What a pretty green lock. Where can I get one Mr. Moderator?
Keep this up and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to oblige.
I was driving home from school today and heard on the radio some suggestions for quotes for the Kerry campaign. One of them went something like this:
"John Kerry, he doesn't just take a stand on the issues, he takes three or four."
Thought that was pretty funny, just like his moronic quote. Kerry doesn't get it, before he starts Bush bashing he needs to figure out where he stands first.
No. Kerry tried add a tax increase rider in the supplemental spending to pay for the body armor. That's what he voted for. Not getting that he voted against it. So he voted against body armor.
Kerry talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says we shouldn't "cut and run" in Iraq yet he doesn't want to fund the effort to not cut and run.
Shouldn't the question be why didn't Bush give them body armor to being with?
And so here we go again. After "Gore will say anything to get elected" and "Gore is a serial liar" we have "Kerry is on both sides of every issue".
Apparently the idea is that one or two negative slogans, if repeated ad nauseum, will come to be a chain around the candidates neck. And of course, it helps to have a population of deeply uncritical and credulous partisans who will take up the chant like the mindless little parrots they are.
Next come the "urban myths", helpfully diseminated by the right wing media, about Kerry's shocking lapses of common sense and ethics. It won't matter a bit that these stories can be easily refuted, the idea is to create a picture of the man's character that through endless repitition starts to take hold as a meme.
Which is where Bush's astounding war chest comes in. That much money buys a lot of rumor, inuendo and distortions. And "a lot" is the operative word here, because carpet bombing the populice with "Kerry the flip-flopper" is more important than anything real or pertinent to the lives of Americans.
Everybody here on both sides of the political aisle that espouse their views as do it my way or the highway are good examples of why this country needs a viable third pary. Kerry's retort that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation is correct. The first time it came up on the senate floor the funds were in a bill that would require the congress to cut back the tax cutsto fund it. When this proposal was rejected, then it came back in a bill with no tax cuts required. This bill passed, and Kerry voted no on this one. Thus he was able to vote both for and against the measure to provide body armor for our troops, ect. Bush is no better than Kerry when he comes out and says that he wants to ammend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Just like Kerry he is pandering to his supporters in a purely political way. As with Kerry voting for, and against supporting our troops Bush asks for an amendment to the constitution that has been amended about 2 dozen times, and requires that 2 thirds of the states must ratify it. Bush like Kerry can point to his supporters and proudly say how he is for something that probably stands the chance of a snowball in hell of becoming law. The art of politics by both our political parties in the USA is an example of hypocrisy, and double speek at its finest. Personally both these candidates gives me good reason to want to vote for the libertarian party, or Ralph Nader. At least the candidates from there will tell us the truth more often than our Republican/Democrat candidates will!
First of all, welcome to AI/AO. Second of all, if you expect anyone to read more than half way through your post use the return key once in a while. Seriously. Again, welcome.
Everybody here on both sides of the political aisle that espouse their views as do it my way or the highway are good examples of why this country needs a viable third pary. Kerry's retort that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation is correct. The first time it came up on the senate floor the funds were in a bill that would require the congress to cut back the tax cutsto fund it. When this proposal was rejected, then it came back in a bill with no tax cuts required. This bill passed, and Kerry voted no on this one. Thus he was able to vote both for and against the measure to provide body armor for our troops, ect. Bush is no better than Kerry when he comes out and says that he wants to ammend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Just like Kerry he is pandering to his supporters in a purely political way. As with Kerry voting for, and against supporting our troops Bush asks for an amendment to the constitution that has been amended about 2 dozen times, and requires that 2 thirds of the states must ratify it. Bush like Kerry can point to his supporters and proudly say how he is for something that probably stands the chance of a snowball in hell of becoming law. The art of politics by both our political parties in the USA is an example of hypocrisy, and double speek at its finest. Personally both these candidates gives me good reason to want to vote for the libertarian party, or Ralph Nader. At least the candidates from there will tell us the truth more often than our Republican/Democrat candidates will!
Well, I disagree. I think Kerry's vote to not do the war on a tab is a perfectly principled stance, and more risky than pandering.
Where as Bush's constitutional amendment trial balloon is overtly and obviously a play to his base, not least of all because it requires nothing more of him even if he wins a second term.
Personally both these candidates gives me good reason to want to vote for the libertarian party, or Ralph Nader.
A third or even 4th viable party would be great IMHO.
Quote:
At least the candidates from there will tell us the truth more often than our Republican/Democrat candidates will!
You don't know that. Every politician in office is like a lap dancer. Show her the money and she'll dance for you. The current admin.(and I'm a registered Rep)has taken that to the next level though. Lobbyists have too much $power$.
"John Kerry, he doesn't just take a stand on the issues, he takes three or four."
Quote:
Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
The Church of Bush ( Gilsch) is so dependent on the propaganda they don't see that it's a deliberate effort to deflect attention from Bush making the flip-flop his presidential style.
Shouldn't the question be why didn't Bush give them body armor to being with?
Cheney gave the answer today. The latest body armor was a new product and the fab was not up to speed. When Iraq was gearing up there was only one factory making it. Now they have eight. If I remember correctly everyone has it now.
Well, I disagree. I think Kerry's vote to not do the war on a tab is a perfectly principled stance, and more risky than pandering.
Where as Bush's constitutional amendment trial balloon is overtly and obviously a play to his base, not least of all because it requires nothing more of him even if he wins a second term.
What's more risky is underfunding the troops in a war zone. Especially after voting to authorize the war.
Cheney gave the answer today. The latest body armor was a new product and the fab was not up to speed. When Iraq was gearing up there was only one factory making it. Now they have eight. If I remember correctly everyone has it now.
Good enough?
