John Kerry for President!

Originally posted by faithinkarma
All I asked was for you to take something specific from that site and explain to me how it was untruthful. But this going round in circles is accomplishing nothing. I give.
Go back and read my first post. Please. I listed two stories that are in on the independent-media's website in the "under reported" section. Both stories are outrageous, and are from Capitol Hill Blue. CHB, as you said yourself, is not to be trusted. A site that relies on CHB for its content is, therefore, not to be trusted either.

I thought I gave you just what you asked for, right from the start. I still do think that.
 
Originally posted by BKtoo
I .

Also, and I've brought this up several times, I would appreciate if people would cite their sources when they post stats or articles. Thanks! :)


Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by JPN4265
Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.:rolleyes:
Here's one for you........
Did you know that all of those huge blobs washing up on beaches over the years really aren't remnants from giant, ellusive sea monsters? The DNA proves that all along they had been nothing more than whale blubber. Such a dissappointment. huh?:(

Okay find the source for that one please......;)
 

Originally posted by JPN4265
Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.:rolleyes:

With close to one hundred posts I would think you would be familiar with the common courteous practice of providing links to wherever a poster gets their information. It is not an easy way out. It is a way of verifying what you are saying is accurate and not paraphrasing.
 
Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Here's one for you........
Did you know that all of those huge blobs washing up on beaches over the years really aren't remnants from giant, ellusive sea monsters? The DNA proves that all along they had been nothing more than whale blubber. Such a dissappointment. huh?:(

Okay find the source for that one please......;)

Wait a sec! Does this mean the moon isn't actually the skull of an alien that once threatened earth?!? The Weekly World News told me so! ;)
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
Wait a sec! Does this mean the moon isn't actually the skull of an alien that once threatened earth?!? The Weekly World News told me so! ;)

You must consult the ancient oracle for the answer to your question......:cool:

Mine was actually in my local paper. The blobs had previously been classified as Giant Squid, or some other mega creature. It really is a true story.:D
 
I usually just consult the magic 8-ball. Unfortunately it seems to be stuck on "Unclear - ask again later" :confused3

Actually, I do remember seeing that story somewhere (or should I say somewhere reputable), believe it or not.
 
Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
jrydberg, I just want to say upfront that I am not attacking you, personally; rather, your post here brought to mind a trend that I've seen growing in the media and in political discussions, and I wanted to comment on it.

I find it somewhat distressing and disheartening that, somehow, any amount of disagreement with the current administration's policies and decisions is automatically labeled as "negative" or "an attack" or "bashing". OF COURSE anyone running against a current administration (any administration, not just the current one) is going to disagree with some of the things they've done, and highlight those disagreements, and set forth how they would do things differently. Why is this, now, perceived as "bashing"? What is so wrong with saying, "I don't like how things are going, and I want it to change."
There really is a difference and Kerry's speech contained both.

When he said he would not privatize Social Security--that's highlighting how he would do things differently than the current administration, not an attack.

When he said he would raise minimum wage, that's stating a change he wants to make, not an attack.

That's great, that gives you something to go on in making your decision.

When he says his vice-president won't hold secret meetings with energy officials, that's an attack. You're putting an idea out there, an unsubstantiated insinuation. The same thing as when you say you won't mislead the nation into war--that's an attack because you're insinuating that Bush lied, even though you won't come out and say so in interviews. You're getting the idea out there without having to own up to the words. That's objectionable, considering he's the one who asked for a civil campaign about policies.
 
Originally posted by JPN4265
Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.:rolleyes:

Actually, that's not the way it works around here. If you post a quoted article, it's your responsibility to show where you got it from. That way others can see for themselves if the source is credible and if you chose to do creative editing or not. You might not know this, but sometimes people edit out parts of articles that are contrary to what they are trying to prove....amazing, huh?

Of course, you don't have to do it, but don't expect anyone to lend any credibility to any of the "articles" you post if you don't.

