Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 147
  1. #51
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    While you fail to admit that it wasn't thought to be very prevelent in the first place.

    Trial lawyers have their place, greedy, dishonest one, don't and give the profession a bad name.

    As far as the election goes, at least with Bush I know his stance. Kerry has been on all sides of the issues, except maybe abortion, throughout the campaign. Even Imus couldn't figure him out.

    -Bruce
    OK, Bruce you got me. There are some things I'll never admit! But, Kerry's stance on the latest invasion of Iraq hasn't changed as the article from www.factcheck.org below shows. A masterful tactical job is being done by the Republican Machine. In another thread, I posted an article about Karl Rove's tactics in Texas and my home state of Alabama. The "whisper" campaigns and self-attacks were chilling!

    I will admit, however, that I did not know that there was a vote on the 87billion for which Kerry actually voted. However, that version was conditioned on rolling back some of the tax cuts - of course, it failed. Could this have been what Kerry meant when he said he actually voted for it before voting against it on the straight up or down vote? I actually had questions about that one myself. The vote against the 87billion was a boneheaded protest vote, but Kerry (and everybody else) obviously knew that it would pass.

    I've also had some time to think about the differences between the vote to authorize the President to use force if necessary and the vote to go into Iraq back in the early 90's. I think you can say there is a difference IF the early 90's vote was a vote on a declaration of war as defined in the Constitution. (Only Congress has the power to delare war.) Why did Kerry vote no back then? I don't know. He hasn't explained that or his explanation hasn't been very publicized. But, authorizing the use of force by the President and declaring war are 2 different things. Personally, I thought getting Saddam out of Kuwait was the right thing to do.

    However, I think the "Kerry as flip-flopper" has been greatly exaggerated. People may be realizing that now. One of his faults is that he can't state his position in a 30 sec. soundbyte. I will admit that Kerry (like Bush) has communication problems.

    Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq
    Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture.

    September 27, 2004
    Modified: September 28, 2004
    eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

    Summary



    Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that he, as President, would not have gone to war without greater international support. But a Bush ad released Sept. 27 takes many of Kerry's words out of context to make him appear to be alternately praising the war and condemning it.

    Here we present this highly misleading ad, along with what Kerry actually said, in full context.


    Analysis



    This ad is the most egregious example so far in the 2004 campaign of using edited quotes in a way that changes their meaning and misleads voters.

    Bush-Cheney '04

    "Searching:"

    Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

    Kerry: It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.

    Kerry: I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have.

    Kerry: The winning of the war was brilliant.

    Kerry: It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

    Kerry: I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction.

    Kerry: I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.

    (Graphic: How can John Kerry protect us . . .when he doesn't even know where he stands?)

    "Right Decision"

    Kerry is shown saying it was "the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein." What's left out is that he prefaced that by saying Bush should have made greater use of diplomacy to accomplish that.

    The quote is from May 3, 2003, at the first debate among Democratic presidential contenders, barely three weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The question was from ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

    Q: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

    Kerry: George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

    (Note: We have added the emphasis in these and the following quotes to draw attention to the context left out by the Bush ad.)

    "As he should have"

    The full "right decision" quote is actually quite consistent with the next Kerry quote, "I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have," which is from an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" program Jan. 6, 2004:

    Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

    Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

    Q: Let me...

    Kerry: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.

    "Winning of the war was brilliant"

    When Kerry said "the winning of the war was brilliant" he wasn't praising Bush for waging the war, he was praising the military for the way they accomplished the mission. He also repeated his criticism of Bush for failing to better plan for what came next. This was also on "Hardball," May 19:

    Q: All this terrorism. If you were president, how would you stop it?

    Kerry: Well, it's going to take some time to stop it, Chris, but we have an enormous amount of cooperation to build one other countries. I think the administration is not done enough of the hard work of diplomacy, reaching out to nations, building the kind of support network.

    I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamentally services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations.

    "Wrong war, wrong place"

    When Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" he was once again criticizing Bush for failing to get more international support before invading Iraq. He criticized Bush for what he called a "phony coalition" of allies:

    Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): You've got about 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war . . . It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Earlier that same day at another campaign appearance he repeated pretty much what he's said all along:

    Kerry (Sept 6, 2004): "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq. I said this from the beginning of the debate to the walk up to the war. I said, 'Mr. President, don't rush to war, take the time to build a legitimate coalition and have a plan to win the peace ."

    We May Find WMDs

    Nine months of fruitless searching have gone by since Kerry said on Dec. 14, 2003 that weapons of mass destruction might yet be found in Iraq. But what's most misleading about the Bush ad's editing is that it takes that remark out of a long-winded -- but still consistent -- explanation of Kerry's overall position on Iraq:

    The exchange was on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace:

    Q: But isn't it, in a realistic political sense going to be a much harder case to make to voters when you have that extraordinary mug shot of Saddam Hussein...looking like he's been dragged into a police line-up?

    Kerry: Absolutely not, because I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. I knew we had to hold him accountable. There's never been a doubt about that. But I also know that if we had done this with a sufficient number of troops, if we had done this in a globalized way, if we had brought more people to the table, we might have caught Saddam Hussein sooner. We might have had less loss of life. We would be in a stronger position today with respect to what we're doing.

    Look, again, I repeat, Chris, I have always said we may yet even find weapons of mass destruction. I don't know the answer to that. We will still have to do the job of rebuilding Iraq and resolving the problem between Shias and Sunnis and Kurds. There are still difficult steps ahead of us.

    The question that Americans want to know is, what is the best way to proceed? Not what is the most lonely and single-track ideological way to proceed. I believe the best way to proceed is to bring other countries to the table, get some of our troops out of the target, begin to share the burden.


    The $87 Billion

    The final quote is the one in which the Bush ad takes its best shot. Kerry not only said it, he did it. He voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42. On the key, up-or-down vote on the $87 billion itself Kerry was only one of 12 senators in opposition, along with the man who later become his running mate, Sen. John Edwards.

    It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.

    Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."

    But aside from the $87 billion matter, this Bush ad is a textbook example of how to mislead voters through selective editing.


    Sources



    "Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Sponsored by ABC News," Federal News Service, 3 May 2003.

    "Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 6 Jan 2004.

    "Interview with John Kerry," MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, 19 May 2004.

