» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 6:23 am

Here is something interesting, most democrats don't like John Kerry.  Some are going for Ralph Nader, others are going to hold their noses while voting for him.  He is no-doubt the most liberal senator around, and has little chance of defeating Bush.  So if you could do the democratic primary all over again, would you still pick John Kerry, or someone else?  BE HONEST PLEASE.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 6:33 am

Let me also say that the democrats in the poll are in no logical order.  I put them their in order they came to my mind.  If you would like to know what dems. think of Kerry please visit www.johnkerryisa*bagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com  --You should know what the * stands for, but i'm not going to put it because it might not abide by the guidelines.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: LyricBoy on 05/14/04 at 7:30 am

Lieberman strikes me as the least partisan of the people on your list, so I'd go with him.

The rest of them would sell their souls for a vote.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 7:31 am

GET THIS (now this is funny!!!!!)

Not a single American polled by the Pew Research Center for the People in the Press chose the word "honest" to describe John F. Kerry in one word.  Kerry had to be disappointed that only 18% chose "honest" to describe him in February, but now he's down to 0%!

"Honest," by the way, is the one word those polled choose most often to describe President George W. Bush more than any other – "even as incompetent has gained ground."  Knowing this, consider Kerry's trip to Orlando on Wednesday when he called the war in Iraq "a failure" and claimed "a shakeup is needed to end the Bush administration's mistakes and incompetence." Kerry droned, "Responsibility for the abuse of prisoners in Iraq extends all the way to the oval (orifice) and that Bush must accept responsibility for setting a tone that allowed the abuse to take place."


Kerry went on to say that "a few low ranking soldiers shouldn't be made scapegoats for a broader policy that led to the abuse," leading to this response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot: "To blame the abuse on Bush and the armed forces is to blame all of America for the disgusting actions of a few. It's striking to see the ease with which John Kerry thrusts an important moment into the campaign's daily spin cycle compared to the president's steady leadership and focus on doing what he believes is right."

Boy, if that isn't aid and comfort for the enemy, I don't know what is. We have to get rid of George W. Bush? The president's responsible for this? The president "set the tone" for this? This from a guy, John F. Kerry, who committed far worse atrocities in Vietnam -- and admitted it -- than what we've seen in these pictures from Iraq so far, and because of that, we've got to throw Bush out of office and elect Kerry. Just stop and think of that.  --Source: www.rushlimbaugh.com

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 8:05 am

I'm not voting in your poll.  I am not a fan of Kerry, but I'm voting for him.  The Bush Administration is earning us hatred around he world, and shredding our domestic fabric.  Even sanctimonious Joe would not appoint these "Project for a New American Century" war-mongery zealots to his administration.
The faith of George W. Bush is hogwash.  He has not the mental capacity to understand the world in more than black and white terms.  The best his supporters can say of him these days is that he's a "frat boy."  'Nuff said.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 8:47 am

Um...yeah.  George Bush for one does believe in God, anyone with a brain knows that.  So does 90% of America.  He is going to win, just wish some democrats could get over it.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: SuperFreak on 05/14/04 at 10:07 am

I wouldn't vote for ANY of them :P

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: philbo on 05/14/04 at 10:10 am


Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 

WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.



Between George Bush and John Kerry, who do you think Osama wants to win? 

I'd say GWB, no question: he's been the best recruiter they've ever had.

And who in their right mind, if asked to summarize GWB in one word, would ever, EVER use the word "honest"?

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 10:18 am



WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.





I'll agree with that.  He doesn't have very good speaking skills in my opinion anyway.  Now how did he get into the 2 best colleges in America, maybe even the world?  Well for one in high school Bush had a GPA of 3.83333 and got a 1,200 of his SAT.  Now I know a 1,200 doesn't sound like much, but some experts say getting a 1,200 back then is like getting a 1,400 today.  You be the judge on that.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Cheetara on 05/14/04 at 11:35 am

I honestly don't know who I would vote for.  November will be here soon enough.  Maybe by then, I will have made my mind up.   :-\\

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 1:42 pm




Agreed.  Let's not forget that Bush has failed to find Osama in almost 3 years.

Oh, and GPA and test scores might mean something to get into Harvard and Yale now, but it didn't have much weight back then.  My neighbor (who is 57) has a doctorate from Harvard and his GPA was around 3.0, don't know about his SAT scores.  BUT, his father was an alumni, which he says was all he needed.


Do you think Kerry will find him?  Bush is pulling out everything he can to catch Osama, especially now.  If Bush catches Osama, he wins, no-doubt.  Like it or not Bush catches Osama he wins.  He knows this himself, he is trying.  Its not exactly easy with all them caves, and Pakistan being a...um...rhymes-with-rich.  Osama wants Kerry to win, I think most people KNOW that.  And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: resinchaser on 05/14/04 at 1:54 pm


And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.


Please explain how that's a bad sign. How does the opinion of Fidel Castro affect you at all? Most of Canada want Kerry to win as well. How does that affect you? It shouldn't.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Don Carlos on 05/14/04 at 2:34 pm

Several points have been raised here.
Mr Bush is seen as honest - yeah, right! Iraqi weopons of mass destruction, ties to Al Quida and attempts to buy nuclear fuel?  BIG lies!

