending!! Also what he did to our military by condemming them after he returned is treason to me...How could anyone trust him? His only goal is not to America but to himself. An opportunist, social climber and a traitor. He loves Iran, China and the Communists. His family lives in France and are socialists. His wife loves Islam and supports CAIR(Council of American Islamic Relations) and other Islamic organizations. This is the wrong guy for the position of President of the United States.

Posted by: Terise at September 13, 2004 09:12 PM

D. Jones,

I don't hate john kerry. In fact I support him strongly for his vote to disarm saddam, his votes for NCLB, his vote for the patriot act, and his votes for NAFTA... And I support him even if he doesn't support his votes :-)

Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 09:52 PM

Posted by: Terise at September 13, 2004 09:12 PM

"I dislike Kerry because he cant get his story straight"

Thank you Conservatism, didn't know you changed your name.

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 10:04 PM

You know, I've listened to your intimidation tactics, your insults, your name calling, and it took one article today from some teenagers not even old enough to vote to have a much more intelligent perspective than most of you are capable of. I emailed them to congradulate them on their views chosen to be posted in the newspaper and wished them luck in life. They mirrored everything said on this post without the mud slinging. The Bush Supporter - True, the president's description of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction has not held up. But if you put Iraq aside, his security perfomance since Sept. 11 has been credible.... My problem is this: John Kerry has been in the United States Senate for nearly two decades. During that time, he has been able to build any voting he wishes. Sadly for him now, that record has been decisively soft on defense issues and opposed to adequate funding for America's security.....

Kerry Supporter - While Sen. John Kerry entrusted the president with the authority to go into iraq - based on flawed intelligence provided by the Bush administration - a Kerry administration would have prosecuted the war much differently. Mr. Kerry would have built a stronger coalition of allies and would not have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.... Domestically, the Bush administration's fiscal policies have damaged the U.S. economy and mortgaged our future...

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 A Change In The Future

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 10:26 PM

Posted by: Terise at September 13, 2004 09:12 PM

"I dislike Kerry because he cant get his story straight"

Thank you Conservatism, didn't know you changed your name.

Posted by: d. jones at September 13, 2004 10:04 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA!!! PLEASE EMAIL THE WEBMASTER AND FIND OUT THE IP ADDRESS THAT WAS POSTED FROM... I FREAKING BEG YOU TO DO IT!!!!! AND PLEASE POST IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!! BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 10:57 PM

Five 9/11 Widows to Endorse Kerry

September 13, 2004 09:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - Five outspoken Sept. 11 widows on Tuesday will publicly endorse John Kerry for president, The Associated Press has learned, throwing their weight behind the Democratic challenger in a heated campaign debate over who is best suited to defend the nation from another terrorist attack.

Some, including Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown, N.J., and Monica Gabrielle, of West Haven, Conn., also have agreed to make campaign appearances for the Democratic senator, campaign sources told the AP.

"We will be speaking from the heart, and speaking from our conscience," Breitweiser said Monday. She would not elaborate. Breitweiser is by far the most visible and outspoken of the Sept. 11 family advocates, and has been highly critical of the government's reform efforts to date.

The move highlights the widening political divide among the nearly 3,000 Sept. 11 families.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards.. GW and Dick are out to lunch

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 06:26 AM

Five 9/11 Widows to Endorse Kerry

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 06:26 AM

Do you find it unacceptable for George Bush to use 9/11 for political gain?

Posted by: Conservatism at September 14, 2004 12:40 PM

THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

www.Misleader.org
===============================

BUSH "LIVING IN THE PAST" ON MISSILE DEFENSE

President Bush this week said that "those who oppose ballistic missile
system[s] really don't understand the threats of the 21st century. They're
living in the past." He then claimed, "We're going to do what's necessary to
protect this country."[1] But a look at the President's push for an unproven
defense system aimed at preventing a Cold War-style attack while he
underfunds counterterrorism/homeland security shows that he is the one whose
policies are wholly outdated. It also shows that, in fact, he is not doing
everything necessary to protect America.

The missile defense system the President is pushing is designed to shoot
down Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) - a weapon experts agree
posed a far greater threat to America during the Cold War. By contrast,
today the threat of 9/11-style terrorism is far greater than that of an
ICBM. A missile defense system does nothing to address that kind of
terrorism. Additionally, nonpartisan congressional auditors this year found
that the missile defense system was wholly unproven.[2]

Despite these facts, the President is pushing to spend billions on the
system, while cutting funding for more pressing national security programs.
Specifically, he is pushing a massive 9% cut to the Nunn-Lugar program[3] -
the government's central effort to protect loose nuclear material and
prevent that material from getting into the hands of terrorists on the
international black market. He has also drastically underfunded basic
homeland security programs, including grants to first responders.[4]

To illustrate just how out of touch the President has been on national
security issues, consider the summer before 9/11: As the White House
received warnings of an imminent terrorist (not ICBM) attack, the Bush
administration threatened to veto an urgent request to shift $800 million
from missile defense into critical counter-terrorism programs.[5]

Sources:

1. "President's Remarks in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania ," The White House,
8/17/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1141560&l=51069.
2. "Missile defense called unproven," San Francisco Chronicle, 4/24/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1141560&l=51070.
3. "Fact Sheet: GOP Budget and Homeland Security," HouseDemocrats.gov,
03/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1141560&l=51071.
4. "The Bush Record: Homeland Insecurity," Democrats.org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1141560&l=51072.
5. "What Went Wrong.," Newsweek, 05/27/02, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1141560&l=51073.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 14, 2004 12:57 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA!!! PLEASE EMAIL THE WEBMASTER AND FIND OUT THE IP ADDRESS THAT WAS POSTED FROM... I FREAKING BEG YOU TO DO IT!!!!! AND PLEASE POST IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!! BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 10:57 PM

Hehe! Conservatism, put the drugs down! Please. You and Wayne are hopping around the posts like you are on Cocaine. Like President, Like Supporter. :-)

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 14, 2004 01:06 PM

d.,

Five out of how many? Sure there is quite a few people who lost people that don't like BUSH. I bet you they did not like him before 9/11, this just gives them more excuses to dislike him even more.

God bless our Troops.
God bless America.
God bless GWB.
God bless you d.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 14, 2004 01:49 PM

Conservatism,

What are you talking about? I don't agree with you at all. The lies that I see are all coming from you guys who are pro-Bushites. Like Harry Truman once said--words meaning, "I never lie, If the truth hurts, so be it." It's the Republicans who are known to hate the truth. How else can you explain why never before in the history of our country has an Administration been so secret. Why is it so afraid of the Ameican people? My reason for disliking George W. Bush so much is that he has lied to the American people in so many different ways. Read the POSTs in this BLOG if you have forgotten GW Bush's countless lies. He had better hope that the American people still haven't caught on because if they do, George W. Bush is history. I say, "If the American people vote for George W. Bush--they'll get exactly what they deserve!"

