John Kerry for President!

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=Under Reported

very interesting reading

At least as interesting as, say, the dudge report if you're looking for unbiased information.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[KennySC]

Why doesn't Kerry talk about anything he has done since the age of 20? That's because Kerry is one of the most liberal senators alive and very clostly followed by Edwards. Everyone posting here for Kerry should go back and realize it was Clinton that allowed us to be so exposed to 9/11, Before that it was Carter.... remember IRAN? I don't know which is more dangerous... the terrorists or the idiots that would vote for Kerry!! The only thing that motivates the Democratic Party is anger and hatred…. If you really want to understand why Democrats should be supporting Bush listen to one of your own. Senator Zell Miller from Georgia or Mayor Koch from New York! I dare you!

 

[peachgirl]

I love it when people post garbage like this....

don't know which is more dangerous... the terrorists or the idiots that would vote for Kerry!!

And then claim it's the Democrats who are full of anger and hate.

The only thing that motivates the Democratic Party is anger and hatred…

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
At least as interesting as, say, the dudge report if you're looking for unbiased information.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

Why are these criticisms never specific? Why never cite examples of what is wrong?

 

[jrydberg]

I'm no supporter of Kerry, but support for Kerry does not make one an idiot.

 

[BKtoo]

LOL I do have to laugh when I read certain posts. If I had special glasses, this is how they would look:

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahtalkingpointsblahblahblahblahblahbblahblahtalkingpointsblahblahblahblahblahblah.

(to better understand what I'm saying, click on the "Conventional Wisdom" video on this Comedy Central webpage: http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_sho...wart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=1&p=stewart )

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by KennySC
Why doesn't Kerry talk about anything he has done since the age of 20? That's because Kerry is one of the most liberal senators alive and very clostly followed by Edwards. Everyone posting here for Kerry should go back and realize it was Clinton that allowed us to be so exposed to 9/11, Before that it was Carter.... remember IRAN? I don't know which is more dangerous... the terrorists or the idiots that would vote for Kerry!! The only thing that motivates the Democratic Party is anger and hatred…. If you really want to understand why Democrats should be supporting Bush listen to one of your own. Senator Zell Miller from Georgia or Mayor Koch from New York! I dare you!

If I remember it correctly Reagan and Bush Sr. served three terms between Carter and Clinton - The former funding Bin Laden and Saddam and the latter doing not enough against them.
Trying to use them as 'weapons' against the Soviet Union respectively Iran. Those are the guys responsible for nowadays problems. And Bush Jr. only made it worse.

 

[faithinkarma]

Thanks BKtoo,

A good laugh, just when one was needed.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Why are these criticisms never specific? Why never cite examples of what is wrong?

I'm not RB, but I'll turn it around. You are fond of posting from some extremely dubious sites. Why would you expect us to debate based on information from such an off the wall site? To do so would give them credibility that they don't deserve.

The independent-media.tv site is the latest, and it's a total joke. Their section on under reported "stories" leans heavily on Capitol Hill Blue as a source. That's a site that's well known for just making things up, and makes Drudge look like the NY Times (that's supposed to be a compliment to Drudge, BTW). The big stories they're using from CHB are "Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior" and "Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World". There's a reason these things are "under" reported, you know. For all intents and purposes, CHB is one of those magazines you see at the grocery store checkout line. One of the black and white ones.

Seriously, stick to sites that are at least moderately credible. This one isn't.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by shortbun
Glad to bring you into this century but I see we still have work to do as you refer to "the man" rather than the
candidate and ....well, never mind.

Now, on that "IF" in your comments about what GWB said in
Missouri. You didn't recognize that as a not so subtle comparison
in his eyes about who the best First Lady would be? Hmmm,
again, more work to do.

Last-you might have voted for Ron; you got Nancy a great deal
of the time. And-Bill and Hillary stated right up front that they
were a team. My husband and I are partners. At this time
in history, any good marriage is a partnership with input, guidance
and support being the very least a spouse contributes. A First
Lady who denies she's involved is suspect and detached IMHO.
I have my thoughts on why Laura Bush would detach herself from
her husband. That's another post.

So I vote for the candidate, sorry I called him a man when that is what he is..it is a man not a woman running at this time. My husband and I are also partners in the home and marriage. He didn't get his job in mangement based on me and I didn't get mine based on him. I would never presume to tell him what to do at work...at home I will..but not with his job....he would never tell me what to do either place

I never said the First Ladies weren't involved...if I remember correctly there was just a bit said about Nancy being the one who ran the White House. And I know there are lots of folks that don't like Hillary. But I din't vote for their husbands based on any of their messages or speeches or what they may have said or done. I vote for the candidate and the candidate/candidates only. The only reason I am even remotely leaning towards Kerry is because of Edwards...but that is still a very remote chance.

Now I have to go back and read whatever else I missed while I was knitting all day.

 

[faithinkarma]

It was a time line of facts. Which facts do you dispute? Which specific facts are not credible? I am not asking anyone to engage in a debate. I offered the site for anyone who was interested. But to simply complain about the site without saying why other than generalizations serves no purpose either. I don't believe I have ever questioned anyone's posts without at least providing some back up for my statements.



February, 1968
A senior at Yale, Bush takes an Air Force officers pilot aptitude test scoring a 25, the lowest passing score.

November 1970
Bush's father is re-elected to Congress. Bush is promoted to first lieutenant and rejected by the University of Texas School of Law.