Kerry committed "war crimes"? According to Rush, but Rush is the biggest lier on the radio - he makes it up as he goes along and states rumor and inuendo as truth.  In Kerry's case the truth is a silver star, two bronze stars, and three purple hearts.  Meanwhile, our "hero president" was awol from the Texas Air National Guard, defending us (when they could find him) against Mexico (and how come he jumped to the top of the list to get in?).

Clinton did nothing to stop Al Quida.  Nonsense, not only did Clinton use the military in a show of force, he authorized the CIA to do everything they could to get Bin Laden, and during the transfer warned the Bush league of the danger posed not only to our overseas interests but also to the home land.  Too bad the Bush league was preoccupied with Iraq.

Kerry is too liberal.  When poled on real issues, like civil rights, worker rights and protection, the Bill of Rights, etc.  The overwhelming majority of U.S.ians espouse liberal beliefs.  It was liberalism that brough us the National Labor Relatrions Act, which gave legal protect to the right to form unions, and the Social Security Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Occupational Saftey and Health Act, and the Civil Right and Voting Rights Acts, and the Pure Food and Drug Act, and Clean Air/Water Acts, and the list goes on.  Liberalism has made this country a tolerable place for the working class to live.  Conservatives have opposed all of these social protections and the Bush league is trying its best to undermine them.

If you want to go back to unbridled 19th Century capitalism, vote  for Mr Bush.  If you want to continue to advance the real values of real U.S.ians, the only choice is Kerry.

Having said al;l that, I must admit that Kerry is not a panacea, but than, no politician is.  Neverthe less, the choice is clear.  Mr Bush and his right wing idiotologs have to go.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: SteveH on 05/14/04 at 2:37 pm



And today their was a HUGE rally in Havana in Cuba lead by Fidel Castro attending, with over 100,000 people all rooting for a Kerry victory.  Do you want to vote for someone Castro wants?  A communist!  Spin it how you like, thats a bad sign.


Huh?  Can you cite a reputable news source for this one?

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/14/04 at 2:45 pm



Clinton did nothing to stop Al Quida.  Nonsense, not only did Clinton use the military in a show of force, he authorized the CIA to do everything they could to get Bin Laden...


Yea, and yet he is still on the loose. ::)

So many people condemn Bush for not capturing Bin Laden, well if Clinton did all he could and also failed, where is the condemnation for that?  I have yet to hear it.







If you want to go back to unbridled 19th Century capitalism, vote  for Mr Bush.  If you want to continue to advance the real values of real U.S.ians, the only choice is Kerry.

Oh puuuhlease.

So the "real values" of us U.S.ians is to marry a mutli-billionaire wife and then try to act like he is for the working class?

Gimme a break.  John Kerry is so not in touch with working people its not even funny. 

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 4:19 pm




Huh?  Can you cite a reputable news source for this one?


I heard it on the radio today.  It was on Rush Limbaugh's program.  He might have a link to it on his site or something, or google it.  Anyway www.rushlimbaugh.com  --If you are interested.  And to the person above, if Castro backs Kerry or Canada its no big deal?  Alot of people consider themselves independents or liberals, but not communist and socialist.  Is that who you want, someone the communist back!?

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: resinchaser on 05/14/04 at 4:37 pm


  And to the person above, if Castro backs Kerry or Canada its no big deal?  Alot of people consider themselves independents or liberals, but not communist and socialist.  Is that who you want, someone the communist back!?


Canada isn't socialist.

And this isn't the 1960s. So you can can it with the communist scare tactics. We're talking about Cuba here, not the former Soviet Union for crying out loud. Besides, if communists were so bad would the U.S still be doing business with China?

And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/14/04 at 4:41 pm



And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.


Considering the fact that no less than 12 hours after the beheading of our soldier the other day, his campaign began sending letters and emails to thousands of supporters connecting the behedaing with a plea for donations to the Democrap National Party...I wouldn't put it past him.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: SteveH on 05/14/04 at 4:42 pm





I heard it on the radio today.  It was on Rush Limbaugh's program. 


C'mon.  Seriously now.  Did you hear it from a reputable source?  Inflated junkies don't count.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: resinchaser on 05/14/04 at 4:48 pm




Considering the fact that no less than 12 hours after the beheading of our soldier the other day, his campaign began sending letters and emails to thousands of supporters connecting the behedaing with a plea for donations to the Democrap National Party...I wouldn't put it past him.


I really hope that isn't true. Because if it is that is pretty despicable.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 4:49 pm

Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 

WGAF?  After listening to the guy, you'd need to be terminally credulous to believe that he'd have got into either of those institutions without having overwhelmingly influential parents.



Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Between George Bush and John Kerry, who do you think Osama wants to win?

I'd say GWB, no question: he's been the best recruiter they've ever had.

And who in their right mind, if asked to summarize GWB in one word, would ever, EVER use the word "honest"?

Yay Philbo!  Three cheers for Philbo!  It wasn't Rush who came up with the Osama question, it was Bill O'Reilly.  Typical Fox Newt tactics.  Come up with the dumbest questions ever, and then expect people to answer them.  "Who would Osama want to win," guffaw, you've got to be kidding!

I'll agree with that.  He doesn't have very good speaking skills in my opinion anyway.  Now how did he get into the 2 best colleges in America, maybe even the world?  Well for one in high school Bush had a GPA of 3.83333 and got a 1,200 of his SAT.  Now I know a 1,200 doesn't sound like much, but some experts say getting a 1,200 back then is like getting a 1,400 today.  You be the judge on that.