    Lois Romano and Paul Farhi, "Kerry Attacks Bush on Handling of Iraq," The Washington Post 7 Sep 2004: A8.

    Calvin Woodward, "Kerry Slams 'Wrong War in the Wrong Place,'" The Associated Press , 6 Sep 2004.

    Fox News Sunday, "Interview with John Kerry," 14 December 2003.

    Adam Nagourney and Diane Cardwell, "Democrats in Debate Clash Over Iraq War," New York Times, 27 Oct 2003: A1.

    Joe Klein, "Profiles in Convenience," Time magazine, 19 Oct 2003.


    View Bush Ad "Searching"


    FactCheck.org will send each new FactCheck and Special Report directly to your mailbox (disable pop-up blocker first).
    Sign Up Now



    Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

    Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

  2. #52
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Bush couldn't say "occupation" for perceived bad connotations (like so much not said), "reconstruction" is either code or the new word, take your pick. We never believed (or shouldn't have believed) the terrorists would roll over because we took out the government. Quite the contrary, it's amazing we've done so well. And anyone who has any knowledge of military actions KNOWS we've done well, VERY well, dispute is useless . True.

    Pete
    I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".

    Sorry, I couldn't resist!

    On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.

  3. #53
    Forum Regular roster19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8
    I'm voting for Ralph Nadder, because no one ever picks the little guy. Even if my vote will pretty much not count since he's a real small party.
    -Somebody's watching you-

  4. #54
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    Dang it, Pete! Here you go. Of course it's not as strong argumentatively as the ones with ....... Assessment, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice , OTA-H--6O2 Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office July 1994.
    This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.

    It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!

    I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.

    You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.

    This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?

    I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.

    This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  5. #55
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.

    It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!

    I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.

    You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.

    This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?

    I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.

    This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?

    Pete
    The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and litigation and even those that are inconclusive, is that the so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. Why limit a constitutional right if you can't back up the limitations? Even if it is drag on the economy because it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of medicine, why would we target this at the expense of limiting fundamental rights. Admittedly, the 7th Amendment has not been held to apply to the States through the 14th (known as the incorporation doctrine), but many state constitutions grant the right to trial by jury in civil cases. But, Pres. Bush has just formally proposed his caps on med mal liability from the federal level taking that decision away from the states. This, if passed, may bring the 7th Amend. directly into play and would make for an interesting supreme court case.

    Most states, after the first wave of tort reform hit in the 1980's for the same stated reasons (premiums too high - but studies from various state insurance regulators show they never went down), provide for caps on punitive damages that take the form of multiples of compensatory damages, i.e., 3 x compensatories or 500K-2million, whichever is greater. Often included is a provision that factors in the net worth of the particular defendant, generally a business, so a judgment does not put the defendant out of business. The net worth is determined after verdict so that the wealth of the defendant does not become an issue before the jury. (You've probably noticed I haven't mentioned insurance. In my state, the jury cannot be told that the defendant has insurance, but it may play a role in the post-verdict determinations.)

    The whole premise of instituting caps, like many other political plans, is backward. The cases that make it to a jury in which the jury renders a verdict for the plaintiff obviously have merit. Thus, caps most severely effect the meritorious cases and not the frivolous ones that over 90% of the time get tossed out before making it to trial.

    I'm anti-cap, but I can live with caps on punitives because they are intended to punish and deter conduct done with a concsious disregard for the health and safety of others, or, in some instnaces, with the purpose of defrauding, and perhaps there is some unfairness in not knowing ahead of time what your punishment will be. I don't totally agree with this argument but it's often made. I think it's appropriate for criminal cases in which someone's liberty or life is at risk.

    What I find extremely harsh is caps on non-economic damages such as those for pain and suffering and mental anguish. When you cap these damages, then the person like the stay-at-home mom, a minor, or a retiree, is unfairly treated. Not only that, the whole concept shows a distrust for citizens. In other words, it says that citizens are too stupid to put a number on these categories of damages. In my experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.

  6. #56
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    Thanks, Pete. I feel much better about myself and the fact that I may still be accepted in society come Nov.3 (or whenever the recounts are done). BTW, have you seen the new NBC/WSJ poll. It has Bush at 48%, Kerry at 46% and Nader at 2% among registered voters. It has them tied at 48% among likely voters. The latest Zogby/Reuters has them knotted at 46% each. Kerry has actually gained ground since the weekend!

    I don't know who the dems could have put up to unseat a President during war time, because there is a substantial block of voters who are afraid to make the switch. OTOH, there are slightly more Bush skeptics out there many of whom would make the switch if the dems had found the right guy. I refuse to accept the notion that a change in leadership in and of itself sends the wrong message. If that were the case, then why not just put off elections until this whole thing is over? Wait, then we might send the message that we're afraid! Anyway, on an interesting side note, one prediction I saw had the election going to the House of Reps. Do you think the House would go with the popular vote regardless of which candidate got the popular vote?
    No way, the House is GOP so if that happens Bush will win. It would be interesting to see, though, and maybe we'll live to see the day the Supreme Court finds the Constitution unConstitutional!

    It occurred to me last night that these polls mean nothing, really, we need state-by-state polls to get a feel for the election. The WSJ says today WISCONSIN might be the deciding state with 10 electoral votes. Hear that Jeff? You may have decided the next president!

    Though I hope not!

    Tim, I'm glad you feel validated lol. These discussions can get so heated we tend to forget that for the most part we all mean well.

    It's tough for the Dems in wartime now. With their fringe groups being virulently anti-war period, and those groups get a lot of tv airtime, they will be perceived as weak that way, right or wrong. But run Kerry?! He was the LEADER of those groups for YEARS! Arrrgh it gets to me. If they would've found the right person they would've beat Bush handily IMO. But who? Dean? GEPHART? Maybe Moynihan, seriously, he's well respected. Wait, I've got to mention Kusinich again (he's my congressman!). Hillary, who I think short changed your party for personal gain - and if Kerry wins will have to wait a loooong time in politicians' years to run. Traficant lol. OK I'm getting a bit silly with that one. Still, the thought of that bad-wigged crook running a national campaign cracks me up in a big way.