Your condensed POST follows:

"Abel, I'm calling you out... You have just taken the stance.. "Of course, I have been reading All your POSTs, although there are so many that I might have missed a few. They are good and make a lot of sense--no matter what the pro-Bushites think." Please tell us exactly what you think about the lies that I caught D. Jones up in... You have refused to comment on them thus far, and I, along with everyone else think that you should denounce his lies and otherwise misleading statements.. This is a very good opportunity to show the true character that you possess. I hear John Edwards and John Kerry calling on Bush to do certain things, each and everyday.... This is your chance to stand apart from the 'lies and lying liars who tell them'... Whether you agree with George Bush's policies, whether you are a democrat or republican,a leftist or a right wing extremist.... christian, mulism, jew... black, white, or asian... WE ALL CAN AGREE ON ONE THING! D. Jones has repeatedly lied to make his false points. He has been caught up in them, and has refused to respond. This is your chance Abel. You can seperate yourself from his lies... or you can lose all credibility. D. Jones has stooped soooo far that he has taken on "alter ego's"... KerrySupporter IS D. Jones, how do I know this? Because they both used the same email address... dsj**@*****link.net.... How low do you have to go to prove that you've 'swayed' a voter? Abel, you have been tested... I can only hope you pass this test, and rise above the lies of D. Jones..."
Posted by: Conservatism at September 13, 2004 04:25 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 14, 2004 02:01 PM

David,

I agree! God bless everyone and everything. We are incredibly lucky to be under the leadership of George W. Bush..... D. Jones, we're all praying for you. I don't ask that you change your mind and vote for Bush. I ask that you quit with your lies and name calling. It serves no purpose...

Vote Bush/Cheney 2004!

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 14, 2004 02:07 PM

Conservatism,
Why do you waste your time on these nuts? Able refuses to take a stand on anything except the uniion and that Bush has lied. When asked what he lied about with proof, Able states democratic talking points.

There is one liberal on this site worht debating, his name is Flaming Liberal and he is not old enough to vote, but is well thought out and very intelligent. He posts on the free Bush Kerry political cartoon blog.

Able and d.jones are two prime examples of how the left is completely nuts and why Kerry is losing today and will lose in November. Attitudes like theirs are the reason people hate politics. They are unknowingly doing in Kerry's chance of any kind of real campaign. That and the fact Kerry has no real stance on any one issue.

Once d.jones stated that if Kerry wins he will buy oil from non-opec countries like Canada. After showing him we already buy oil from non-opec countries, Canada being one of out top oil impoters, d.jones refused to talk about the subject again. Like I said they are both NUTS!

Well, at least it's fun to watch them squirm, destroy the english language and get mad when proven wrong or liars.

I enjoy your posts so keep up the good work.

Posted by: Wayne at September 14, 2004 07:36 PM

"Conservatism,

What are you talking about? I don't agree with you at all."

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 14, 2004 02:01 PM

Abel,

This is what I'm talking about. You say you do not agree with me at all, so here once again are some of the lies he's told, and the truths he chose to abandon in the process. Let me know which ones you disagree with and why. Thanks!

1)"Bush inherited a $335 billion surplus from President Clinton. Within three years, he went to a record deficit of $542 billion. That was a swing of $877 billion."

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:38 PM

The truth is that Bush inherited an 86 billion surplus... and the deficit is not 542 billion, its 422 billion.... A swing of 369 billion less than he quoted. Is that a lie?

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

2)"Do you think our Top Military Official's and Secretary Of State (Third in line of the Presidency) is that dumb?"

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:49 AM

The truth is, Secretary Powell is 5th in line for the presidency... Dennis Hastert is 3rd in line. Did D. Jones lie?

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

3)"Clinton was not impeached."

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:45 AM

The truth is, Clinton WAS impeached. Did D. Jones lie?

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

4)"I know my history."

Posted by: d. jones at August 18, 2004 07:08 PM

The truth is, D. Jones fabricates what history he claims he knows. For more info on this, see lies 1,2,3,5,ect...D. Jones LIED!!!

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

5)"Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch!"

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM

The truth is that we were attacked under Clintons watch. Below are a few:

-1993: In February, a van loaded with 1,500 pounds of explosives damages the World Trade Center. Ali Mohamed, an Egyptian Army major who had spent time in the US special forces and fighting with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, tells US intelligence that bin Laden was involved in supporting the bombers.
-In October, a furious street battle in Mogadishu leaves 18 US Army Rangers dead and forces the US to abandon its intervention in Somalia. This (confirming the effects of the 1983 Beirut bombing) convinces many Islamic radicals that the US will pull out of any troubled region if enough casualties can be inflicted. Islamic radicals become convinced that the US has no stomach for a fight. Osama bin Laden will later claim that many of those who fought in the Mogadishu battle were graduates of his training schools and believers in his goal of expelling the US from Islamic countries.
-In August,1998, bin Laden orchestrates the bomb attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Clinton signs a "Lethal Finding," allowing the CIA to assassinate him, as he is technically not a "leader of a foreign nation" protected by a 1975 executive order. Two years of attempts fail. Ali Mohamed, the former Egyptian Army major, is involved in planning the attacks; arrested, he confirms bin Laden's role and is convicted by a US court in 1999.
-2000: In October, an attack orchestrated by Al Qaeda damages the destroyer USS Cole, nearly sinking her. The attack was organized by Tawfiq "Khallad" bin Atash, who is thought to have been the tactical leader of the 11 Sept 2001 attacks.
-1996: In June, terrorists set off a massive truck bomb at the Khobar Towers military housing complex in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis execute the suspects before allowing the FBI to interrogate them. At the time, many theorize that the Saudis are covering up for Iranians (seeking to avoid a regional crisis), but this attack will later be thought to have its roots in the Al Qaeda network.

Did D. Jones lie??
---------------------------------------------

6)"After Bush learned of the 911 disaster he jumped in Air Force One flew around for some time then headed for Arizona"

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM

The truth is that Bush went to Louisiana, then to Nebraska, and then on to Washington DC. What did John Kerry do immediately after the attacks? He criticized Bush for his 'inaction for 7 minutes', so lets give John Kerry a chance to explain what HE did directly after the attacks..."I was in the Capitol. We’d just had a meeting – we’d just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle’s office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon." (Note: The time between the attacks at the WTC and the Pentagon --- 40 minutes! John Kerry sat at a table, 'unable to think'.. Good leadership Mr. Kerry!) Did D. Jones lie??
-----------------------------------------------

7)"He also fabricated a lie about Air Force One being threatened to excuse himself for looking like the Coward he really is."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM

The truth is that Cheney, not Bush recieved credible information about an attack on Air Force One... Did D. Jones lie?
-----------------------------------------------
8)"Kerry didn't leave, he recieved an honorable discharge and was sent home. "

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:39 AM

The truth is that John Kerry didn't recieve an honorable discharge while in Vietnam. He requested discharge and was denied. His own website doesn't he say he was discharged.. Check your facts, the real date of discharge was on Feb. 6th, 1978. Did D. Jones lie??
-----------------------------------------------
9)"...(Kerry)is not claiming he is doing what Jesus wants. That is a huge insult to any Christian."