Well, that's good that they've got it now, A YEAR AFTER WE INVADED and nearly a year after "major combat operations are over."
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
What a pretty green lock. Where can I get one Mr. Moderator?
Keep this up and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to oblige.
I was driving home from school today and heard on the radio some suggestions for quotes for the Kerry campaign. One of them went something like this:
"John Kerry, he doesn't just take a stand on the issues, he takes three or four."
Thought that was pretty funny, just like his moronic quote. Kerry doesn't get it, before he starts Bush bashing he needs to figure out where he stands first.
Originally posted by Scott
No. Kerry tried add a tax increase rider in the supplemental spending to pay for the body armor. That's what he voted for. Not getting that he voted against it. So he voted against body armor.
Kerry talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says we shouldn't "cut and run" in Iraq yet he doesn't want to fund the effort to not cut and run.
Shouldn't the question be why didn't Bush give them body armor to being with?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Keep this up and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to oblige.
Keep what up? Brilliant. I know Fellowship's intelligent enough to realize it was an innocent post.
Jesus. I feel bad for you. You must be getting an ulcer about now.
Apparently the idea is that one or two negative slogans, if repeated ad nauseum, will come to be a chain around the candidates neck. And of course, it helps to have a population of deeply uncritical and credulous partisans who will take up the chant like the mindless little parrots they are.
Next come the "urban myths", helpfully diseminated by the right wing media, about Kerry's shocking lapses of common sense and ethics. It won't matter a bit that these stories can be easily refuted, the idea is to create a picture of the man's character that through endless repitition starts to take hold as a meme.
Which is where Bush's astounding war chest comes in. That much money buys a lot of rumor, inuendo and distortions. And "a lot" is the operative word here, because carpet bombing the populice with "Kerry the flip-flopper" is more important than anything real or pertinent to the lives of Americans.
Originally posted by dbamber
[B]...run-on paragraph.../B]
First of all, welcome to AI/AO. Second of all, if you expect anyone to read more than half way through your post use the return key once in a while.
Originally posted by dbamber
Everybody here on both sides of the political aisle that espouse their views as do it my way or the highway are good examples of why this country needs a viable third pary. Kerry's retort that he voted for the $87 billion appropriation is correct. The first time it came up on the senate floor the funds were in a bill that would require the congress to cut back the tax cutsto fund it. When this proposal was rejected, then it came back in a bill with no tax cuts required. This bill passed, and Kerry voted no on this one. Thus he was able to vote both for and against the measure to provide body armor for our troops, ect. Bush is no better than Kerry when he comes out and says that he wants to ammend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Just like Kerry he is pandering to his supporters in a purely political way. As with Kerry voting for, and against supporting our troops Bush asks for an amendment to the constitution that has been amended about 2 dozen times, and requires that 2 thirds of the states must ratify it. Bush like Kerry can point to his supporters and proudly say how he is for something that probably stands the chance of a snowball in hell of becoming law. The art of politics by both our political parties in the USA is an example of hypocrisy, and double speek at its finest. Personally both these candidates gives me good reason to want to vote for the libertarian party, or Ralph Nader. At least the candidates from there will tell us the truth more often than our Republican/Democrat candidates will!
Well, I disagree. I think Kerry's vote to not do the war on a tab is a perfectly principled stance, and more risky than pandering.
Where as Bush's constitutional amendment trial balloon is overtly and obviously a play to his base, not least of all because it requires nothing more of him even if he wins a second term.
Originally posted by dbamber
Personally both these candidates gives me good reason to want to vote for the libertarian party, or Ralph Nader.
A third or even 4th viable party would be great IMHO.
At least the candidates from there will tell us the truth more often than our Republican/Democrat candidates will!
You don't know that. Every politician in office is like a lap dancer. Show her the money and she'll dance for you. The current admin.(and I'm a registered Rep)has taken that to the next level though.
Originally posted by 709
*THIS* is the best anti-Kerry thread you can come up with SDW2001???
Yeah, funny how he works overtime to come up with this.
Of course, he probably has to look just as hard to find Bush's redeeming qualities, and even then can't find anything factual or convincing.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
"John Kerry, he doesn't just take a stand on the issues, he takes three or four."
Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...07.html#002677
The Church of Bush (
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, funny how he works overtime to come up with this.
Of course, he probably has to look just as hard to find Bush's redeeming qualities, and even then can't find anything factual or convincing.
Oh don't worry...there's more. Kerry got his ass handed to him this week.
Originally posted by 709
*THIS* is the best anti-Kerry thread you can come up with SDW2001???
Jesus. I feel bad for you. You must be getting an ulcer about now.
EUREKA!
Originally posted by HOM
Shouldn't the question be why didn't Bush give them body armor to being with?
Cheney gave the answer today. The latest body armor was a new product and the fab was not up to speed. When Iraq was gearing up there was only one factory making it. Now they have eight. If I remember correctly everyone has it now.
Good enough?
Holy shite... I really didn't need to see that.
Originally posted by addabox
Well, I disagree. I think Kerry's vote to not do the war on a tab is a perfectly principled stance, and more risky than pandering.
Where as Bush's constitutional amendment trial balloon is overtly and obviously a play to his base, not least of all because it requires nothing more of him even if he wins a second term.
What's more risky is underfunding the troops in a war zone. Especially after voting to authorize the war.
I can't decide which one is better...
"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
? GWB Declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
GWB - Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
or something topical for an internet message board
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
? GWB Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000
Originally posted by Scott
Cheney gave the answer today. The latest body armor was a new product and the fab was not up to speed. When Iraq was gearing up there was only one factory making it. Now they have eight. If I remember correctly everyone has it now.
Good enough?
Well, that's good that they've got it now, A YEAR AFTER WE INVADED and nearly a year after "major combat operations are over."