    Of course the incumbent will say not to change horses in midstream. FDR played this card very well. There is some logic in this. All kinds of crap has been started worldwide since 9-11, most of which I'm sure we don't know about. It makes sense to allow it to play out, because 1) the incumbent has been involved for 4 years already - that is a long time, quite a leg up, 2) mixed signals ARE bad, and 3) none of the candidates, including Bush, are stupid or evil, give his plan a chance to come to fruition. Many of the players in our current drama worldwide have at least a passing familiarity with Bush, they have an idea where he stands. Even a country like France, posing on the world stage, KNOWS Bush will fight. He's proved it. This is invaluable! No wonder Iran and N Korea is having a sanitary problem with their BVDs' - they should. Even with nukes they know they're no match for us, and it scares them that Bush MIGHT mop them up. This makes it less likely we'll actually have to fight - peace through strength. That with deficit spending took out the mighty USSR, these little wanna-be Stalinist or Mohammadist outfits don't stand a chance.

    We will have an election, of course, haven't missed one yet!

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    I agree, Pete, Bush still can't say "occupation" and he has trouble saying "reconstruction".

    Sorry, I couldn't resist!

    On a serious note, yes we kicked butt and I'm proud of our military for their outstanding execution, especially in light of the fact that many neighboring countries wouldn't allow us to use more convenient mission launching sites. But, we didn't go into Iraq to go after terrorists did we? That's not what we were told. (It was alluded to though.) I'm waiting for the day that the administration tells us that the grand plan was to go into Iraq for the purpose of luring terrorists in so that we can kill them. I believe that is what has happened whether we planned for it or not. After Saddam's fall and the success of the initial invasion we continued to fight Saddam loyalists. Now, we're fighting a different enemy (terrorists) on the same battle field and I don't believe this new enemy was even there to begin with. Could this have been the plan all along? Or, am I way off base here? If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out. Then and only then will the Iraqis get on the road to peace and freedom. If we're keeping up some kind of charade by promising elections and encouraging talks between Iraqi leaders and so-called insurgent leaders, then the job may never get done.
    lol Bush can be funny! But sometimes I cringe - mightily.

    As far as going into Iraq after terrorists, weelllll, yes and no. The reason that WMD was a problem there and not with, say, Israel, is we didn't trust Saddam either to not use them or keep them out of the wrong hands.

    If it works out that we kill al-Qaida over there, that works for me. Keep them busy, and DEAD. We have a very effective fighting force, far better than most realize. Our boys are very lethal.

    "If it was the plan, then we need to stop worrying about elections and no-fight zones and clean that place out." Not too long ago I believed the same thing. What's happening is, we're letting the Iraqis exercise sovereignity! THEY are the ones persuing this course.

    This to me is amazing. And so quickly. The rest of the world can kiss my - foot. We put our money where our mouth is, we have NO INTENTION of ruling Iraq and we're proving it. They are calling the shots, not us. Bloodshed, they're used to, freedom they are not. THIS will win the battle for "hearts & minds" in the Arab world.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  7. #57
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    My final point on this whole mess:

    Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
    upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
    Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
    Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
    A) George Bush, or
    B) John Kerry?

    How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
    vote?

    -Bruce

  8. #58
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    My final point on this whole mess:

    Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding the
    upcoming presidential election is this: Given the chance, would Saddam
    Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad
    Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for
    A) George Bush, or
    B) John Kerry?

    How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan
    vote?

    -Bruce

    And the award for best spelling goes to Zapped. Dang man, it would have taken me half an hour just to make sure I spelled all those names correctly. Of course I am just assuming you got them right.

    JSE

  9. #59
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Bush declared major battle operations over. Not victory. Get your facts straight.
    Precisely. Those men had accomplished their mission. If the entire war was over as the liberals would want us to believe, why were troops still over in Iraq? What a simpleminded piece of propaganda the Democrats tried to glean from that incident!

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Kerry also applied for a deferment. It was denied because he wanted to go study overseas(France). The governement wasn't issuing deferments for that purpose. So Kerry weasled his way into OTS. Then he weasled his way onto a swift boat where he knew he cold lead, instead of take orders. Four months later he was on his way home because of an obscure rule that allowed him to after his 3rd combat injury. You can't tell me that he wasn't looking for any way out and found it.
    Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.

    Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.

    He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.

    If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    After the damage Bush has done, I'm not sure how Kerry is going to build better alliances, but I do know that he's polling much better in traditional European allied countries.
    When you're in the military, you depend on your fellow soldiers and you don't really care if they're black, white, athiest, Buddhist, etc. You know there's a mutual reliance on each other, thus a "Band Of Brothers" is formed. Yet there are 250-some Swift Boat vets who believe that Kerry is unfit to serve and a handful (all paid campaign workers) who support him. That's the first sign that Kerry doesn't have what it takes to form a coalition. Then you've got the recent incidents where Kerry calls the leader of Iraq a liar. Kerry insults the Italians, saying that "even the Italian army" could've beaten the Iraqis. That's an insult to the Italians and to our own troops. Germany and France have already stated that they will not participate in the Iraqi effort, no matter who is president. It looks like Kerry is just throwing out empty promises, doesn't it? Kerry clearly hasn't the right stuff to form alliances or coalitions. But he wants you to believe that he can do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK
    ...the mass media trying to spin this race...
    The email makes it sound like the media has got a conservative bias to it. Just look at the facts. We've had countless anti-Bush books and movies published. You see Kitty Kelley and Michael Mooron on The Today Show, The Tonight Show, 60 Minutes, etc. You have the worst media scandal ever with Rathergate, trying to poison the election with obviously fraudulent documents. You have an internal ABC memo published which shows how they were trying to spin their coverage to Kerry's advantage.

    Then you have the Swift Boat Veterans who have been BEGGING to be on those same shows. Has anyone seen them, besides in their own ads? Sinclair Broadcasting Group was set to broadcast "Stolen Honor" http://www.stolenhonor.com but Dimocrats dragged their stock prices down 17% and issued other threats, so they finally caved to the pressure.