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 04:50 PM

The truth is, I'm offended by this. I'm a devout Christian. If you have ever spent time in study, reading the Good Book, you'd know that theres SEVERAL references to the opposite of what you said. Please read and try to understand:
-2nd Corinthians 10:5 tells us to bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."
-Phillipians 2:5 tells us to "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."
-John tells us in 1st John 2:6 to "walk just as HE (christ) walked."
-Peter tells us in 1st Peter 2:21 that "Christ.. left us an example, that you should follow his steps."
-The apostle Paul confirms this principle in I Corinthians 4:16, where he strongly states, "Therefore I urge you, imitate me."
-In I Corinthians 11:1, he repeats, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." Who's lying, D. Jones or Jesus?
-----------------------------------------------
10) If Bush is supported at the ballot box, you are in agreement with the following: It's ok to support outsourcing of American Jobs (Remember, it's GOOD for our economy the prez says)

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 12:52 PM

The truth is, you are partly right. However you failed to mention that John Kerry supports 'outsourcing' and 'understands it'. Below are a few of his comments and some facts on it.

-"Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that."
-Here is a website detailing some of the donations he's accepted from the "benedict arnolds" he's fighting again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A6884-2004Feb25¬Found=true

Did D. Jones lie??
------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Conservatism at September 14, 2004 09:44 PM

Posted by: Conservatism at September 14, 2004 09:44 PM

Conservatism, your sick attempt to mock my posting by only including the part that benefits your posts will not work. AND PLEASE LET'S NOT GET INTO THE RELIGION THING. GW JR is far from anything I have read about the life of Jesus Christ.

Number 1. Jesus didn't lye! End of Story!

DOES Conservatism lie? Yes he DOES, like a RIGHT WING RUG!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 15, 2004 04:23 PM

"Conservatism, your sick attempt to mock my posting by only including the part that benefits your posts will not work."

Posted by: d. jones at September 15, 2004 04:23 PM

D. Jones,

Here's your chance...

Did you post the following? Yes or no? Its a simple question... not an essay.. So please provide us with a simple answer.. Did you, or did you not say these things? I have a good feeling that you'll dodge this question once again. But hey, at least your lies are on the record 1 more time!!

1)"Bush inherited a $335 billion surplus from President Clinton. Within three years, he went to a record deficit of $542 billion. That was a swing of $877 billion."

Posted by: d. jones at August 16, 2004 01:38 PM
------------------------------------------------
2)"Do you think our Top Military Official's and Secretary Of State (Third in line of the Presidency) is that dumb?"

Posted by: d. jones at August 21, 2004 04:49 AM
------------------------------------------------
3)"Clinton was not impeached."

Posted by: d. jones at August 17, 2004 02:45 AM
------------------------------------------------
4)"Look, "Pain"-In-The-A** Bin Laden never attacked under Clintons Watch!"

Posted by: d. jones at September 4, 2004 06:04 PM
------------------------------------------------
5)"After Bush learned of the 911 disaster he jumped in Air Force One flew around for some time then headed for Arizona"

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM
------------------------------------------------
6)"He also fabricated a lie about Air Force One being threatened to excuse himself for looking like the Coward he really is."

Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM
------------------------------------------------
7)"Kerry didn't leave, he recieved an honorable discharge and was sent home. "

Posted by: d. jones at September 10, 2004 01:39 AM
------------------------------------------------
8)"...(Kerry)is not claiming he is doing what Jesus wants. That is a huge insult to any Christian."

Posted by: d. jones at September 9, 2004 04:50 PM
------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Conservatism at September 15, 2004 09:30 PM

"Conservatism,

What are you talking about? I don't agree with you at all."

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 14, 2004 02:01 PM

Abel,

THAT MORON IS GONE! He admitted to past drug abuse. Please leave him alone, he is still in DENIAL! Your post are much to strong for him to comprehend. Now, If you have some COCAINE! He as well as GW JR will come to you with huge buldging eyes! 0-0

Thanks Abel, GREAT JOB! You are a true Warrior for the truth! The PRO-BOO!-SHITES Pi** me off and bore me, but you never seem to get tired! God Bless!!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 02:41 AM

d.jones and Able,
I love the sotries that you guys spin. They make me laugh. If I din't know better, I would think this was a 3rd world country.

Have a good day and don't drink the water, I mean kool-aid.

Posted by: Wayne at September 16, 2004 03:49 PM

Conservatism,
Somebody corrected me regarding a Truman quote in one of my POST to you. What really happened was that people kept yelling "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" when Truman was out campaigning against GOP Thomas E. Dewey and Truman would respond with, "I don't give 'em Hell, I tell the truth and they think it's Hell."
My regards to you,

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 16, 2004 06:39 PM

Which candidate is of worse character? Kerry
Who will not protect us better from terrorism? Kerry
Whose plan for the economy isn't better? Kerry

Posted by: Niko at September 16, 2004 06:48 PM

Conservatism,
Realize that a fact is a fact is a fact. Simply because someone gives the wrong numbers doesn't change make it not be a fact. It's still a fact. Why? Simply because you can (as you did) look it up and come up with the correct numbers. You can't do that with opinions. Compare with someone giving the opinion that George W. Bush is a wise man. That's a matter of opinion--that's not a fact and nobody can ever turn it into one. Don't think I'm just picking on George W. Bush, the name could be changed to John Kerry and the same thing would apply. Actually the same thing would apply even if the name of Albert Einstein were substituted into the statement, it would still be a matter of opinion.

Your condensed POST follows:

"...Example: 6) After Bush learned of the 911 disaster he jumped in Air Force One flew around for some time then headed for Arizona"
Posted by: d. jones at August 6, 2004 12:01 AM
The truth is that Bush went to Louisiana, then to Nebraska, and then on to Washington DC..."

Unless I cared for some reason regarding the correct numbers, these facts aren't anything that I would consider worthy of writing about in a POST. What could've happened is that both sets of numbers could've been correct at different points in time.

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 16, 2004 07:06 PM

"THAT MORON IS GONE! He admitted to past drug abuse. Please leave him alone, he is still in DENIAL! Your post are much to strong for him to comprehend. Now, If you have some COCAINE! He as well as GW JR will come to you with huge buldging eyes!"

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 02:41 AM

To the minority, the supporters of Kerry:

Even after the apology by D. Jones, on the another forum, I can not find it in me to forgive him for such statements. Abel, JM, and other liberals... This has gone far enough! You all have shown your true colors with your refusal to denounce such statements. You all should be ashamed of yourselves!!! But I, along with everyone else, know that you could not ashamed.. because this is exactly what the Democratic Party represents. And if you stood up against such degrading comments, you'd be standing up against everything you believe in... So, with that being said.. I ask that you NOT denounce his statements. Carry on, because everytime I visit this website, I notice that the polls are swaying more and more towards George W. Bush. D. Jones proclaims that he's proud of his accomplishments on this website. I'm extremely proud of his accomplishments myself. Since I joined this website on July 17th, I have seen the polls taken from tied at 45.3% for both, to todays 49.9% for Bush and 45.7% for Kerry. He has created 4.6% more support for Bush. I thank D. Jones for his accomplishments. We all should.