The SAT is and was more prep than anything.  It depends on how much tutoring you can afford.  The SAT has been pretty much discredited, and universities are starting to drop it from their requirements.
Ever heard of the legacy case and the gentelman's "C."  These were serious institutions back in the day.  Things have changed a bit at the Ivy Leagues since early '70s, but for most of these institutions' histories, your family's rank in society carried a lot more weight than earned merit alone.  That's why it's hypocritical for Bush to oppose affirmative action.  Affirmative action was great when it helped rich white kids, Like Dubya, but it's bad when it gives poor blacks a leg up!

If you want a scholarship to Yale, be prepared to have the best d@mned transcript in your class.  If your father, uncle, and brother went to Yale, and each one gave the college a million dollars, they'll admit you in a coma!

I have conversed with intelligent people who have speech difficulties, they don't sound like Dubya.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 4:50 pm




C'mon.  Seriously now.  Did you hear it from a reputable source?  Inflated junkies don't count.


Rush was reading it out of a newspaper.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 4:58 pm


Quote from: GWBush2004 on Today at 11:01:12am
Okay he only has 2 college degrees from Yale and 1 from Harvard. 


Yay Philbo!  Three cheers for Philbo!  It wasn't Rush who came up with the Osama question, it was Bill O'Reilly.  Typical Fox Newt tactics.  Come up with the dumbest questions ever, and then expect people to answer them.  "Who would Osama want to win," guffaw, you've got to be kidding!


Well duh its an O'Reilly question, if you hate him so much you wouldn't be watching him either.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/14/04 at 5:00 pm




Canada isn't socialist.

And this isn't the 1960s. So you can can it with the communist scare tactics. We're talking about Cuba here, not the former Soviet Union for crying out loud. Besides, if communists were so bad would the U.S still be doing business with China?

And so what if Castro would like Kerry to win. You make it sound like Kerry has been putting that in his campaign slogans.


Canada isn't socialist?  This is a joke right!!?!?!?!?  I didn't say either that it was a big deal with Castro, but most people aren't communist, and if a communist backs a person (Castro has never done this before) then people should at least notice it.  And about Kerry putting this in his campaign slogans...it just happened today, you never know...

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/14/04 at 5:17 pm




I really hope that isn't true. Because if it is that is pretty despicable.




Its true, and yes very dispicable.

After news of the incedent became known, the Dem Campaign sent out thousands of letters to various registered people on the newsletters and so forth condemning how the Bush Administration "allowed" this kind of thing to happen.  Then at the bottom of the letter, was a campaign donation request to the Dem National Committee.

It is sick, and Kerry obviously feels no remorse over it, otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 5:20 pm

ResinChaser wrote:
Canada isn't socialist.
Canada is too socialist.  Your country commits the cardinal sin against free market ethics of not saying "tough sh*t!" when a citizen needs healthcare!

The documentation of atrocities committed agains Vietnamese civilians by American soldiers is thorough and complete.  It happened.  Not in isolated incidences.  Atrocity was the method used to route the Viet Cong.  Our forces were placed in an unwinnable guerilla warfare battle environment.  In such a volitile milieu, all bets are off.

Listen, the GOP operatives are SHAMELESS when it comes to partisanship.  I've heard right-wingers call Senator McCain a "RINO" (Republican in name only) simply for differing on the Bush Administration's party line.  McCain spent years in the Hotel Hanoi, and he has pledged unequivocal support for Dubya's re-election.  No matter.  If you dare deviate from this Administration goose step, be prepared to be ridiculed.  It's just like the way that GOP campaign ad adjoined a photo of Max Cleland to a picture of Osama.  Max Cleland, as you know, lost three limbs fighting for our country whilst Dubya was boozing it up and getting l@id!

McCain may be a RINO, but Zell Miller is a "DINO," Democrat in name only.  DINO, as in dinosaur, fossilized and obsolete.  Ditto Joe Lieberman.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 5:26 pm


Why'dya think I say "Fox Newt"?  'Coz they've got Newt Gingrich on their payroll, they've got Newt Gingrich on their "news analysis" panels, and their political outlook sounds like talking points from Newt Gingrich's office.  THAT's why I say "Fox Newt"!

If Bill Clinton was that wrapped up in CNN, the right-wingers would have reason to call it the "Clinton News Network."  He isn't; they do anyway.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 6:50 pm





Okay first you say the GOP makes fun of McCain because he does not fit in with the rest of the Bush party.  But then you attack Zell Miller and Joe Liberman who deviate from the democrats.  Unreal you are doing what you speak out against!  UNREAL!  How does the acranem DINO stand for dinosaur, fossilized and obsolete.  That would be DFO and sometimes DFAO.  You attack Zell Miller because he heads democrats for Bush, a group which goes past the partisanship you speak out against.  You are the most hypocritical person here Maxwell''Smart''!