    There are two movies out to counter Fahrenheit 9/11, called FahrenHYPE 9/11 and Celsius 41.11. Have you seen these on your local theatre marquees? A private citizen just paid $104,656 for a full page ad in the Washington Post just to be heard. See http://www.whatiam.net If anything, there IS a mass media effort to spin this race, but it's a liberal spin, not a conservative one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    Well considering we never found WMD, and we had people on the ground actively searching, and G.W didn't have the patience to wait until they were completed, an arguement can be made that we rushed to war.
    And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    Had you have been paying close attention, you would have found that we had absolutely NO support in the UN for this kinda of move.
    Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    Had Hans Blix had the oportunity to complete his search, he could have concluded that no WMD can be found, eleminated the chance that troops would be deployed, and 1,000+ would still be alive, and 5,000+ would not be maimed or injured. We would also have 200 billion dollars more in our coffers, and countless Iraqi people still alive.
    Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    During his (Bush's) watch, the desparity between the wealthy and the poor has grown wider.
    That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    This country is divided in a way unheard of in it's history, and his Presidency is directly responsible for that
    Nope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence The Terrible
    States that had a dearth of manufacturing jobs, ask them how they benefitted from his tax cut to the wealthy.
    Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffKnob
    People say that Kerry is going to raise our taxes. I don't think he will.
    More wishful thinking on your part. Kerry's record speaks volumes. He IS the most liberal Senate member, based on his record. To "think that he will not raise taxes" when he promises everything under the sun is totally naive.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffKnob
    Bush acts like a strong leader but if you don't have the brainpower to make good decisions you are no longer a good leader.
    Bush has made good, strong CONSISTENT decisions which make total sense. He does things that aren't politically expedient for him. He has made tough decisions that put his re-election at risk. He does not lead by opinion poll, but does what he feels is the RIGHT THING to do. That's not just a good leader, that's an EXCELLENT leader!

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffKnob
    We saw in the first debate how much of a retard he is.
    Read this article http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...berg101504.asp Here's an excerpt:
    Our dyslexic president made his usual goofs in the second presidential debate and heavyweight match, but by now no one really notices. It's as if the country had learned to translate him.
    .
    Listening to this president is like tuning a radio to not quite the right frequency.
    .
    Between the president's speech and my hearing, there was a lot lost in the translation. And yet no one has any problem understanding exactly where George W. Bush stands.
    .
    His words blur, but his meaning is damned well clear. Some of us may disagree with him, even strongly, but we're never in doubt about where he's coming from, and where he's absolutely determined to go.
    .
    John Kerry's diction, on the other hand, is perfectly clear. It's a textbook example of New England Upper Class so well modulated it's almost neutral. Each word is distinct. His delivery is smooth, his sound sincere. It's only his meaning that's a total blur, full of reservations, equivocations, and explanations that never really explain . . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

    That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.
    How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
    That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
    Click here to see my system.

  10. #60
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
    That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
    Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business. But that's against the principles of capitalism. Oh that's right, Kerry's a socialists. I forgot.

    One thing is for sure, many people don't understand the difference between paying more taxes because you can and paying more taxes because you are forced to by law.

    JSE

  11. #61
    Forum Regular jeskibuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Good example. Hmmm, maybe that's part of the reason we see so much outsourcing? Hmmm? Kerry wants to increase taxes on corporations. That makes sense. Let's force our domestic companies to move out of the country by making the tax burden so huge they can't stay in business
    Precisely.

    Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.

    If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.

    That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.

    So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.

    Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.

    Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"!
    Click here to see my system.

  12. #62
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    Precisely.

    Dimocrats' eyes glazed over when Kerry spoke of upping the minimum wage to $7. That pleases people who believe they are owed a better wage despite their lack of skill and/or education. But any company must turn a profit in order to stay in business, so if their labor costs go up they'll look to cut costs wherever they can in order to keep their product(s) price competitive.

    If that means finding cheaper labor abroad who will do the same job, that means more Americans lose their jobs because of the minimum wage hike.

    That means more people on the welfare rolls and on food stamps etc., living off the government which gets money to pay for those programs from working peoples' taxes.

    So Kerry's utopia of higher wages for unskilled labor actually results in fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher costs. But it tempts the fools who will cast their vote for him.

    Things have changed with our global economy and if we intend to remain competitive, we have to denounce the free giveaway tactics that con artists like John Kerry will use.

    Incidentally, I know it's not necessary to apologize to you for the way I worded my response earlier, but I just want to make things clear. I quoted you, then ended my response with the words "Get it?" I'm confident that you know that those words weren't directed to you, although I was initially addressing you. You and I are on the same page, so I already know that you JSE, "get it"!
    Screw you man!

    Nah, just kidding. I knew exactly what you were saying and to whom. (or is that who?)

    I just can't believe people don't see through Kerry's "front". Raising taxes on businesses small and large looks good at first glance because everyone thinks they can afford it. But that's not the case. With todays wireless and paperless world, companies will continue to move out of the US and into countries with less taxation and regulation. For example, I could do my job from just about anywhere in the world as long as I have a phone and internet access and basic office supplies like a printer, computer, pen, pencil, etc. It almost sounds like Kerry want's to drive businesses away? Ooops, I fogot again.

    Anyway, I'll be sulking away the rest of the day now that my Stros are out of the series.

    JSE

  13. #63
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    And the award for best spelling goes to Zapped. Dang man, it would have taken me half an hour just to make sure I spelled all those names correctly. Of course I am just assuming you got them right.

    JSE

    Shhhhhhh.....Don't tell anyone, but I copied them from "The Federalist".....

    -Bruce

    BTW - Although I have made my final point, I had previous points on this topic:

    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    A fair criticism of John Kerry
    Kerry's Foreign Endorsements?
    John Kerry and Troop Support

  14. #64
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

    The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

  15. #65
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and ....... experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.
    I didn't KNOW jury awards were Constitutionally protected in the Federal arena. I'll have to look at that.

    And strangly enough, I'm OK with caps on non-economic awards but not punitives, simply 'cause some companies are so big the punitive has to be huge to mean anything, and I trust businesses as much as I trust the gov't - not at all. Mostly a bunch of crooks IMO.

    What I mean about a Doctor chiming in is, like us here. Different than a study, you know?

    Anytime they pass a law, any law, it restricts us further. To bad we can't repeal one once in a while!

    So what do we need to do? Completely deregulate the insurance industry?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  16. #66
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

    The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters
    nobody,

    Thanks for the link. I'll read it this weekend.

    One thing was obvious at a glance - Kerry supporters sure are a lot righter - even though they're left.

    OK, so that's not that funny, sue me.

    I'm killing myself.

    Have a great weekend!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. #67
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    A bit off topic, but as this is an election thread, I thought the following study of just how informed of Bush's positions his supporters are, and how aware of established facts they are would be inetresting to some of you...