D. Jones,

You failed to mention that along with my past drug abuse, John Kerry and John Edwards have admitted to doing the same. You failed to mention that Clinton 'didn't inhale'. You failed to mention that I changed my life around and recieved the Lord into it. You failed to mention that I ADMITTED to my drug abuse, and then you LIED by saying I was in denial. You failed to mention how much of my life is dedicated to sponsoring other N.A./A.A. members, and supporting them until their addictions are conquered. You failed to mention how I'm an honorable speaker at many meetings across the United States. But thats ok that you failed to mention it all, because like I've posted previously.. Most would find it hard to believe you anyways...

Posted by: Conservatism at September 16, 2004 07:17 PM

I thought you had sunk about as low as you could, D. But that was really low! I know several recovering drug-addicts. They do not deserve nor need your scorn or ridicule. Didn't your mama ever teach you to walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him? Just cause you disagree with his politics doesn't mean you need to attack him personally!
I read all the posts with great interest! Abel get's a little long-winded for me, with all the union stuff, I think JM is courteous and has thought out his posts. Toni needs a reality check of what it means to be a woman in the Muslim countries! Navy vet is polite and well-mannered for the most part. Jim Rodkey posts extremely well thought out and informed posts. Yours would be the same if you'd knock off calling everyone that disagrees with you names and if you would stop mocking President Bush. and refering to Dick Cheneys heart condition as if it's a political issue. That makes me feel kind of sick! Disagree if you choose, that's your right, but you don't need to ridicule and insult everyone that you disagree with. Unless it's your purpose to stir everyone up and engage in name calling and bashing? I would like to hear what you have to say, but not if all it is is insults!
Good evening to all!

Posted by: kathy at September 16, 2004 08:21 PM

Posted by: kathy at September 16, 2004 08:21 PM

Kathy, I apologized to Conservatism. And you are absolutely correct! Please tell that to Navy Vet and Wayne and a few other GW JR republican supporters! I really try and stay on politics, but they drag me away with insults and demands. I remember this whole thing started about a month ago when one of them told me to SHUT UP! I told them don't mess with me I am suffering from post war on terrorism syndrome and having flash backs to the 2000 election!

I hope this redeems myself in an honest attempt to do better. :-)

For some, the 2004 Election uncovered political recollections of the Vietnam War and the protests led by the flower power people, that showed how American citizens can help change the course of history, President John F. Kennedy, and the assignation that angered and sadden America for the loss of our elected royalty, The Civil Rights Movement, and the assignation of Dr. Martin Luther King that changed the way Americans look at themselves as well as each other, and last, but certainly not least, the shock felt by Americas as the steel structured Twin Towers in New York City collapsed in front of our very eyes caused by radical Middle Eastern insurgents who hatred toward America was so intense they sacrificed their own lives to prove that very point.

I don’t consider myself as a political activist; however, one has to deeply speculate why and how America got to the current condition of such turmoil. In between the conditions of our chaotic past America lifted from despair and remained full of hope and happiness.

This past 2000 American election prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, contained a silent national war that went by many almost unnoticed. This age has brought about a new weapon that brings new meaning to the adage, “The Pen Is Mightier than the Sword”. Those weapons are Computer Programmed Devices. American’s can now launch painful blows with the strike of a key, a touch on a screen or the touch of a preprogrammed button. We now have unlimited access to fellow American citizen information to generate any prejudice we choose at our fingertips.

This new weapon is very apparent in the forthcoming American 2004 elections as they were in the much publicized 2000 election and the recount vote. The candidates have Internet Web Sites www.georgebush.com www.johnkerry.com, BLOGS, and E-mail for comments and shared information. We can instantly view how much money our neighbor sent to their favorite presidential campaign by zip code, which is FEC public information
www.opensecrets.org/states/index.asp.

States are using electronic voting machines to tabulate votes. These preprogrammed machines are much more at risk of fraud than earlier voting methods. The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) legislation authorized $3.8B in federal spending, with a substantial portion of these funds allocated to US states and territories for the purpose of replacing their punch card and lever voting machines and making voting systems accessible to the disabled. Some problems with the FEC standard include the lack of a requirement that vote tallies be independently auditable, the allowance of trade-secret code that may not be able to be inspected should an election contest question the proper functionality of a voting system, and the use of commercial software products in balloting and tabulation systems without any inspection at all.

Like a restless night with frightening images flashing through our mind, as a result of watching the most gruesome horror movie. The 2004 election has woken the ghosts of many minds with past political memories purposely buried deep in our brains to continue long, healthy, and prosperous lives for our future without the disgust and apprehension of the past, as well those individuals whom made those mistakes. Like the invention of the Atomic Bomb, the new weapon, Computer Programmed Devices in certain areas should require the utmost security and protection for Americans before we use them. We should be able to reserve certain privacy and public rights while America moves forward to once again lift ourselves from despair, and remain full of hope for a brighter future without reservation.