LOL! Sorry for the confusion.  I meant DINO as a truncation of DINOsaur, you know, like on "The Flintstones."  This was after thought to Democrat In Name Only, DINO, a corollary to RINO, Republican In Name Only.  I could put forth a harrowing diatribe on the outright backstabbing perpetuated by Miller, versus the mild criticisms offered by McCain, but some people are expressing a distaste for all this back and forth vinegar.  Suffice it to say, I was merely engaging in some wordplay.  I think you're letting yourself get a bit too irritated here.
:)

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Hairspray on 05/14/04 at 8:14 pm

Well I thought John Edwards would have been a safe bet. Too bad Kerry won over him and I'm still not too sure as to why, really. Maybe it was the whole "I'm a war hero" thing or "I'm older and more experienced". Kerry winning is a bit of a screw-up, IMO. I don't like Kerry a whole heckuva lot, but he can't do any worse than Bush, IMO. At this point, a great percentage of people will vote for Kerry, even if just to get Bush out of office. I truly believe that. And that's my opinion on that.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/14/04 at 8:26 pm

HERE...read This:

Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq — by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks — a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox News Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was — in the words of CIA director George Tenet — a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children — handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" — basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

— chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

— reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

— new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

— a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

— long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

— documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

— facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of, most recently, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

Ann Coulter tells it like it IS!

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/14/04 at 8:47 pm


HERE...read This:


JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of, most recently, "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

Ann Coulter tells it like it IS!

I couldn't disagree more, sir.   Do you too believe all Muslims should be forced to convert to Christianity, and Democrat legislators should be required to sign loyalty oaths every week?  Ms. Coulter is not well.  She has a psychopathic blankness in her eyes. Other conservatives don't like her either.  Commentators like Coulter and Hannity have only rancorous emotional appeal.  Their arguments don't stand up to intellectual scrutiny, so they conspicuously avoid forums in which they can reasonably be challenged.
Hannity just asks ridiculous questions and shouts dissenters down.  Coulter will only appear on programs hosted by fellow right-wingers, like Hannity.  I saw Phil Donahue challenge Coulter in a friendly sort of way.  She practically burst into tears.
I would like to see a Hannity or a Coulter debate a Greg Palast or a Bill Moyers on any issue,  No shouting, no interruptions, just timed premises and rebuttals.  Alas, Hannity, Coulter, and the rest of the blowhards on the right would never agree to such a forum because they have too much to lose.
;D

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/14/04 at 11:02 pm



I couldn't disagree more, sir.  Do you too believe all Muslims should be forced to convert to Christianity, and Democrat legislators should be required to sign loyalty oaths every week?  Ms. Coulter is not well.  She has a psychopathic blankness in her eyes. Other conservatives don't like her either.  Commentators like Coulter and Hannity have only rancorous emotional appeal.  Their arguments don't stand up to intellectual scrutiny, so they conspicuously avoid forums in which they can reasonably be challenged.
Hannity just asks ridiculous questions and shouts dissenters down.  Coulter will only appear on programs hosted by fellow right-wingers, like Hannity.  I saw Phil Donahue challenge Coulter in a friendly sort of way.  She practically burst into tears.
I would like to see a Hannity or a Coulter debate a Greg Palast or a Bill Moyers on any issue,  No shouting, no interruptions, just timed premises and rebuttals.  Alas, Hannity, Coulter, and the rest of the blowhards on the right would never agree to such a forum because they have too much to lose.
;D
Max...i have to tell you that I pasted that from one of her web-sites.....I agree with you that she won't appear on certain forums...BUT could you possibly come down a peg and agree with me...Clinton was NOT a great president and should've done something way back in 1993? I will gladly admit that this administration has doen some wrong..But so have your liberal guys....life's too short  :-\\

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Im Batman on 05/15/04 at 1:29 am

It makes me laugh to hear the Bushies still believe in this unelected clown.  What do you think there is any way Kerry could possibly make the situation if Iraq even worse than Bush?  If we are not hated, at the least we are the laughing stock to the rest of the world.  Thanks for nothing Shrub.

Bush has already lost, he's just too dumb to realize it.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/16/04 at 10:38 pm



Max...i have to tell you that I pasted that from one of her web-sites.....I agree with you that she won't appear on certain forums...BUT could you possibly come down a peg and agree with me...Clinton was NOT a great president and should've done something way back in 1993? I will gladly admit that this administration has doen some wrong..But so have your liberal guys....life's too short  :-\\

Life is short and so am I!
Clinton was not a great president compared to whom?  Every time something terrible happens, the people in charge at the time it happens say somebody before me should have done something when something else happened at some point.  I DON'T CARE WHAT CLINTON SHOULD HAVE DONE.  The GW Bush administration hides more information from the public, passes the buck like a hockey puck, and every time they botch it up, they blame somebody else.
As Condi Rice testified, she had a document regarding Al Quaeda cells active in the U.S.  She just didn't think Bush would be very interested in it.
The only thing you accomplish by blaming Clinton is partisan rancor, but that's the best thing the Bushies have.  Al their policies have been disasterous.  Best to keep blaming Clinton.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/16/04 at 11:06 pm



Life is short and so am I!
Clinton was not a great president compared to whom?  Every time something terrible happens, the people in charge at the time it happens say somebody before me should have done something when something else happened at some point.  I DON'T CARE WHAT CLINTON SHOULD HAVE DONE.  The GW Bush administration hides more information from the public, passes the buck like a hockey puck, and every time they botch it up, they blame somebody else.
As Condi Rice testified, she had a document regarding Al Quaeda cells active in the U.S.  She just didn't think Bush would be very interested in it.
The only thing you accomplish by blaming Clinton is partisan rancor, but that's the best thing the Bushies have.  Al their policies have been disasterous.  Best to keep blaming Clinton.
As for that first question about bill being the greatest...ask all the hollyweird liberals why THEY said it. AND it was bill who blamed george 1 (Who i did not care for either) for all the economic troubles. So it would seem that most poloticians in general, like to blame it on the other guy.  All I'm saying are THREE major points about willy. 1.  He didn't do ANYTHING after they bombed the twin towers in 1993 2. He released CRIMNALS (That contributed to his re-election campaign) on his last day. and 3. I kept my mouth shut out of respect for the current president....for EIGHT long years...NOW I feel it's alright to tell it like it was with "Billary"....as for our current president....I don't like everything about him but I doubt Gore "The Bore" would've done anything...like clinton. If Gore were president we would ALL be dead OR wearing turbans.... :-\\

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: SteveH on 05/17/04 at 1:38 am





I heard it on the radio today.  It was on Rush Limbaugh's program. 