    The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

    This is a flawed report.

    1) They did not provide the questions used in any of the polls as an appendix item, therefore it is impossible to tell what the questions were and what biases they contained. It also make it impossible to repeat the work.

    2) They base many of their conclusions against the Charles Duelfer report, which came out on September 30 yet two of the three polls they used were taken weeks before it came out. The final, less than two weeks afterward.

    3) They claim that Kerry supporters are more inline with his view, while ignoring the fact he has been on both sides of almost every issue during this campaign. Not even Imus, who strongly supports him can tell where he stands.

    4) They use nebulous wording such as "substantial support" - which will mean different things to different people.

    This statement alone shows how biased this report is:

    "Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes."

    In a time of war, the president is not at liberty to say many things. He sure isn't going to say anything to indicate there may be a weakness the enemy may exploit. How are they to know how the president views his support? This is a complete guess on their part.

    I also find it amazing that they ignore the fact that an AL Qaeda base was found during the war that we were able to gain intelligence from. I find it amazing that you have a major Al Qaeda figure(whose name escapes me) in Iraq more than once over the years not an indication of an alliance of some type. Now Al-Zarkawi has now admitted is allegance to Al Qaeda.

    I can't say that I believe this "paper" is worth the electrons it's written on.

    -Bruce

  18. #68
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    Swift Boats at the time were known to be one of the safest places to be if you had to be in Vietnam. They patrolled the coastal areas. Kerry had no problem with that strategy, therefore he volunteered for it rather than be drafted into a place where he would face greater danger. But military strategists decided to change their tactics and to use them to patrol inland rivers. That's when Kerry started getting all bent out of shape because it put him in much greater danger. Kerry's service in Vietnam reeks of cowardly incident after cowardly incident.

    Several crafts would patrol together and when a mine blew up one of the boats, Kerry gunned his boat and high-tailed it out of the area. The other boats went to rescue the crew of the crippled boat. Once Kerry saw that it was safe, he turned his boat around and went back to the scene. There are many such incidents. One of the people who support him, Jim Rassman, was knocked overboard and was in the water at the time. He heard gunfire, so his account of the incident refers to enemy gunfire. When the mine exploded, the Swiftees thought they were being ambushed, so laid down fire into the shores. None of their boats had any damage recorded from enemy fire and Kerry's request for a Purple Heart was initially turned down because everybody knew there was no enemy fire. Kerry went around the system to get a Purple Heart for his wound which by his own admission came from an incident earlier in the day where he threw a grenade into a rice bin and the exploding shapnel and rice gave him some superficial wounds, treated with Bactarin and bandaids.

    He was such a whiner and complainer once they were on the more dangerous patrols that nobody wanted him around and considered him reckless and a danger to them. It was actually his fellow vets that wanted him to take advantage of the 3 Purple Owie awards to get him away from them. They felt their lives were in jeopardy with Kerry around.

    If the Swiftees are lying, all Kerry has to do is sign a form 180 to release his military records. That simple act would prove they were lying. Yet, he refuses to do so. Ask yourself...why is he so afraid of releasing records if he is telling the truth?

    .
    The above is the type of vile and vulgar stuff that is made up of distortions and personal attacks. Again, I refer you to my previous post "How about these tactics..." in which it is revealed that Karl Rove initiated a "whisper" campaign against a judicial condidate in my home state of Alabama. The whisper campaign accused the judicial candidate of being a homosexual pedophile. The candidate had been running ads that demonstrated his support for and establishment of a charity for kids in need. The philosophy behind the attack campaign is the same philosophy we've been seeing since summer - attack your opponent on his best, or otherwise untouchable strength. Rather than letting this vulgarity go unchallenged, I've copied the following:

    Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
    Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

    August 6, 2004
    Modified:August 22, 2004
    Summary



    A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.
    But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

    One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

    And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.


    Analysis



    "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

    SBVT Ad "Any Questions?"

    John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

    (On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry)

    Al French: I served with John Kerry.

    Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry.

    George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.

    Al French: He is lying about his record.

    Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.

    Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened.

    Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.

    Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest.

    Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead.

    Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.

    Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero.

    Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate.

    Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.

    Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did.

    Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry...

    Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted.

    Where the Money Comes From

    Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

    Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

    Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

    At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics .

    The Silver Star

    Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

    One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

    Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

    What Elliott said in the ad is that Kerry "has not been honest about what happened in Viet Nam." In his original affidavit Elliott said Kerry had not been "forthright" in Vietnam. The only example he offered of Kerry not being "honest" or "forthright" was this: "For example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.

    In the Globe story, Elliott is quoted as saying it was a "terrible mistake" to sign that statement:

    George Elliott (Globe account): It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.

    In his second affidavit, however, Elliott downgraded that "terrible mistake" to an "immaterial clarification." He said in the second affidavit:

    Elliott (second affidavit): I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.

    Elliott also said he now believes Kerry shot the man in the back, based on other accounts including a book in which Kerry is quoted as saying of the soldier, "He was running away with a live B-40 (rocket launcher) and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." (The book quoted by Elliott is John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography, By The Reporters Who Know Him Best.)

    Elliott also says in that second affidavit, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." That statement is misleading, however. It mischaracterizes the actual basis on which Kerry received his decoration.

    The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

    The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

    Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

    Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

    Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

    Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6:

    Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand.

    On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
    Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."

    Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.

    Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

    With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

    Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

    Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."



    The Bronze Star

    The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

    Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

    Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."


    Kerry Ad "Heart"

    John Kerry: I was born in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in Colorado, my dad was serving in the Army air corps. Both of my parents taught me about public service. I enlisted because I believed in service to country. I thought it was important, if you had a lot of privileges as I had had, to go to a great university like Yale, that you give something back to your country.

    Del Sandusky: The decisions that he made saved our lives.

    Jim Rassmann: When he pulled me out of the river, he risked his life to save mine.

    Narrator: For more than 30 years John Kerry has served America.

    Vanessa Kerry: If you look at my father's time and service to this country, whether it has been a veteran, prosecutor, or Senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter.

    Teresa Kerry: John is the face of someone who is hopeful, who is generous of spirit, and of heart.

    John Kerry : We're a country of optimists...we're the can-do people, and we just need to believe in ourselves again.

    Narrator: A lifetime of service and strength: John Kerry for President.

    A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

    Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

    A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

    The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

    None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

    Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

    On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

    Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

    When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

    Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

    "This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

    On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

    Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.