September 4, 1976
George W Bush is arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving with a blood-alcohol level of .10 percent. A Bush spokesman acknowledges this is Bush's third arrest and his driving privileges are suspended for two years.

1978
Bush loses his first attempt at politics when his opponent pegs him as a spoiled rich kid from New England.

With no experience, Bush raises $4.7 million from family friends to form an oil exploration company named Arbusto Energy Inc. They find no oil in Texas.

Just for starters. which ones of the above are untrue?

 

[faithinkarma]

As to your accusation of my fondness for dubious sources....you don't like my most recent link, and I did once link to Capitol Blue, before someone took the time to explain to me that it was not a reliable source. As in, explained why it was not credible, not simply assert that it was not. I was wrong and I admitted it. So apparently I have been guilty twice. Given the number of links I have provided you are hardly entitled to make such a blanket statement about my sources are you? Well, not, that is, if you have any interest in fairness, and not simply taking a cheap shot.

 

[Nancy]

I'm sure the facts are correct for both sides...BUT it does seems as though they found every bad thing they could about Bush and every good thing about Kerry...very sugar coated. Now if the site was more biased for Bush I'm sure the time line would have some of the negatives on Kerry and more positives on Bush.

Like I have repeatedly said. There are 2 sides to every story..or at least 2 points of view. Some people choose to support Kerry, some choose to support Bush....choosing one over the other doesn't make one person right and another wrong...that's just the way things are.

And FIK...thanks for providing those links...I have read some interesting facts from following those links.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by BKtoo
LOL I do have to laugh when I read certain posts. If I had special glasses, this is how they would look:

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahtalkingpointsblahblahblahblahblahbblahblahtalkingpointsblahblahblahblahblahblah.

(to better understand what I'm saying, click on the "Conventional Wisdom" video on this Comedy Central webpage: http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_sho...wart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=1&p=stewart )

Too funny...reminds me of how the adults talk on the Peanuts specials!

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Nancy
Too funny...reminds me of how the adults talk on the Peanuts specials!

That is so exactly right. Good comparison !

 

[arminnie]

I'm no supporter of Kerry, but support for Kerry does not make one an idiot.

Neither does support for President Bush - that's news to lots of people. It is really tiring hearing people say that Bush is an idiot as is anyone who supports him.

How many of you have an MBA from Harvard? Maybe he did or did not have help getting, in but that meant nothing with respect to staying in and graduating. HBS is a very cut-throat environment. A student who cannot cut it gets devoured there.

I have an MBA from Stanford from approximately the same time period. I was also accepted in the Harvard program and am very familiar with both schools - especially during the 70s.

But I do think it is TOTALLY IDIOTIC for supporters of either side to rant and rave about how their candidate is going to blow out the other candidate in November - no questions asked.

People - the race is a dead heat right now and lots of things could happen in the next 3 months. Absolutely no one knows for sure who is going to win at this point in the game.

I realize that stating "Candidate X is definitely going to win the election" is often just wishful thinking, but it can make one sound like a fool when there is little more than wishful thinking to back it up at this stage of the game.

I am working in the Bush campaign, and get confidential and candid updates. And yes - I am more pleased than displeased with the how the election appears to be going, BUT I would be a total fool to say 'Nah-na-nah-na-nah-nuh - my candidate is going to beat your candidate." (not to mention how mean spirited acting like that would be.)

I totally respect your right to disagree with Bush and his policies. If you truly believe that his presidency is "fill in the blank" and that is not tolerable to you, then you have the right to that opinion. As do I have the right not to share your opinion.

 

[faithinkarma]

arminnie,

That was a great post !

I truly envy the way you are able to be involved in this process first hand. If I remember correctly you said you are an alternate delegate to the convention? Pardon my ignorance, but does that mean you get to go to the convention? Or do you only get to go if you have to replace someone?

 

[jrydberg]

Well said, arminnie. I agree completely

As for the election, I find it hard to believe Kerry will get anything in the South or a large section of the Mountain states, and have an equally hard time believing Bush will be competitive in the Northeast and other high electoral vote states. Bottom line, they both appear to have a substantial base of electoral votes and very few states (relatively speaking) are actually "in play," as they say. Should be interesting as November approaches.

 

[jennyanydots]

for what it's worth, I think this election is even closer than 2000. and that came down to a handful of votes in a few key states.

I guess we won't know until 11/2.

at least, i hope we'll know on 11/2, and not after a court challenge...

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
As to your accusation of my fondness for dubious sources....you don't like my most recent link, and I did once link to Capitol Blue, before someone took the time to explain to me that it was not a reliable source. As in, explained why it was not credible, not simply assert that it was not. I was wrong and I admitted it. So apparently I have been guilty twice. Given the number of links I have provided you are hardly entitled to make such a blanket statement about my sources are you? Well, not, that is, if you have any interest in fairness, and not simply taking a cheap shot.

I made no blanket statement. I took the time to discredit a particular site, and in passing Capitol Blue. I did say that you were "fond of posting from some extremely dubious sites." Maybe fond was the wrong choice of words. But suppose I had "this isn't the first time you've referenced some extremely dubious sites." Would that have been OK? It would be accurate, right?

I'm just trying to say that if you're going to go far enough out of the mainstream, make sure you know who you're quoting. It's not the quantity, it's the quality.