  :) Here's an example more in line with what I mean by credible sources:

BUSH BLOCKS FUNDS TO FIGHT TERRORISTS
The New York Times reports the president is trying to eliminate a $12 million request by the IRS, which says it needs the small injection of new money "to increase by 50% the number of criminal financial investigators" necessary to do its part in the fight against terrorism. The president could easily fund the program by reducing the tax cuts he wants to give to the 200,000 millionaires in America: instead of giving these millionaires an average tax cut of $88,326 he could simply reduce that tax cut by $60, giving them instead $88,266, while using the savings to fully fund the IRS request. Instead, President Bush is pushing more than $1 trillion in new tax cuts, while ignoring the request.
Source: New York Times

BUSH ALLOWS OPEC TO BLEED AMERICA DRY
As a presidential candidate in 2000, George Bush pledged to use his "political capital" to influence OPEC when gas prices soared, saying that during a crisis, a president, "ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your spigots".  But with gas prices soaring in the United States, newspapers report the White House now says the president refuses to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds".
   With the president refusing to do anything about the situation, OPEC opted this week to cut supply to further inflate gas prices and bilk American consumers.  While Saudi Arabia's ambassador told the White House yesterday that his country supposedly opposed higher oil prices, the president's refusal to use his close relations with the Saudi government gave the Saudis a pass to support the OPEC production cut. Despite the Saudi effort to keep American energy prices high - and despite their ties to terror groups - the President continues to insist that the Saudi Arabia is "our friend".
Sources: LA Times, Washington Times, Miami Herald, USA Today, US News and World Report

AG JOHN ASHCROFT’S LIES BEFORE CONGRESS
In testimony before the House of Representatives, Ashcroft said that before 9/11, his "number-one goal" at the Justice Department "was the prevention of terrorist acts" and that he immediately "began to shape the department and its efforts in that respect".  But according to the Washington Post, internal Administration documents from before 9/11 "show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did". The documents "indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs."
     Ashcroft tried to blame his negligence of counterterrorism on the previous Administration, telling Congress that "the five-year plan that had been put in place by my predecessor didn't mention counterterrorism". But according to the New York Times, "the plan issued by Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 said the Justice Department would have to devote more attention and resources to terrorism, citing sophisticated computer and bomb-making technology and the 'emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons'".
Washington Post, New York Times, Congressional Record



Hope that helps  :)

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: philbo on 05/17/04 at 5:09 am




I really hope that isn't true. Because if it is that is pretty despicable.



It would not only be despicable, but mind-numbingly stupid... the way things are going in Iraq, ain't no way GWB's going to be even remotely credible by November.  All Kerry needs to do to win is find something positive to say.. almost anything, really.  This sort of negative campaign is the biggest turn-off from democracy possible.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/17/04 at 8:13 am


BTW, in the latest poll, Bush's "approval" rating is down to 42%.  Doesn't sound like a whole lot of faith in him to me. ??? 


Yes I have heard about that, but yet Bush remains steady in the polls and Kerry can't move up.  I like this analysis, that I have heard from both Fox news, CNN, and C-Span.  It basically says that one major event will decide this election, between now and November.  One thing is going to push it all towards Bush or all towards Kerry.  I think its how the June 30th deadline goes.  Others if Osama is caught.  Some say economy.  But mark my words, one thing is going to happen that will make this election a blow-out.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/17/04 at 8:17 am




Bush has already lost, he's just too dumb to realize it.


He has?  Is that why the latest electoral count (they do this on the beltway boys) shows Bush at 294 electoral votes, and Kerry at 244 (270 are needed to win)?  Now I admit this scares me because last weeks count was Bush 314 and Kerry 224 BUT Ohio has now moved in favor of Kerry but hopefully that will change.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/17/04 at 8:32 am

Flip! John F. Kerry to the Detroit News, February 5, 2004:
"We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban."

Flop... John F. Kerry Conference Call, April 22, 2004:
"I don't own an SUV. The family has it. I don't have it."

Flip! John F. Kerry Conference Call, April 22, 2004:
"I want cars to be made in Michigan, made in America..."

Flop... Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles:
A 2001 German Audi registered to Teresa Heinz Kerry at the couple's Beacon Hill townhouse, a UK Land Rover & a Canadian Chrysler 300M.

Flip! Kerry Campaign Speech, June 13, 2003:
"Under a Kerry Administration, no community will have their environment overlooked. They will have the power to fight back -- and the polluters won’t get away with it any more.... We will have pollution-free cars drawing their energy from redesigned fueling stations."

Flop... Boston Herald on the Power Couple's Boston Neighbors, March 22, 2004:
A few were "appalled" by the SUVs "idling day and night outside the couple's townhouse." Suzanne Besser, Beacon Hill Civic Assoc: "One resident complained she couldn't sleep with the exhaust..." 