    The Third Purple Heart

    The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth further says Kerry didn't deserve his third purple heart, which was received for shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on right forearm. The Swift Boat group's affidavits state that the wound in Kerry's backside happened earlier that day in an accident. "Kerry inadvertently wounded himself in the fanny," Thurlow said in his affidavit, "by throwing a grenade too close (to destroy a rice supply) and suffered minor shrapnel wounds."

    The grenade incident is actually supported by Kerry's own account, but the shrapnel wound was only part of the basis for Kerry's third purple heart according to official documents. The evidence here is contradictory.

    Kerry's account is in the book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, who based it largely on Kerry's own Vietnam diaries and 12 hours of interviews with Kerry. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats," Kerry is quoted as saying on page 313. In that account, Kerry says his arm was hurt later, after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3, when a second explosion rocked his own boat. "The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm," Kerry says on page 314.

    And according to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94," Kerry's boat. As a matter of strict grammar, the report doesn't state that both injuries were received as a result of the mine explosion, only the arm injury.

    The official citation for Kerry's Bronze Star refers only to his arm injury, not to the shrapnel wound to his rear. It says he performed the rescue "from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain." The description of Kerry's arm "bleeding" isn't consistent with the description of a "contusion," or bruise.

    Rassmann's Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal article states that Kerry's arm was "wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat," which would make that wound clearly enemy-inflicted.

    In any case, even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.

    Another major discrepancy raises a question of how close Kerry's accusers actually were to the rescue of Rassmann. Tour of Duty describes Rassmann's rescue (and the sniper fire) as happening "several hundred yards back" from where the crippled PCF-3 was lying, not "a few yards away," the distance from which the anti-Kerry veterans claim to have witnessed the incident.

    First Purple Heart

    Two who appear in the ad say Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart. Louis Letson, a medical officer and Lieutenant Commander, says in the ad that he knows Kerry is lying about his first purple heart because “I treated him for that.” However, medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the “person administering treatment” for Kerry’s injury on December 3, 1968 . The person who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.

    In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says “the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade.” But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.

    On Aug. 17 the Los Angeles Times quoted Letson as giving a slightly different account than the one in his affidavit. The Times quotes him as saying he heard only third-hand that there had been no enemy fire. According to the Times, Letson said that what he heard about Kerry's wounding came not from other crewmen directly, but through some of his own subordinates. Letson was quoted as saying the information came from crewmen who were "just talking to my guys … There was not a firefight -- that's what the guys related. They didn't remember any firing from shore."

    Letson also insisted to the Times that he was the one who treated Kerry, removing a tiny shard of shrapnel from Kerry's arm using a pair of tweezers. Letson said Carreon, whose signature appears on Kerry's medical record, was an enlisted man who routinely made record entries on his behalf. Carreon signed as "HM1," indicating he held the enlisted rank of Hospital Corpsman First Class.

    Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry’s commanding officer at the time. Hibbard’s affidavit says that he “turned down the Purple Heart request,” and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."

    That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")

    Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.

    Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want

    Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US .

    McCain Speaks Up

    Sen. John McCain -- who has publicly endorsed Bush and even appealed for donations to the President's campaign -- came to Kerry's defense on this. McCain didn't witness the events in question, of course. But he told the Associated Press in an August 5 interview:

    McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.

    At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.


    Sources

    Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

    Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.

    Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).

    Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.

    Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.

    Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.

    Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.

    Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.

    Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.

    William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
    `This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.

    Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.

  19. #69
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    And that argument would be without merit. Saddam was supposed to comply with inspectors, as per his terms of surrender. He chose to obfuscate and play shell games. We had TWELVE years of patience. That's certainly no "rush to war".
    First, finding WMD was not a US mandate, but a UN mandate. Secondly Hans Blix at the time we chased out the weapons inspectors had openly said that Hussein WAS openly cooperating, just not in the fashion that US had desired. Since this is a UN mandate, it is up to them to decide the level of cooperation, not us. However your beloved Bush wanted to run the show, and now we have a mess of epic proportions on our hands.

    Saying we had tweleve years of patience doesn't quite square when you consider the fact we, at this time, on this day, have found nothing whatsoever in terms of WMD. If we waited twelve years, what's a few more months considering it could have saved more than 1,000 american lives, 5-6,000 injuries, billions and billions of dollars countless innocent Iraqi women and children, and the embarrasement of the Abu grabe debacle that has killed our world standing.. Some could argue that our aggressive stance on this issue, and the fact that WMD cannot be found has had the effect of devalueing our worth to zero. Can you imagine us going to China and bringing up civil rights issues? Wouldn't fly with them based on what they have seen.

    Had you been paying close attention, you might have noticed how Syria is on the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. is not! Doesn't that say anything to you? Syria?? A haven for terrorism and VIOLATION of human rights? The U.N. has lost its credibility. The oil-for-food scandal is just one more indication that the U.N. has turned into a corrupt organization which has devalued to the point of worthlessness.
    You are assuming that I don't know about Syria. It's these same kinds of assumptions that has got our country into this quagmire in Iraq. Putting Syria on the human rights commission was a mistake, just like we made our fair shair of mistakes, should this country once again be dismissed on the world stage just like you are willing to dismiss the UN? We went to war, the only place we guarded after the combat was over was the oil ministry. It remained the only building left unplundered by Iraqi's. Weapons were stolen from UNGUARDED weapons stockpiles, Lab's had been broken into with some lethal chemical drums found empty, ancient treasures had been looted because we didn't protect their museums. The electrical grid which was once minimally operating was not protected, order was not restored and peoples lives were not protected, yet we are standing guard in front of the oil ministry. Does that make any sense to you? Because of our mistakes, we now have a out of control insurgency, with terrorist coming from out of the country to wreak havoc because we didn't block and control the borders. France, Russia, and Germany cannot be relied upon, but we can't even get the countries within the coalition(if that is what you call it) or not currently in it to put combat troops on the ground. We can't even get them to stay in this mess as we already have countries pulling out, or about to. You have this, the largest debt in our history, tax cuts that benefit the rich, a middle class shrinking faster these last four years than in the previous 20, jobs leaving because of the tax benefits given by this administration, a heath care system that is out of control, and it took some else to mention it(he wouldn't because he has given tax cuts to drug companies) a country so divided, so bitter, so angry, and so without a purpose but to get themselves out of a mess, I am willing to give someone else a chance to do better than he is.