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 16, 2004 10:56 PM

Kathy,

Let me explain something to you. I have also apologized to Jim, but the rest haven’t given me a reason to apologize. What we are being forced to listen to on this post is the advice from a lot of small war veterans and a couple from Vietnam that forgot the war is over, and even some very young people. I can tell that from their posts. I have made my peace with all veterans in an earlier post as well as those whom have war children currently in the military; however, that doesn’t make what they are attempting to force in our minds to be the truth. I have never been to a war, can’t be intimidated, I have a college education, flown and lived all over this Country and parts of the world. I can look at the world objectively were they don’t have the ability to. With them, it’s WAR, WAR, WAR! all the time. I know the type. I grew up around Vietnam Veterans in Denver Colorado at Lowery Air Force Base in the 70’s, and NO. I didn’t see GW JR. there!! Right now, who cares about the American Economy, Civil Right’s, Health Care? They are so blinded by their war beliefs they don’t realize that there are Black, Hispanic, Women, Gay, and Straight in this war let alone America as a whole. Let me ask you a question? Have you ever watched Dr. Phil? He talks about tough love. That’s the way you have to talk to some of these people at times in order to save them from their own self destruction. You can’t reason with this type of person. Even the White and Black Hate Supremacy Groups aren’t this bad. The U.S. PRESIDENCY WAS STOLEN IN 2000, and if we are not careful, technology will allow it to be stolen again. Let’s talk about the truth. GW JR is too certain that he will win again in 2004, just as he was certain about PA. And FL in 2000, why? In January 2004 under the Current GW JR Administration the (NAVA) act, in reference to electronic voting machines (that allowed GW JR to alter 2000 election results) has released Government funds to convert all voting machines to electronic, and don’t require completion until 2006. You can still get the Government Money Now! These low intelligent voting machines are run by companies like Diebold, (Please search and read the company statements if you don’t believe me), that cater to Republicans and endorse GW JR. In recent past, the Diebold executives have admitted to being biased towards the Republican Party and vowed to deliver such states as Ohio in upcoming elections. The FEC has endorsed security measures, but all have not been implemented. These include very important measures, like independent audit authority on these machines, as well as alteration Codes to access these devices that are solely maintained by the machine owners i.e. Diebold. After American and FBI pressure, Diebold (for one) has barred its employees from all voting machines expect to vote in the 2004 election. To put it lightly, THE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES BEING FORCED ON AMERICANS, BY AN GOVERNMENT ACT CALLED (NAVA), ENDORSED BY GEORGE W. BUSH, AND IMPLEMENTED IN JANUARY 2004, THAT ALSO GUARANTEES FREE STATE FUNDS FOR VOTING EQUIPMENT CONVERSION, ARE FAULTY, EASILY ACCESIBLE ONLY BY COMPANY OWNERS AND EXECUTIVES, AND ARE NOT SECURE, THE BOARD TO SECURE THESE MACHINES ARE APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH AND NOT EVEN SELECTED UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF 2004! IN ADDITION, STATES CAN STILL GET THESE FREE GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND DON’T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY FEC RULES OR LAWS UNTIL 2006. THE REPUBLICAN CONVIENCE OF THIS ALL IS THAT 9 (NINE) STATES HAVE APPLIED AND RECEIVED THE FUNDS AS OUTLINED BY THE ACT BUT HAVE ASKED FOR EXTENSIONS PAST 2004 ON COMPLETING SECURITY MEASURES! THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO ME! PUSH FOR PAPER! GW JR only with the help of his corporate buddy’s, (other than that he is still a Dummy for cheating) may not be The Dummy, I claim him to be. In addition, I believe this War is the largest American blunder in History. I feel the GW JR Administration took advantage of American’s at a time when we were most vulnerable, during 911. Yes, go after the terrorist that reside in over 90 countries with our latest advances in Science and Technology, but launch a full scale attack against Iraq?? Why?? I have posted several times before that Iraq was not an immediate threat to the U.S. We pretty much had Sadaam surrounded. Osama Bin Laden, the true brains behind 911, and his followers are, and still remain at large. In the meantime American jobs were lost due to this war and outsourcing our technical support, for corporate tax breaks, cheap wages, and no healthcare costs. The American Healthcare system as a whole is suffering terribly. America is divided between the rich and the poor. Low income housing and welfare is suffering, and ethnic kids are being put on the streets, with the legal use of automatic weapons I might add. The Education System is going broke. Our Women youth today have to be minority, with a child, and pregnant, and on welfare just to get government education grant to go to college! How do you think this affects the single working parent with two children? The low and middle class young Men have only the volunteer military service for any type of education or training. Everything now is Government, government, government. Whether you believe it or not America is going, if not already gone broke! Who can pay for natural catastrophes? Where is the money coming from to benefit the all homeless in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana as a result of constant hurricanes? GW JR firmly believes that any State disaster is a State problem and should not involve Government. I don’t care how much he lies to the America people, or puts up this Election time front to have Government compassion for all American’s. What I want America to know, is that GW JR really doesn’t care about any Inner City Gun Problem, Power Problem, Hurricane, Earthquake, Flood, or Tornado in your State unless it benefits him or his election. Please remember GW JR is not for any Government Spending of our tax dollars, unless it involves WAR, Oil, and Huge Corporations that fund his campaign. We should be very grateful. SENATOR JOHN KERRY A WEALTHY DECORATED VIETNAM VETERAN HERO didn’t have to apply for this job. He could live comfortably in his Mansions, take his wealthy Tax Breaks, and laugh at us all! He instead volunteered for the highest office in the land. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Take heed, GOD doesn’t keep giving us chances if we choose the live and be a part of our own self destruction.

Thank you, and God Bless America!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004 We Want A Different Direction For America!

Posted by: d. jones at September 17, 2004 02:40 AM

d.jones,
If you are apologizing, I accept. And in return, I too apologize for any thing I have said that is incorrect. I suggest we start fresh and stick to the topic at hand.

Let's start by trying to figure out what Senator Kerry has done for America while in the Senate. Can you provide me with un-biased facts on this subject?

Thank you in advance.

Posted by: Wayne at September 17, 2004 04:30 PM

The New York Times > AP > National > More Documents on Bush's Service Are Released

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Guard-Records.html

September 17, 2004
More Documents on Bush's Service Are Released
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:00 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A packet of Texas Air National Guard records released Friday showed that the commanding officer of President Bush's basic training unit took a special interest in him as a trainee and wrote to his father to praise him. Democrats called that proof of preferential treatment.

Bush's father, then a congressman from Texas, said in reply to the commander, ``That a major general in the Air Force would take interest in a brand new Air Force trainee made a big impression on me.''

Bush went on to say that his son ``will be a gung ho member'' of the Air Force and that Air Force instructors had ``helped awaken the very best instincts in my son.''

The letter and other material were the latest in a stream of documents released about Bush's service three decades ago during the Vietnam War, when Bush's critics say he got preferential treatment as the son of a congressman and U.N. ambassador. Critics have also questioned why Bush skipped a required medical examination in 1972 and failed to show up for drills during a six-month period that year.

The Pentagon uncovered the documents during a search in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press seeking all of Bush's records from the Texas Air National Guard. A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Defense Department to hand over all newly discovered Bush records to the AP by next Friday.

The AP lawsuit also led to the release earlier this month of previously undisclosed flight logs for the years Bush spent as a trainee and pilot, mostly on the F-102A fighter.

The White House has said repeatedly that all of Bush's Guard records have been disclosed, only to be embarrassed when new documents have turned up. The long-running story took an unusual turn when CBS uncovered documents purportedly showing that Bush refused orders to take a physical examination in 1972 -- but then the authenticity of the documents came under doubt.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the documents were more proof that Bush fulfilled his military obligations. ``It also demonstrates we are fulfilling the president's request to release all the documents regarding his military service,'' he said.

The Democratic National Committee said releasing the documents on a Friday evening indicated Bush had something to hide.

``If the president was truly proud of his service he wouldn't be releasing these documents on a Friday night,'' DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement. ``These documents demonstrate yet again that George Bush was a fortunate son who received special consideration unavailable to the average American.''

In addition to the letter from Bush's father, the latest documents contain news releases that the Texas Air National Guard sent to Houston newspapers in 1970 about young Bush, then a second lieutenant and new pilot. ``George Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed,'' the news release said. ``Oh, he gets high, all right, but not from narcotics.''

Three decades later, a new book by Kitty Kelley has alleged that Bush used cocaine while he was a student at Yale University and later at Camp David while his father was president.