John Flip-floping Kerry: ''I did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it.''

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/17/04 at 11:05 am


Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth...


No matter what happens or doesn't happen, there are going to be people for and against Bush.  Nothing anyone says is going to change that.  The same goes for Kerry and any other elected official.  They say what is going to help them in the long run, and if situations change, they change their story.  I could list examples of GWB doing the same thing, but I think SteveH did enough.

As far as the Hollywood crowd speaking out, why shouldn't they?  Do they have any less rights than any other US citizen when it comes to speaking their minds?  Or, is it just that they get more exposure because they're famous?  They are saying nothing different than (probably) half the population, but they get their faces on TV, whereas the average citizen doesn't.  None of them claim to be political experts, whereas many of the political talk show hosts do.  They know no more or less than you or I.

Personally, I would like to see an election that is smear-free.  Just once, I would like to hear a candidate tell the truth about what he/she has or has not done in the past, and what their plans are for the future, and actually ACT on those plans.  Not say what they think will get them elected, then change it when they actually ARE elected.  More importantly, not bash the opponent.  Keep their campaign focused on themselves, not trying to make the others look as bad as possible.  I realize it's a pipe dream, but nonetheless, it's what I want.
I agree with you....and in a perfect world :-\\

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/17/04 at 1:41 pm


As far as the Hollywood crowd speaking out, why shouldn't they?  Do they have any less rights than any other US citizen when it comes to speaking their minds?  Or, is it just that they get more exposure because they're famous?  They are saying nothing different than (probably) half the population, but they get their faces on TV, whereas the average citizen doesn't.  None of them claim to be political experts, whereas many of the political talk show hosts do.  They know no more or less than you or I.


My biggest gripe with all the Hollywood types that are constantly trying to be political activists, is that they often fail to realize that yes, they can say whatever they they want.  But when the public shows opposition to what they say, then they get all upset and claim they are being censored.

Free speech goes both ways.  You can way whatever the heck you want.  But, at the same time, you have to be ready for the other side to be expressed as well.


Take for example before the war, when all those celebrities (and some who are washed up and saw a chance to get a little exposure) started speaking out against the war.  Well, when the other half of the public spoke their opinions, which happened to be against what the celebrities were saying, the celebrites went crying to the cameras saying they were being censored and all that crap.

Take the Dixie Chicks.  They went overseas (cowardly move) and made a bonehead move while on stage.  Well, the people here that disagreed with them excersised their freedom of speech in opposition, and the Dixie Chicks cried cencorship.

Freedom of Speech is a 2-way street.  If you're going to dish it out, you have to be prepared and willing to take it as well.  Celebrities seem to forget that sometimes.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/17/04 at 5:46 pm




My biggest gripe with all the Hollywood types that are constantly trying to be political activists, is that they often fail to realize that yes, they can say whatever they they want.  But when the public shows opposition to what they say, then they get all upset and claim they are being censored.

Free speech goes both ways.  You can way whatever the heck you want.  But, at the same time, you have to be ready for the other side to be expressed as well.


Take for example before the war, when all those celebrities (and some who are washed up and saw a chance to get a little exposure) started speaking out against the war.  Well, when the other half of the public spoke their opinions, which happened to be against what the celebrities were saying, the celebrites went crying to the cameras saying they were being censored and all that crap.

Take the Dixie Chicks.  They went overseas (cowardly move) and made a bonehead move while on stage.  Well, the people here that disagreed with them excersised their freedom of speech in opposition, and the Dixie Chicks cried cencorship.

Freedom of Speech is a 2-way street.  If you're going to dish it out, you have to be prepared and willing to take it as well.  Celebrities seem to forget that sometimes.
And I agree with you for this non-perfect world :-\\

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/17/04 at 10:24 pm

I don't think it can be deemed "censorship", but there's definitely more "opinion" on what they're saying than what you or I do.


...as should come as expected.

If I called up CNN and said I wanted to make a statement about the war or whatever, they would hang up on me.  However, if Martin Sheen called them adn sai them same thing, they would have a crew there instantly.  Remember how he and his group were on TV constantly pre-war?

As far as I'm concerned, it goes with the territory.


Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/17/04 at 10:50 pm



Take the Dixie Chicks.  They went overseas (cowardly move) and made a bonehead move while on stage.  Well, the people here that disagreed with them excersised their freedom of speech in opposition, and the Dixie Chicks cried cencorship.

Freedom of Speech is a 2-way street.  If you're going to dish it out, you have to be prepared and willing to take it as well.  Celebrities seem to forget that sometimes.

Oh come on now, 80s, you don't really believe all that hooey, do you?
The Dixies just presumed they could say they didn't like the United States government.  Heck, we all sort of took this for granted before the Supreme Court appointed Il Duce Dubya!  All our right to criticize the U.S. government is based on is some obscure afterthought called the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Unitited States of America !!!
And, I'm sorry, 80s, I must differ with you about the people . 
The CLEAR CHANNEL corporation, a bigtime GOP lickspittle, blackballed the Dixie Chicks from its vast network of propaganda-mongering radio stations via management.  Maybe you meant the Clear Channel big wigs people?
If that wasn't enough, Clear Channel also funded and organized those Support Our Troops (aka pro-war) rallies and publicized the rallies with their rabid Republican shout show hosts, Hannity and co.  You could go to the rallies and here music by Toby Keith and the rest of the sh*tkicking music stars bearing Clear Channel's political seal.  If you bought a "Support Our Troops," "These Colors Don't Run" or whatever kind of jingoistic sloganeering t-shirt, bumpersticker, poster, pendent, or flag you wanted, those were also PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY CLEAR CHANNEL!