    I understand fully that Syria is on the Human rights commission, and the UN might not be credible at all. But does that give us the right to invade a soverign country based on a assumption, and not fact. We have corrupt leaders in our country, how do we think that we should be going elsewhere without taking care of our own problems.

    Wishful thinking on your part. The inspections team had YEARS to do their job. They could reach NO such conclusion as long as Saddam kept up the shell game. With the mass graves found in Iraq, how could you possibly say that more Iraqis would be alive if we stayed out of there? Saddam murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people. We're killing the Iraqis who are shooting at us!
    Is it wishful thinking, we haven't found $hit there, not one damn thing. Hans Blix hadn't found a thing during his search, we, after the war haven't found a damn thing either. It takes years to search a country the size of California. What he had was a bluff, and the inspections would have bourne that out. Saddam murder hundreds of thousands, however the dictator of North Korea has allowed(and killed) millions to die. Why haven't we gone after him? No resources that's why. Afganistan was a legitimate war, but we also had a alternative reason for going in there, and why we fought so hard to get the Russians out, a pipeline to ship natural gas across that country. We fought to get Iraq out of Kuwait because they would have controlled a huge portion of mideast oil had we let them stay. The Bush's have a huge stake in oil, and it seems rather ironic that both Bush's have fought wars in countries with a huge oil reserves. I am not a conspiracy kind of guy, but this does bring me pause, and make me wonder why we took it upon ourselves to deal with Iraq, even when we knew that they had no ties to terrorist, did no business with terrorist, and even had sights on doing business with terrorist. We relied on unsure, and unlitmately failed intelligence which Bush himself cut funding to in 2001

    That also happened during the Clinton administration. Were you complaining then?
    Not at nearly the rate it has happened with this current adminstration. Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country, Bush has. Clinton never gave tax cuts to the rich, while giving the middle class three hundred measly dollars, and the poor next to nothing. Bush has, and has vowed to do it again. Clinton DID try and deal with healthcare, and was given a bad wrap for it. Bush has done NOTHING on healthcare and now we have 40million(about 20-25 million more than when he took office) without healthcare.

    Nope. Sorry. The Dimocrats are responsible for that. Before Bush even took the oath of office, he was being ripped apart by Dimocrats. They even blamed him for the downswing in the economy WHILE CLINTON WAS STILL PRESIDENT. They never gave Bush a fair shake and no matter WHAT Bush would do, they would criticize it. We get attacked on 9/11, and Dimocrats complained that Bush sat for a whole 7 minutes when first notified of it. But when he takes decisive action, he gets criticized. Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't. There are MANY instances of that kind of unfair treatment of Bush.
    Sorry Jesky, but that is not the truth at all. Bush wanted to change the constitution to support marriage, but penalize and marginalize gays. Gays hate him, and the christian right because of their influence in this. This happen during HIS watch, not Clintons. Bush got this country in a financial mess with increased spending, and tax cuts to the wealthy, not Clinton. The middle class has shrunk more in 4 years than in the previous 20 years. Bush has watered down conservation and wildlife protection rules, not Clinton, he strengthen them. Conservation and naturalist hate him. Bush threw his support behind getting rid of affrimative action. Now blacks and Latino's hate him(at least those not in the christian right). As long as I have been living, I have not seen such a variety of organizations, people, or whole parties hate a president so much. Arabs loathe him because he has disengeged from the palistinian issue thereby allowing terrorist to kill jews, and Jews to kill 4 times as many palistinians in return. .

    Bush had a record in Texas before he came to Washington. Texas was the most polluted state, had one of the worst education systems, and was not exactly working on a balanced budget. He also did not win the poplular vote, had no mandate, and millions of blacks were alienated to get him in office. Our highest court(or which a majority was picked by daddy Bush) decided this vote. The Democrats where attacking the system that would allow all of this to take place.

    Our global economy is changing and there's not a thing that Kerry, Bush or ANYONE can do about it. Keeping some industries alive is like demanding that companies who produced slide rules be kept afloat. That's nonsense and you know it. The "tax cut to the wealthy" is just another Dimocrat talking point. The cut was even across the board. Poorer people didn't get as much back BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PAY AS MUCH INTO THE SYSTEM. It's that simple.

    s.
    Sorry man, it is a known fact that these tax cuts help the rich more than the poor or middle class. Using an across the board system is loaded toward the rich by default. You should know this. Responsible tax cuts benefits those who need it the worst, not who paid the most. Bush designed a system of tax cuts that minimally benefitted those who needed it the worst, and gave the most to those who needed it the least. It is also well established that trickled down economics does not work(which is what this tax cut was designed to emulate). We knew this before he even took office, and If I knew this before, he should have unless this tax cut to the rich is a payback.

    I clearly understand the economy is changing. So why not change with the economy. Reward companies that keep jobs here with tax benefits and write offs. Give compaines an incentive to stay in this country and compete. If europe can manage to keep the compainies in their respective countries, why do we have a problem. One thing is for certain, companies that are shipping job abroad don't make slide rules. They are shipping engineering jobs(which require a very good education), medical transcribing, office administration, Customer service jobs involving idividuals private information and the beat goes on. Some of these jobs are highly specialized, and require masters and PH.D to do. How in the heck can Bush's education initiatives help somebody who already has more than 12 years of higher education? By calling the tax cut to the wealthy just a
    talking point, just goes to show just how deep a Bush supporert is willing to sink their heads in the sand and ignore this administrations arrogance, lack of forethought, and willingness to sacrafice the reputation of this country.

    Do I think anyone mind would be changed from any of these words. No. Some people are willing to sacrafice everything just to re-elect one person. The only President in our history who claims to have perfect record regarding decision making(refused to admit in debates that he made ANY errors, not even one!!!)
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #70
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by jeskibuff
    How about we look at it from the opposite angle? Years ago, California liberals decided to load up corporations with all sorts of taxes and regulations. More taxation means more money in the coffers, right? What HAPPENED was that it became economically undesireable for many companies to function in California, so they moved their businesses to more friendly states, like Nevada. The loss of those businesses in California meant less tax collected both from the corporations and the employees that worked for them. So, more taxation resulted in less tax income. Get it?
    That's how liberal destruction works. Then they try to blame the loss of jobs on Republicans.
    Sorry, but that's an oversimplification of California's situation and the wrong angle. For my job, I've done survey research and dozens of business interviews throughout the state over the last 10 years, and I can tell you that business taxes and regulations are consistently way down the list of costs that threaten to drive businesses under or out of state. Sure, businessowners will complain about taxes and regulations (who doesn't?) but those are rarely the most important factors that determine whether or not businesses stay put or move. Depending on the sector, the business climate factors center more around bigger concerns like labor force availablity/cost/training, cost and availability of business space, access to business partners and support services, and access to customers and markets. To distill it all down to taxes and regulations is one of the biggest myths that opportunist politicians have perpetuated in Calif.