Wait, I think you do know that, don't you? Wasn't it you who edited out portions of the article regarding Kerry's encounters with some military personnel?
 
Originally posted by septbride2002
I think my post is to vague since many people didn't get it. This quote above is what I am trying to say. From Republicans I hear He changed his mind! He changed his mind! He authorized war and then changed his mind! Well of course he authorized war - he was being given the same information that Bush had. If (as the Republican's state) we are not to hold Bush accountable since he had bad information - then why are we so upset that Kerry changed his mind?

~Amanda
I don't think people object to him changing his mind. I think they object to him changing his mind for what appears to be political reasons--to get the vote in the primaries. I think they object to him saying that Bush misled the nation when he clearly, by looking at his quotes from the time, came to the same exact conclusions Bush did. He didn't just authorize force if necessary, as he's trying to say now. He was out there saying the same stuff about Saddam's threat to national security that Bush was. Look at what he said at the time.

Now that the primaries are over, and he's gained the nomination, he's backing off the "Bush lied" stance because he doesn't need to appeal to the party loyal as much as he needs to appeal to the undecideds. That's why he's now swinging away from that and projecting the tough stance.
 
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."


From memo by Donald Rumsfeld



U.S. Economy Slows Drastically in Spring

Fri Jul 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the spring to an annual growth rate of 3 percent, as consumers, worried about higher gasoline prices, cut back their spending to the weakest pace in three years, the Commerce Department reported Friday.


US predicts $445bn budget deficit in 2004

July 31, 2004

Washington - US President George W. Bush's administration on Friday forecast a record $445-billion budget deficit in 2004, blaming the "war on terror" and repeated economic shocks.

The shortfall for the fiscal year ending September 30 represented a massive deterioration from a gap of $375 billion in 2003, the Office of Management and Budget said.


Terror attacks increased in 2003
April report incorrect, State Dept. admits


Monday, June 14, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims -- success in countering terror.


Report: Afghanistan could implode

Thursday, July 29, 2004

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British parliamentary committee has warned that Afghanistan is likely to "implode, with terrible consequences" unless more troops and resources are sent to calm the country.


Christians targeted by car bombs in new Iraq twist

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday August 2, 2004

Churchgoers hit by apparently coordinated attacks in Baghdad and Mosul. . .

Iraq Car Bombs Kill 7; U.S. Infantryman Killed (Update1)

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Five Iraqis including two police officers were killed and more than 40 were wounded in a car bomb blast in Mosul, the first of several explosions in Iraq today that also claimed the life of a U.S. soldier.



"Results matter!"

George Bush from campaign speech- Aug1st, 2004




:cool:
 
Originally posted by JPN4265
Were not here to provide you with the easy way out. Look up the quotes yourself. Kerry supports seem to believe that if they don't agree with something, it must be a lie.:rolleyes:

Nope, didn't call you a liar, but you're welcome to read into my request as you wish....

Is it really so difficult to put a link or cite a source, since you (the general "you", not "you" specific) are cutting and pasting from a site in the first place? If one is so enamoured of the quotes etc. they feel compelled to flash around, why are they afraid to cite the source? At least with a source cite, one can't be accused of editing a quote to suit one's purposes.
 
Originally posted by KennySC
You missed the point which is usual for a Kerry supporter. Also, never does a Kerry supporter provide facts about Kerry they only attack Bush. If you could ever get over Gore losing you might one day be objective enough to put the county and your own safety ahead of your anger and hatred.

So in other words, this country's safety can only come through Bush? Is that the point you're trying to make? Or as someone else put it "vote for Bush or die?

Puhleeeze, get your head out of the ideological sand. Bush has been nothing short of a disaster for this country. He has mishandled the war on terror. This country isn't safer because of Bush. Our armed forces are stretched beyond belief and the only way to keep troop levels up is to extend the tours of duty of the NG and call up people who thought they had retired.