But, hey, it's better than having to think for yourself, isn't it? 
:D

Of course, the fascist pundits always started their Dixie Chicks bashing with a contemptuous snort, "They have the right to say what they want..."  We really shouldn't exercise our RIGHTS if our political leaders don't want us to, you know!  It's a nice duck out of the Constitution to let corporations squash free speech instead of government.  There was an old joke about the USSR:
Joe: I'm glad I'm an American, because we have freedom of speech.
Yuri: HA! We have free speech in Soviet Union, too, you know!
Joe: You do?
Yuri: Oh yes!  But AFTER speech...NO FREEDOM!

And that's what we get when we tolerate Clear Channel, with its political clout, usurp our Consititutional rights via their domination of the public airwaves.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/17/04 at 11:02 pm

If that wasn't enough, Clear Channel also funded and organized those Support Our Troops (aka pro-war) rallies and publicized the rallies with their rabid Republican shout show hosts, Hannity and co.  You could go to the rallies and here music by Toby Keith and the rest of the sh*tkicking music stars bearing Clear Channel's political seal.  If you bought a "Support Our Troops," "These Colors Don't Run" or whatever kind of jingoistic sloganeering t-shirt, bumpersticker, poster, pendent, or flag you wanted, those were also PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY CLEAR CHANNEL!

Do your hoemwork sir before generalizing.

Those rallies were not "pro-war", they were in fact "pro-troops".

How do I know?  I went to one that was in town last summer sponsored by a Clear Channel affilate.  And it was anything but "pro-war".  It wasn't anything like what you described.  Obviously you have never attended one, and are just repeating what you have heard from NPR or some other source opposed to them.

There were no "sh*tkicking"stars" or anything of the sort.  There were songs by some local groups, lots of prayers by local chaplains praying for the safety of the troops, presentations and speecheds by veterans of several different wars, and lots of solidarity and unity.  I felt more "patriotic" at that rally than I ever have in my life.


And the best thing is...they were not political rallies.  They were in support of our military who are over there fighting.  And there were no Clear Channel sponsored anything there.  The only money making going on at the rally were the refreshments, with funds proceeds going to the local Boy Scouts.  And "Operation Recreation" which provided recreation items to the troops over there fighting.  No money involved. 

They were not pro-war rallies.  Maybe if you attended one, you would know what they actually stood for, rather than what NPR and CNN made them out to be, which was a bunch of redneck hicks pounding the war-drum. 







Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/17/04 at 11:31 pm




How do I know?  I went to one that was in town last summer sponsored by a Clear Channel affilate.  And it was anything but "pro-war".  It wasn't anything like what you described.  Obviously you have never attended one, and are just repeating what you have heard from NPR or some other source opposed to them.

There were no "sh*tkicking"stars" or anything of the sort.  There were songs by some local groups, lots of prayers by local chaplains praying for the safety of the troops, presentations and speecheds by veterans of several different wars, and lots of solidarity and unity.  I felt more "patriotic" at that rally than I ever have in my life.

I'm pro-troops...pro troops NOT getting their butts shot to hell in another foreign war we can't win!  There are ways and ways of being pro-troops, but Clear Channel spits on my way.  I have no beef with the armed forces themselves.  I considered serving in my youth, but my health did not allow it.  However, I'm pro-soldier, pro-veteran.  The Bush Administration shows through its choices in budget slashing that it is pro-contractor and pro-Pentagon, but inicates the soldiers and vets can take the gas pipe.
And the best thing is...they were not political rallies.  They were in support of our military who are over there fighting.

As you say, I wasn't there, but it sounds pretty darn political to me.  Absence of partisan rhetoric does not mean absence of politics.  At such an event, you can say a lot with what goes unmentioned.

They were not pro-war rallies.  Maybe if you attended one, you would know what they actually stood for.
I haven't attended anti-war rallies either.  I did oodles of marching and sign-waving back in the day, and got fed up with it.  I've been to speeches, and events in my political favor, but not those noisy street demonstrations they always show on TV.  Maybe if the people making all that noise weren't shut out from the mainstream media, they wouldn't cause such a ruckus out there.
Speaking of...
Listen to an afternoon of NPR and then listen to an afternoon of Limbaugh and Hannity.  You won't be able to say honestly NPR is a left-wing corollary to the AM shout shows.  No way!

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/18/04 at 12:05 am


I'm pro-troops...pro troops NOT getting their butts shot to heck in another foreign war we can't win! 


Yea, that sounds "pro-troops" to me.

How about send them a bunch of cards telling them what you think of the war they are fighting...that they "can't win" it. ::)





There are ways and ways of being pro-troops, but Clear Channel spits on my way. 

As you say, I wasn't there, but it sounds pretty darn political to me.  Absence of partisan rhetoric does not mean absence of politics.  At such an event, you can say a lot with what goes unmentioned.


Excatly.  You weren't there.  You are just assuming that since a large group of people assemble in support of the troops that it is a big rednick "sh*tkickin" Republican gala.  You couldn't be more far from the truth.

It was not a political rally, which made it very refreshing. 

The entire program was broadcast on shortwave radio to our troops in both Iraq and Kuwait at the time so they could hear the support.  And they were extatic at what they heard.