The White House has denounced Kelley's book, ``The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty,'' and denied the charges.

The new packet of documents also contained two single-page orders documenting Bush's guard training in May and June of 1973 after he returned from Alabama. Those documents note that Bush was not allowed to fly. Bush lost his flying status in August 1972 because he failed to take a required medical exam.

The Texas training came after Bush spent more than a year away from his unit. Bush has said he left Texas to work on the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend. Bush was authorized to train with an Alabama Air National Guard unit in September, October and November 1972. The one record directly showing Bush appeared at the Alabama unit is a record of a January 1973 dental exam. A history of the Alabama guard unit does not mention Bush but does mention the unit received brand-new dental equipment in late 1972.

The letter written by Bush's father, former President Bush, was addressed to Maj. Gen. G.B. Greene Jr., commander of the training center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, where Bush took his basic training. The file does not contain Greene's letter to Bush's father, but shows the letter his father wrote back.

``I was surprised and very, very pleased to receive your letter of Aug. 27th,'' Bush wrote, adding that he was impressed that a senior officer would take interest in a new trainee.

``Naturally, as a father I was pleased to read your comments about George,'' Bush wrote. ``He is anxiously looking forward to going to flight school and with parental pride, I do have the feeling that he will be a gung ho member of the U.S. Air Force. I think that he will make a good pilot as well.''

The letter went on to say that young Bush, on his first trip back home, was full of enthusiasm and kept the family up talking about his first instructor, Sgt. Henry Onacki, who had impressed Bush with his love of country and dedication to the Air Force.

``In this day and age when it has become a little bit fashionable to be critical of the military, I was delighted to see him return to our house with a real pride in the service and with a great respect for the leaders that he had encountered at Lackland.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Guard-Records.html

The New York Times > AP > National > More Documents on Bush's Service Are Released

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 17, 2004 08:33 PM

Posted by: Wayne at September 17, 2004 04:30 PM

d.jones,
If you are apologizing, I accept

Wayne, I would just as soon go DRUNK DRIVING AND RACIAL BASHING WITH GW JR! Please don't get carried away. LOL :-)

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 18, 2004 10:02 AM

I’m a little confused. You serve only 4 months in Vietnam; receive a paper cut on your ass and others then run like hell back home. My dad was shot twice with ak-rounds spent 4 months twice in Germany and went back each time. Then you come home and call all your fellow vets, baby killers, torturers, mass murders and everything else under the sun, throw your medal, ribbons what ever you want to call them, meet with the enemy, my god how many people you know would go out of their way and fly all the way to Paris! Then write a book, which basically mocks every vet who has ever served this country. Then 30 years latter we should all believe what a great hero and proud solider you were. ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT!

Posted by: justanamerican at September 18, 2004 10:18 AM

d. jones

Now you are stretching it. You are accusing President Bush of racial bashing? Please provide facts to back up this accusation.

Wayne - d. jones is incapable of apologizing - just like his/her hero Kerry.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 18, 2004 10:25 PM

justanamerican,
Very Good! Now what can you tell us about George W. Bush, a man who used his family influence to join the National Guard for the purpose of avoiding the draft? Compare him to John Kerry, a man who did two tours of duty in Vietnam and volunteered for combat duty and to be placed in a dangerous zone. John Kerry never once "disappeared" from duty as did George W. Bush who disappeared even from the safe duty in the National Guard where he failed to take a scheduled physical examination that was a requirement to continue in his program. Say what you will but John Kerry always did the honorable thing as he did when he became a "whistle blower" and reported the terrible atrocities some members of the US military were committing against men, women and children in the Vietnamese villages. His action was the brave and honorable thing to do as were the more recent actions of whistle blowers in Iraq concerning the Abu Graib POW scandal. I repeat, we are indeed fortunate to have military officers and men who are brave and honorable like John Kerry and the whistle blowers who reported the Iraq POW scandal. Yes, I agree, you must be confused if you think otherwise.

Your condensed POST follows:

"I’m a little confused. You serve only 4 months in Vietnam; receive a paper cut on your ass and others then run like hell back home. My dad was shot twice with ak-rounds spent 4 months twice in Germany and went back each time. Then you come home and call all your fellow vets, baby killers, torturers, mass murders and everything else under the sun, throw your medal, ribbons what ever you want to call them, meet with the enemy, my god how many people you know would go out of their way and fly all the way to Paris! Then write a book, which basically mocks every vet who has ever served this country. Then 30 years latter we should all believe what a great hero and proud solider you were. ARE YOU A FREAKING IDIOT!"
Posted by: justanamerican at September 18, 2004 10:18 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 10:42 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan
By Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger
The Guardian U.K.

Thursday 16 September 2004

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr. Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr. Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.

Mr. Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.

His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.

They also come as Mr. Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr. Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr. Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr. Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr. Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

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

Iraq War Illegal, Says Annan
BBC

Thursday 16 December 2004

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

And he feared elections planned for January would not go ahead in Iraq unless security considerably improved.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr. Annan said that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said in an interview with the BBC World Service.

'On Track'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Mr. Annan said the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.

He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".

In response, a UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

She also said there was a full commitment to holding elections in January, with election and political party laws already passed and an independent electoral commission established.

"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.

Earlier on Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "People are pretty confident that they can take place if everybody puts in the required effort and arrangements into it."

His comments came a day after a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.

At the beginning of the week, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.

"If, for any reason, 300,000 people cannot vote because terrorists decide so - and this is imposing a very big if - then frankly 300,000 people is not going to alter 25 million people voting," he told The Times and Guardian newspapers.

"There are problems, yes. But to the point that we can't conduct an election? I don't think so."

Mr. Annan also spoke of the Middle East road map to peace during his BBC interview, admitting it was in "deep, deep distress".

But he added "we haven't given it up yet", and said the quartet of powers behind the road map - the US, UN, EU and Russia - would meet next week to assess the situation and how to take it forward.

-------

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 19, 2004 12:20 AM

The elitist and pompous post of Aug. 3 on this list suggesting that the voters from Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Wyoming, and Alabama are less informed than those of Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York, reflects the egotistical attitude adopted by the Democratic Party. I hope that liberals continue to underestimate conservatives until Bush is re-elected. When this victory becomes an overwhelming affirmation of the Republican Party, these self-proclaimed intellectuals will conclude this nation is composed of a majority of ignorant voters. I wonder if the Democrats will ever find the courage to admit to themselves how out of touch they are with mainstream America. Posted by another stupid Bush supporter who can’t identify with the intelligentsia of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Wayne Alligood at September 19, 2004 02:32 AM

Good scientific research rejects the attempts of proving a negative. This is a fundamental doctrine in all technical disciplines. Those who ignore this basic principal reduce their theories to mere pontifications. John Kerry has engaged in the fraudulent practice of deception as he attempts to misdirect our attention without the benefit of any supporting facts.

To jump to the conclusion that Wayne doesn’t own brown shoes because you have never seen him wearing any is faulty logic and irresponsible. To continue insisting that Wayne owns no brown shoes, disregarding many creditable eye witness reports from others who had seen him wearing such colored shoes is willful deception at best. Such action is disingenuous. Mr. Kerry has proven that he is morally bankrupted as he embraces this corrupt logic.

Kerry’s deception, “Iraq had no WMD’s” we haven’t found any - thus they didn’t exist. Tell the families of dead Iraqis and Iranians killed by WMD’s they didn’t exist. Explain why UN weapon inspectors were interfered with for many years if they didn’t exist. All creditable intelligence agencies concurred they existed. John Kerry reported that Iraq’s WMD program posed a real global threat but now because we can’t find them, they didn’t exist. Kerry is attempting to prove a negative for political gain at the expense of our national security. Mr. Kerry is intellectually dishonest.

His posture is an insult to informed voters. WMD’s don’t evaporate to never again be a threat. We know they existed. We know that Bush will continue the search and we know Kerry has a vested reason not to discover their whereabouts. The greatest danger presented to the American public by this year’s election process is the false impression that the Iraq WMD’s have disappeared and we are not justified in continuing the search.

Weapons of Mass Destruction did exist in Iraq. Where did they go? Which presidential candidate and which party is more likely to resolve this question? This is the issue that will determine how I will vote in November and it won’t be for John Kerry! I will not place my family at risk and their safety in the irresponsible hands of a man willing to play political games with the issue of WMD’s.

Posted by: Wayne A. at September 19, 2004 03:35 PM

Wow, I can't beleive all the right wing Waynes here, and all of them smart? Must be a good omen for GW.

Posted by: Wayne at September 19, 2004 11:05 PM

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 18, 2004 10:25 PM

Now you are stretching it. You are accusing President Bush of racial bashing? Please provide facts to back up this accusation.

Wayne - d. jones is incapable of apologizing - just like his/her hero Kerry.

Calamity, you are attempting to make me repeat myself. I posted an article about MR. Byrd the Black Man that was drugged to his death with his head detached from his body and thrown in a black cemetary in Jasper, Texas during GW JR term as Texas governor (Look it up under James Byrd and Bush), and how GW JR refused any hate crime laws and didn't even follow up to the deceased's family with a comment that all the white racist men involved would be sentenced to death. And They Were Not!! What more proof do you need?? I wasn't trying to be funny when I said your posts are meaningless? I don't owe any apologies other than those I gave. Thank you!

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 20, 2004 01:35 AM

Able,

You still have not provided any concrete proof that the President had his family help keep him out of Vietnam War. You are only stating your opinion, again, like always. While the Republicans have given proof of what kerry said after he got back, after only 4 months of actual combat duty. He called most if not all of our soldiers baby killers, and war criminals. Please, again, I ask you to state facts, not your opinions.

This is part of your post.

Very Good! Now what can you tell us about George W. Bush, a man who used his family influence to join the National Guard for the purpose of avoiding the draft?

Posted by: David Lowery at September 20, 2004 02:29 PM

D. Jones

There is no need for a hate crime label. A crime is a crime regardless of a person's sex, race, religion. If you harm someone you should be punished. We are all equal - nobody should be entitled to special treatment.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 05:33 PM

"MR. Byrd the Black Man"

Posted by: d. jones at September 20, 2004 01:35 AM

D. Jones,

You're not trying to create a division by color of skin are you? He was an American with African ancestors. Please respect that.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 20, 2004 07:15 PM

"Say what you will but John Kerry always did the honorable thing..."

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 18, 2004 10:42 PM

Abel P. Ochoa,

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry (April 18th 1971)

Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 20, 2004 07:29 PM

You're not trying to create a division by color of skin are you? He was an American with African ancestors. Please respect that.

Posted by: Conservatism at September 20, 2004 07:15 PM

Conservatism, How do you know he had African Ancestors. Just because you are of color doesn't make your ancestors African. GW JR has created much more division than I could ever think of.

Posted by: Calamity Jane at September 20, 2004 05:33 PM

There is no need for a hate crime label. A crime is a crime regardless of a person's sex, race, religion. If you harm someone you should be punished. We are all equal - nobody should be entitled to special treatment.

Calamity, I wish you would tell GW JR That. I don't think he's got it. All of James Byrd attackers were not sentenced to death by law. Is your death Penalty racially biased?

Vote: Kerry/Edwards 2004

Posted by: d. jones at September 21, 2004 12:22 AM

Davdi Lowery,
Look, no proof is necessary when you have common sense, which I happen to have. George W. Bush joined a Branch of the National Guard at a time when there were no open slots. He had to have somebody vouch for him in order to get accepted. Well, he was accepted so someone must have vouched for him. Whether-or-not it was a family member makes no difference but it's more likely that it was a family member who spoke in his behalf. Maybe not directly as it could've been indirectly. Wealthy people are generally very capable people and know exactly how to handle these types of situations.

As for John Kerry, what he did after he got back from Vietnam is a matter of record. He never disappeared and documentation regarding him are all over the place. George W. Bush, on the other hand, is lacking documentation of his "where-abouts" during the period before he was 48 years of age. It's like he didn't exist until after he became a "Born Again," Christian.

Your statement that John Kerry called most if not all of our soldiers baby killers, and war criminals is not a fact. He became a "Whistle Blower" and told about some of his "negative" experiences while serving in Vietnam. He also spoke regarding what some of his fellow soldiers requested that he bring up. That he testified was a courageous thing for him to do and it was also the proper and honorable thing to do. To put it bluntly, John Kerry, unlike George W. Bush, was a Hero in every sense of the word.

Is what I'm saying only my opinion? Well no, there's ample documentation regarding what John Kerry did while he served heroically in Vietnam and after he returned to civilian life.

Let me add that the "concrete proof," you say, Republicans offer never holds any water. The lies you present can hardly be considered facts or be parts of any proof. Are you trying to tell us that George W. Bush did not try to avoid the draft. I would have expected that you'd know better than that.

Your condensed POST follows:

"Able, You still have not provided any concrete proof that the President had his family help keep him out of Vietnam War. You are only stating your opinion, again, like always. While the Republicans have given proof of what kerry said after he got back, after only 4 months of actual combat duty. He called most if not all of our soldiers baby killers, and war criminals. Please, again, I ask you to state facts, not your opinions.
This is part of your post.
Very Good! Now what can you tell us about George W. Bush, a man who used his family influence to join the National Guard for the purpose of avoiding the draft?"
Posted by: David Lowery at September 20, 2004 02:29 PM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 21, 2004 03:24 AM

"To put it bluntly, John Kerry, unlike George W. Bush, was a Hero in every sense of the word."

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 21, 2004 03:24 AM

Abel,

In case you missed it, these are my words when Meet The Press interviewed me on April 18th 1971. Thanks for you continued support. I consider myself to be a hero as well even though:

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry (April 18th 1971)

Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 21, 2004 11:35 AM

Able,

I'm not saying that, he joined the ANG of Texas, if I'm not mistaken, kerry tried to do the same thing but only after his deferment was not approved, then he was unlucky enough to get called to active duty, where he spent most of his time on board ship away from the action, then he thought he would volunteer for swift boat duty, thinking that he would still be away from the action. After that he got himself hurt three times, without losing any blood, within four months. The same thing could have happened to Bush, he could have been called up at any time. The fact of the matter is that the time that is disputed is 72-73 when the war was coming to an end. At that time Bush would not have been called to active duty because active duty pilots were coming home and they were no longer needed in Vietnam. Look, proof is always nessary, please, I guess you would like to convict someone without proof?

Some of your post,

Look, no proof is necessary when you have common sense, which I happen to have. George W. Bush joined a Branch of the National Guard at a time when there were no open slots. He had to have somebody vouch for him in order to get accepted. Well, he was accepted so someone must have vouched for him. Whether-or-not it was a family member makes no difference but it's more likely that it was a family member who spoke in his behalf. Maybe not directly as it could've been indirectly. Wealthy people are generally very capable people and know exactly how to handle these types of situations.

As for John Kerry, what he did after he got back from Vietnam is a matter of record. He never disappeared and documentation regarding him are all over the place. George W. Bush, on the other hand, is lacking documentation of his "where-abouts" during the period before he was 48 years of age. It's like he didn't exist until after he became a "Born Again," Christian.

Posted by: David Lowery at September 21, 2004 11:37 AM

"How do you know he had African Ancestors. Just because you are of color doesn't make your ancestors African."

Posted by: d. jones at September 21, 2004 12:22 AM

D. Jones,

I suspect the thing thing about the Vietnamese children I killed. Who can say with any degree of certainty that they were really Vietnamese? I mean they all look the same! Right? There is one thing for sure though... Something I just have to get off my chest, and I appreciate the opportunity you have provided me! So here goes...

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry (April 18th 1971)

Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 21, 2004 11:42 AM

Check out http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

This article lists traces George Bush's active duty in the Air National Guard and isn't getting the press it deserves. The truth of his record is that for the first four years he performed above and beyond his call of duty and was ready for service in Vietnam if his Unite had been called to Vietnam. The last two years showed that he completed his obligations based on a point system used to grade the Guard Units. During this time the Vietnam War was drawing to a close and the fighter plane he flew was being phased out.

The detractors should be careful because the years in question concerning Bush's service (which all records vindicate Bush) are the same years that Kerry was disgracing the soldiers in Vietnam through the Winter Soldiers organization that had direct ties to communist organizations according the documents released by the FBI through the freedom of Information Act. The co-operation between the Communist Activists and the Winter Soldiers, which Kerry served as a Leader while still an officer in the Navy and having sworn an oath to uphold the constitution is a violation of his oath and of the Constitution itself, especially article 14, section 3. It's time for Kerry to come clean, sign the proper forms and release all his military and medical records, not just the ones he wants us to see.

Posted by: Jim Rodkey at September 21, 2004 02:24 PM

"I really wish you would go to Iraq. Hey, if I sent you a one way ticket to Iraq, would you go?? Pleaseeeee!"

Posted by: d. jones at September 20, 2004 11:59 PM

D. Jones,

Please send the ticket to my Campaign headquarters if Wayne isn't interested!! I'm dying to go to Iraq and do what I did in Vietnam! You're probably wondering why I'm so anxious and what I did in Vietnam... So here's what I said in 1971....

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry (April 18th 1971)

Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 21, 2004 04:17 PM

War Criminal,
You, whoever you are, are also a coward and much worse than George W. Bush. You don't even have the guts and decency to sign your name to what you write. Nobody in his/her right mind would ever pay any attention to your stupid opinions as they are completely worthless. You may think you're being funny but you're not even that. As bad as he is, the same thing couldn't be said about George W. Bush's opinion. George's opinion might be ignored but only due to his common sense factors which are at a negative level. We can at least respect George W. Bush because he has the decency and courage to sign his name to what he writes and it's obvious you don't even have the guts to do that. You need to recognize that you, whoever you are, are the scum of the earth. Let me repeat, you are way down below the level of George W. Bush who appears to have disappeared while he was supposed to have been serving in the Airforce National Guard.

Your POST follows:

"D. Jones, I suspect the thing thing about the Vietnamese children I killed. Who can say with any degree of certainty that they were really Vietnamese? I mean they all look the same! Right? There is one thing for sure though... Something I just have to get off my chest, and I appreciate the opportunity you have provided me! So here goes...
"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
Sincerely, John F. Kerry (April 18th 1971)
Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 21, 2004 11:42 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 21, 2004 07:22 PM

Able,
Why aren't you attacking others that do not sign their name? Like d.jones? How can someone know who d.jones is? Or NavyVet, CollegeStudent4Change, Flaming Liberal, JM,Conservatism, or even myself Wayne? You don't know who I am, and does it really matter? He is only quoting Kerry, or is he lying about what Kerry said about the Vietnam Vets?

You just want to avoid the Kerry from 1971.

Posted by: Wayne at September 21, 2004 09:36 PM

Able,

Actually, I did sign my name. I was quoting from what I said on April 18th 1971 on Meet The Press. I thought you supported me? Or does the fact that I said I was a war criminal bother you? You said that I always did the honorable thing and that I was a war hero, which leads me to believe you supported what I did in Vietnam? But just in case you forgot what I actually did, I'll tell you once again...

"I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

p.s. Vote Baby-Killer/In-Diapers 2004!!!

Posted by: War Criminal Kerry at September 22, 2004 12:10 PM

Davdi Lowery,
Sorry but you're wrong again. As a matter of fact, many people are found guilty and convicted of crimes based on circumstantial evidence--convictions based on induction methods which are not as good as convictions based on deduction methods. The conclusion is that your statement "Look, proof is always nessary, please, I guess you would like to convict someone without proof?", is false or untrue. Now, I challenge you to prove one of my statement false or untrue and I don't just mean for you to express your dumb opinion either.

Your condensed post follows:

"...Look, proof is always nessary, please, I guess you would like to convict someone without proof?"
Posted by: David Lowery at September 21, 2004 11:37 AM

Posted by: Abel P. Ochoa at September 22, 2004 01:07 PM

Wayen,
Not bad, Wayen, you're finally beginning to think. Good for you. You're absolutely right, we shouldn't be talking with any idiots who are too cowardly to say who they really are. "d. Jones," I don't know, maybe his name is david jones so I thought that was all right but I honestly didn't know that people could be cowardly right here on our BLOG. You definitely have a point about "NavyVet, CollegeStudent4Change, Flaming Liberal, JM,Conservatism, but I had thought your real name was Wayne. What is going on around here, is everybody afraid to say who they really are or what? It's not like having to give your real physical address or phone number but at the very least we could talk about where we come from. What's wrong with that? As for "War Criminal Kerry" what's wrong with him is that he's acting as