Btw, you aren't going to win this war on terror simply on military power. The power is real impressive, but it isn't going to do the job alone. Ask the Israelis.

Originally posted by KennySC
If you go back you'll see how Carter allowed Iran to push him around for almost 2 years. The day Reagan came into office the hostages were released.

Talk about rewriting history.

There's a few things your forgot about the Reagan years. Remember 1983 and 241 dead Marines? What did "standing tall" Ronald Reagan do? Nothing. As if to add insult to injury, that atrocity was committed by Hezbollah. Do you remember where Hezbollah gets their support.......Iran. Remember the Iran Contra affair? What did Ronald Reagan do to avenge the 241 dead Marine at the hands of a terrorist group supported by Iran? He gives the Iranians arms.

While we're on the Reagan years, what did Reagan do while Saddam Hussein was gassing his own people? You are aware the rightwings favorite rallying cry "he gassed his own people" occurred during the Reagan years. What did Reagan do? Nothing.

Originally posted by KennySC
Clinton had 8 years to deal with the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Ronald Reagan had 8 years to do something about terrorism and he did nothing.

Originally posted by KennySC
If Gore was in office NONE of this would be the case and we would still be crying to the United Nations.

While you've got your crystal ball working, could you give me the 6 winning numbers for this Wednesday's lottery? Thanks in advance
 
Originally posted by WillyJ
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."


From memo by Donald Rumsfeld

For the sake of clarity, here's the entire memo:

October 16, 2003

TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm

Richard
 
Originally posted by kbeverina
When he says his vice-president won't hold secret meetings with energy officials, that's an attack. You're putting an idea out there, an unsubstantiated insinuation

In other words, there were no secret meetings. Really? What was Cheney's energy task force for all about? Cheney has refused to release any information about his energy task force even though policy was being made for this country.


Originally posted by kbeverina
The same thing as when you say you won't mislead the nation into war--that's an attack because you're insinuating that Bush lied, even though you won't come out and say so in interviews.

Bush did lie. He lied to the country about how much the war was going to cost. He lied about the number of troops needed. He lied that we were going to be treated as liberators. He lied when failed to tell the country about the depth of the insurgency.

Then again, maybe he didn't lie. Maybe he believed all the bs he was putting out about the war in which case he's the most gullible incompetent ever to sit in the White House.

So Bush is either a liar or an incompetent, take your choice.
 
Originally posted by WillyJ
[BU.S. Economy Slows Drastically in Spring

Fri Jul 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the spring to an annual growth rate of 3 percent, as consumers, worried about higher gasoline prices, cut back their spending to the weakest pace in three years, the Commerce Department reported Friday. [/B]

For the sake of clarity, here's the entire article. I took it upon myself to highlight a particular part. I apologize for taking the liberty.

U.S. Economy Slows Drastically in Spring

Sun Aug 1, 1:56 PM ET

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy slowed dramatically in the spring to an annual growth rate of 3 percent, as consumers, worried about higher gasoline prices, cut back their spending to the weakest pace in three years, the Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.

The April-June advance in the gross domestic product, the country's output of goods and services, was below the 3.8 percent increase many economists had expected and was significantly down from a revised 4.5 percent growth rate in the first three months of the year.

The administration, counting on a rebounding economy to bolster President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election prospects, insisted the second-quarter slowdown was only temporary and forecast that growth would rebound in the second half of the year.

Treasury Secretary John Snow noted the upward revision of the first-quarter GDP (news - web sites) figures with the lower-than-expected second quarter figure. If the two figures were averaged together, he said, it gave evidence of an economy growing at a solid 3.75 percent rate.

"We're on a positive track, and the fundamentals are solid for the future," Snow said in a statement.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), however, drew a contrast with the economy during the Clinton administration. "Guess what? In the last four years, the income of average Americans has dropped by $1,600" while the cost of health care, education and gasoline have gone up, he told a crowd at a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., on Friday.

Private economists were troubled that the second-quarter slowdown could develop into something worse, especially if job growth fails to rebound after a disappointing rise of just 112,000 payroll jobs in June. The July jobs data will be released next Friday.

"All in all, the GDP was a disappointing report," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "All the surprises were on the downside."

The weaker-than-expected GDP number gave Wall Street more to worry about in terms of how strong the economy will perform in the second half of this year. The Dow Jones industrial average managed to finish the day up a slight 10.47 points at 10,139.71, not enough to wipe out steep losses for July.

The biggest drag on second quarter GDP came from consumer spending, which rose by just 1 percent in the second quarter, the weakest showing since a similar 1 percent rise in the second quarter of 2001, when the economy was in recession. Consumer spending, a main driver of the recovery, accounts for two-thirds of American economic activity.

The weakness came from a 2.5 percent decline in spending on big-ticket items such as automobiles.

Analysts noted, however, that auto sales, after a bad June, have improved in July as dealers resumed offering incentives to boost sales. Economists said they still expect GDP growth to come in at 4 percent or better rate in the second half of the year, which would be strong enough to generate new jobs and maintain the decline in unemployment.

Campaigning for a second term, Bush talks often of the economy's creation of 1.5 million new jobs in the past 10 months. Kerry argues that this still leaves the country with 1.1 million fewer jobs than when Bush took office in January 2001.

Kerry contends Bush is pursuing a failed economic policy that has produced the worst jobs record of any president since Herbert Hoover and is subjecting Americans to a "middle-class squeeze" of falling wages and rising costs for health care and education.

Friday's GDP report was the latest indication that the economy, which had been racing ahead in recent months, hit what Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) described as a "soft patch" in June.

Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis, said the problem was that many of the factors that had provided stimuli, such as Bush's tax cuts and low interest rates supplied by the Fed, were beginning to wane. The Fed raised interest rates for the first time in four years on June 30 with more rate hikes expected in coming months.

Sohn said the GDP report provided evidence that other sectors were beginning to take up the slack, with business investment rising at a solid 8.9 percent rate, propelled by a 10 percent increase in sales of equipment and software.

Inflation remained tame in the second quarter, as reflected by a GDP inflation gauge favored by Greenspan: excluding energy and food, prices rose at an annual rate of just 1.8 percent, down slightly from a 2.1 percent increase in the first quarter.

As long as inflation is under control, Greenspan told Congress last week, the Fed will move rates upward at a measured pace.

The 3 percent GDP growth rate in the second quarter was the slowest growth in more than a year, since the economy expanded at a lackluster 1.9 percent rate in the first quarter 2003.

Over the succeeding four quarters, the economy turned in sizzling performances with consecutive GDP growth rates of 4.1 percent, 7.4 percent, 4.2 percent and 4.5 percent.

The 7.4 percent rate for last year's third quarter was revised from an original 8.2 percent. All the quarterly GDP figures over the past three years were revised Friday as part of the government's annual update to reflect new source data.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=1&u=/ap/economy&sid=95609868

Richard
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
In other words, there were no secret meetings. Really? What was Cheney's energy task force for all about? Cheney has refused to release any information about his energy task force even though policy was being made for this country.
It's common practice to keep confidentiality on task forces--at all levels of government and with all administrations. Did you not know that? You seem to think this is something unusual.

The irony is that the Sierra Club actually had more policies included than any of the energy firms.

Bush did lie. He lied to the country about how much the war was going to cost. He lied about the number of troops needed. He lied that we were going to be treated as liberators. He lied when failed to tell the country about the depth of the insurgency.
Would it be any use to ask for some proof of this? I mean, is there anything?
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
Then again, maybe he didn't lie. Maybe he believed all the bs he was putting out about the war in which case he's the most gullible incompetent ever to sit in the White House.

So Bush is either a liar or an incompetent, take your choice.
Nevermind. I see here you don't actually know, you're just speculating.
 















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top