Much more positive hearing support rather than  people saying they are simply over there fighting "another foreign war we can't win"...much like all of the anti-war hate rallies that took place before the war began.  How the troops could feel any support from those is beyond me.



Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/18/04 at 12:54 am


Excatly.  You weren't there.  You are just assuming that since a large group of people assemble in support of the troops that it is a big rednick "sh*tkickin" Republican gala.  You couldn't be more far from the truth.
Well, I wouldn't be inclined to traffic in stereotypes if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Darryl Whorely, Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, J.D. Hayworth, Zell Miller, and all that lot wasn't so eager to affirm them.

Much more positive hearing support rather than  people saying they are simply over there fighting "another foreign war we can't win"...much like all of the anti-war hate rallies that took place before the war began.  How the troops could feel any support from those is beyond me.

Again, you come back to the notion that we as citizens ought not to express our points of view on war and peace, unless we support the fighting.  It also sets up the cheap maneuver of blaming dissenters for the government's policy failures.  Right-wingers played that in Vietnam.  "Look, you dirty commie, long-haired, pot-smoking hippies said bad stuff about the war effort, and the GIs ten thousand miles away got so demoralized, it just took the fight out of them.  They could handle charlie shooting at 'em from every angle, they could handle the waylaying, booby-traps, Agent Orange, jungle heat, land mines, poisonous snakes, tooth decay, crotch rot, napalm, rotting corpses, and helicoptor crashes, no problem.  But Dr. Spock and Joan Baez, that just pushed it over the edge! That's why we lost." 

Don't do that again.  It's scapegoating of the most craven order.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: 80sRocked on 05/18/04 at 1:07 am



Well, I wouldn't be inclined to traffic in stereotypes if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Darryl Whorely, Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, J.D. Hayworth, Zell Miller, and all that lot wasn't so eager to affirm them.


Again, you dodged the question.

If any of the folks you mentioned were in the rallies(which to my knowledge were not), so what.  Isn't that their right? 

I mean is it so wrong to hold a rally to show support for the people fighting over there while you are here complaining about it?  Personally if I were over there fighting, I would much more prefer see a rally that supported my efforts, rather than one that did nothing but not only condemn the effort I was persuing, but told me I was in just "another foreign war we can't win".




Again, you come back to the notion that we as citizens ought not to express our points of view on war and peace, unless we support the fighting. 

hey, I'm not tryong to keep you from syaing anything.  Say whatever you want, thats fine.

But when you say you are "pro-troops", then say the things you have said about the "pro-troops" rallies, which btw you have never attended yet condemn because you assume they are full of redneck hick Bush-supporting "sh*tkickers", it wreaks of hypocrasy.

Let me say again, for what the 3rd or 4th time, these rallies were not pro-war.  They were to show support for those fighting in the war.  It was not a political rally. 

I was there, you were not..





Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Im Batman on 05/18/04 at 1:33 am

In latest Zogby poll, Duh-bya's approval rating is down to 42%.  No president has been re-elected with numbers this low in the month of May in an election year. 

The liberation of America continues...

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/18/04 at 8:59 am


In latest Zogby poll, Duh-bya's approval rating is down to 42%.  No president has been re-elected with numbers this low in the month of May in an election year. 

The liberation of America continues...


Yet Bush remains ahead in the electoral count and most of the national polls.  Why you wonder?  Because of what this topic says, JOHN KERRY IS A FAILURE.  A loser, a dud, a dryball.  I don't know how many people at my work who are democrats aren't even going to vote.  My best friend, says and I quote ''i'm not voting because all these people suck.  We got neo-fascist Bush, John i'm-a-f****ing-liar Kerry and no chance in hell Ralph Nader.''  But let me say again, I think the election will NOT be close at all.  Again, like all the political analyst on all these news shows are saying ONE MAJOR EVENT WILL DECIDE THIS ELECTION.  Either for Bush or for Kerry.  But hopefully not for John Kerry (whos flip-flops I listed which no one wants to comment on.)

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/18/04 at 11:27 am


I don't care for either candidate, but the most recent polls I found show Kerry leading Bush by 30 or more votes.  (UPI, Apr 23:  Kerry 204, Bush 174, remaining states: Kerry 123, Bush 86) (Wall Street Journal, Kerry 226, Bush 176, undecided: 136)


Watch the beltway boys at 6:00 on Saturdays EST.  They do a weekly electoral count.  The most recent count was Bush-294 and Kerry-244.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: GWBush2004 on 05/18/04 at 1:11 pm




Yeah, like ANYONE at Fox News is going to admit that Kerry has an edge.  I'll stick to non-partisan polls, thank you very much.


Maybe its more to do with democrats not wanting to admit Bush is ahead and Kerry sucks.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: Im Batman on 05/18/04 at 5:50 pm

God, theses Bushies are truly clueless about what goes on in the country outside of the red Republican voting states in the South.

Subject: Re: John Kerry is a failure...

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/18/04 at 6:07 pm





Maybe its more to do with democrats not wanting to admit Bush is ahead and Kerry sucks.

Glad they gave you that thesaurus!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im Batman wrote:
God, theses Bushies are truly clueless about what goes on in the country outside of the red Republican voting states in the South.

Nah, they're pretty much in denial about what's going on the "red states," whether south, west, or New Hampshire!  The prefer the World According to GOP!

Check for new replies or respond here...