    During the dotcom boom, California lowered several of its taxes because the state was awash in huge surpluses. But, those rollbacks did absolutely nothing to affect the market forces that caused that whole house of cards to fall. In that frenzied environment, businesses went under or moved because their venture capital ran out, their markets were insufficient to support the scale of their activities, they had to compete and overpay for a limited supply of labor, business space was unavailable and/or overpriced, etc. Taxes and regulations were but an inconsequential factor in that implosion.

    The Nevada example is not applicable because the actual volume of businesses that have relocated there doesn't amount to much, relative to the size of the California economy. Reno and the outskits of Las Vegas have had limited success with economic development, but the annual growth of any of the major economic regions in California will dwarf what Nevada's accomplished via the smokestack chasing approach. Those businesses that did relocate there are typically more in the marginal backoffice or warehousing operations, which are at a competitive disadvantage in California because the state's economy and its business climate assets are generally more advantageous to higher value added functions.

    Nevada's a state with low taxes, but it also has a less skilled labor force, lower investment in higher education, underdeveloped trade infrastructure, limited base of existing business services, smaller markets, and a less diverse economic base. Businesses that are in high value added sectors such as biotechnology are not going to locate in Nevada just because it has lower taxes. They'll locate in California or a comparable region that has a skilled labor force in place, access to world class universities and sources of technology transfer, and a diverse base of business partners and suppliers.

  21. #71
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Clinton never rewarded business to take jobs out of this country
    Sure he did, it was called NAFTA. -Bruce

  22. #72
    AR Member JeffKnob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by JSE
    Your not taking your thinking on the economy far enough. I'm no economic master but here is a very basic explaination

    Taxes are cut. That puts more money in people's pockets. People spend this money on goods and services or invest. Because of increased sales and investment, production goes up. Increased production and sales means companies make more money. Companies making more money can hire more employees, expand, grow. Now that more people and companies are working and making more money they pay more taxes.

    That's a very simplistic explanation so maybe someone else can chime in with a more detail explaination.

    Another way to look at it is, consumer spending drives the economy. More money in your pocket promotes more cosumer spending.

    In terms of your vote, maybe you should "bone-up" on the issues and understand them so you can make a informed decision. That would make a worthwhile difference.

    JSE
    Hey JSE,

    Why don't you "bone-up" after all according to Nobody's article Bush supports just live in a dream world. Use a little common sense; it works wonders.

    http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Onkyo TX-SR606
    PS3 Bluray
    Denon DVD-1920
    Panasonic TH-50PZ80U Plasma
    HR21 HD DVR
    Paradigm Esprit (front), Focus (rear), CC270 (center)

    2 - 15" Dayton HF subwoofers
    Two Soundstream M1 monoblock amps for the subwoofer

  23. #73
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffKnob
    Hey JSE,

    Why don't you "bone-up" after all according to Nobody's article Bush supports just live in a dream world. Use a little common sense; it works wonders.

    http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

    OK Knob, I'll do that. Thanks for setting me straight.

    JSE

  24. #74
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    What I'm not seeing is an argument FOR Kerry, only against Bush.

    No wonder, with Kerrys' record!

    At least we know what Bush will do. Hardly a strong endorsement, but Kerrys' hardly a strong contender.

    Unless you count his magic wand. You know, the one that will "fix" health care, help all citizens at all times for all reasons, balance the budget, while keeping a middle class tax cut, build a coalition including all our enemies, keep soldiers from being shot, all while relegating terrorists to a "nuisance".

    What a guy. No wonder his supporters are closer to reality! Got more of that stuff?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  25. #75
    SRO
    SRO is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    31
    Of course there are going to be those that will vote against him just because he is a Republican. It is not the right reason, but I know people who will only vote their party, Democrat or Republican. Bush is the incumbent, and if someone is not happy with his 4 years, it is perfectly acceptable to vote for Kerry. I am sure in 1996, many people used this rational in voting for Dole. Again, perfectly acceptable.

    I think overall Bush has done a decent job in the war on terror. I don't think we should have gone in to Iraq. At the very least, I want to be told the truth. If we in fact went in for freedom and democracy, when are we going to China? Oh, that's right, they supply us with cheap labor. While I am all for lower taxes, I would not lower them during a time like this. He KNEW that we were going to have increased spending. I don't make a lot of money, I don't live in a $10,000,000 house. I can barely afford the one I live in, so I am not going to quit my job. It's called budgeting, and Bush neds to get a clue on this. I don't understand conservatives supporting him. He never saw a spending bill he didn't love. Less money in, more money out. I wish I could live like that with no consequence. It will have to be paid back somehow. The next Democrat that gets in will probably raise taxes. This will be to balance the budget. Both sides will argue against cuts in their pet projects, and the Democrat will be called a "tax and spend liberal." Well, is Bush a "spend and spend conservative?"

    I am confused on Kerry's record. Does he show up in the Senate or not? In one sentence I hear that he isn't there 90% or more of the time, then next I hear he votes hundreds of times against defending the country. How many votes are there on defense, and is this all he shows up for? I would like for a Republican to tell me which it is, as they are making these claims. And while we are on this subject, didn't Cheney recommend the cuts in the late 80's/early90's that he did in fact vote to cut?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. OK guys...help me find some rock from 2004...
    By nobody in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:14 PM
  2. Let's do a "Favorites of 2004 So Far" thread!
    By DariusNYC in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 10:39 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-07-2004, 10:31 AM
  4. Check out the bands at San Francisco's Noise Pop 2004!
    By Finch Platte in forum Rave Recordings
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-26-2004, 03:17 AM
  5. Ces 2004
    By TinHere in forum General Audio
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2004, 08:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •