Caution; political comments follow

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:34 pm

Rekd wrote:What EXACTALLY did Shrub lie about?

"There are WMD's and we know where they are"
"There's a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda"

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:28 pm

If Bush lied re these items, everybody else of any acclaim lied twice; once when they voted for the same things Bush saw, and 2nd, when they deny now, what they said then.

of course, a liar keeps changing his story, to suit the day.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:47 pm

Re: WMD's, it was probably more of a mistake than a lie...but the Bush admin has not taken responsibility for the mistake.

Re: Iraq and Al Qaeda, I think Bush had no reason to believe it, but believed it anyway. Maybe Cheney was pulling his strings.

You commented that those who "voted for the same things Bush saw" are equally guilty. The problem is, the congress doesn't get to see all the evidence that the President sees. The congressional vote was to give Bush the authority to make the decisions re:military action, not a vote "for" military action itself. If your business partner gives you authority to make a decision, that doesn't mean that he is equally to blame when you make a bad decision.

I don't believe Kerry or Edwards denied their vote or lied about it, but I could be wrong.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:59 pm

Here's another lie Kerry is trying to get away with:
Medicare increase

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase-the biggest in history"?

That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue.

As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law during the Clinton administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:20 pm

Anyone got the flu? blame that on Bush also; that's what Kerry's latest claim is; what a dork! The only things Kerry has, is nice hair, a great voice, a rich wife and a whole lot of baloney....he don't know fact or truth from nothin; nope, he sure don't

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:56 pm

FunRunner wrote:Anyone got the flu?

Just got over it. And you're right, any blame on Bush for the flu fiasco is pretty bizarre.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:59 am

It's hard to speculate why Theresa Heinz would say something like she did about Laura Bush, just as it is hard to imagine the temerity of Kerry to bring up Cheney's daughter in the manner he did. One could only conclude that perhaps Heinz is a loose cannon and that the candidate and campaign will use anything and everything they can muster or dream up, to either blame on the President, the administration, or even referencing members of the administration's family.

You could also look at the situation with getting out the early vote and all the bluster the Democrats are mustering in that regard. They are making claims of voter fraud that don't exist, while engaging in registration procedures that skirt the limitations of the voting system. We might look back to Bill Clintons's signing of the Motor Voter Act, as to why registering to vote in many states is as complicated as showing up on election day. Virginia requires only a social security number to vote, and eight of the 19, Sept. 11 terrorists had sufficient ID to have registered to vote in Virginia or Florida.

In the swing state of Florida, Democratic activist group Acorn claims to have registered 212,000 voters for the general election. One of them was former St. Petersburg Mayor Charles Schuh, whose name had been fraudulently submitted by someone from Acorn.

On top of all this, and former Presidents Clinton and Carter, stumping for Kerry (I think they're stumped), thousands of lawyers will descend like locusts in an attempt to "combat voter fraud." More likely thier mission will be, just as in 2000, to cloud the legitimacy of any Bush victory. You be the judge; this juror has already made his decision.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:20 am

FunRunner wrote:...just as it is hard to imagine the temerity of Kerry to bring up Cheney's daughter in the manner he did.

I totally disagree. Dick Cheney brought up his own daughter and her homosexuality in his debate with Edwards. Because Democrats in general don't believe homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, the topic shouldn't have been controversial at all. It was only a problem because Republicans freak out about the idea that a)there's a homosexual in Cheney's family, and b)people will know about it. This was an example of fake outrage for political gain, just as Kerry used Cheney's daughter for political gain.

Funrunner wrote:On top of all this, and former Presidents Clinton and Carter, stumping for Kerry (I think they're stumped), thousands of lawyers will descend like locusts in an attempt to "combat voter fraud." More likely thier mission will be, just as in 2000, to cloud the legitimacy of any Bush victory. You be the judge; this juror has already made his decision.

Of course those whose votes were never counted in Florida are not a concern for you, because they would have given Al Gore the win. You will never face the fact that Bush would not be President if all the votes were counted.

- Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;
- Both memory cards loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty;
- After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified;
- The error was introduced in such a way that the total number of votes remained unchanged (again something that could not happen by chance.);
- According to the technical boffins, the chance of the memory card being corrupted and still passing the checksum error test are less than 60,000 to 1;
- The technical managers at Diebold Election Systems considered it a reasonable possibility that the second card was part of deliberate conspiracy to rig the election results.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

"You be the judge; this juror has already made his decision."

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:23 am

Poiks:

Of course those whose votes were never counted in Florida are not a concern for you, because they would have given Al Gore the win. You will never face the fact that Bush would not be President if all the votes were counted.

wrong; they were counted; the Democrats couldn't accept it, and the votes they contend weren't counted were largely by those who were not eligible to vote; of those that were and not counted, the numbers could have gone either way for Bush or Gore; Gore wanted to do a recount in the counties of his choosing; the Dem's cited dating issues in not allowing absentee military votes to count; face it; the Dem's want everything to go their way; they can't stand to look in the mirror and view reality, so they bring out the storm troops, in an attempt to create an avalanche of propoganda that will hopefully, to them, have a positive effect on the results of the election.

Face it; 2000 is long gone; Al Gore lost, in spite of his claims of foul play.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:24 am

OK Roger, I guess if you say they were counted, they were counted.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:30 am

Poiks wrote:OK Roger, I guess if you say they were counted, they were counted.

Yeah, Jon, they were counted right along with the felons and dead people...

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:39 am

Rekd wrote:
Poiks wrote:OK Roger, I guess if you say they were counted, they were counted.
Yeah, Jon, they were counted right along with the felons and dead people...

Absolutely Rek'd and Roger...don't address the linked article or my post about the 16,000 votes. Just ignore it like it never happened.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:10 am

Poiks wrote:
Absolutely Rek'd and Roger...don't address the linked article or my post about the 16,000 votes. Just ignore it like it never happened.

What's to address? The fact that the Supreme Court decided Bush won?

You really need to be a little more aware of what's going on around you, Jon, instead of simply believing what you're told to believe.

Analysis indicates many Gore votes thrown out in Florida

January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 1:29 PM EST (1829 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An analysis of a portion of November's votes in Florida for president shows those for Al Gore were far more likely to be disqualified because of so-called overvoting than ballots cast for George W. Bush.

The Washington Post reviewed the computer records of 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's most populous counties.

According to the newspaper, overvotes -- ballots that were thrown out because more than one candidate for president was selected -- were three times more likely to include Gore as one of the choices, rather than Bush. The eight counties reviewed included Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach.

The Washington Post found that in Palm Beach, 8,000 so-called butterfly ballots were thrown out because Gore and one of two other presidential candidates -- a candidate listed below Gore and another listed above Gore -- were selected.

Of those ballots, voters chose a Democrat in the Senate race 10-to-1.

Butterfly ballots are punch-style ballots that were used by Palm Beach County and that listed competing candidates on opposite pages, like a book. Many voters said they were confused by the way candidates were listed on the ballots and said the confusion may have caused them to vote for candidates they did not support.

Bush won Florida's valuable 25 electoral votes -- and the national electoral total-- by a margin of only 537 votes, according to certified results announced by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. That result was upheld by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision after a challenge mounted by Gore.

Although Bush won the presidency by winning the vote in the Electoral College 271 to 266, Gore won the national popular vote by 539,947 ballots.

The Washington Post analysis points to problems either with the way voters used voting devices or the devices themselves.

Although the newspaper did not review actual ballots, CNN and The Washington Post are part of a consortium of media organizations that will analyze Florida ballots disqualified for having more than one vote per race or having no vote at all. That analysis is to begin next month.

Voice · Post by **Voice** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:07 pm

I totally disagree. Dick Cheney brought up his own daughter and her homosexuality in his debate with Edwards. Because Democrats in general don't believe homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, the topic shouldn't have been controversial at all. It was only a problem because Republicans freak out about the idea that a)there's a homosexual in Cheney's family, and b)people will know about it. This was an example of fake outrage for political gain, just as Kerry used Cheney's daughter for political gain.

It is Cheney's perogitive to discuss his daughter's sexual orientation. He is her father.
I think it was very clear why Kerry brought it up. Because he knew that it is a sore spot with some conservatives.
You talk about this issue as if you feel your opinion, or the Democrats "general" opinion is correct and that the Republicans opinion is a "freak out".
While you may disagree with the opinion of those who find homosexuality offensive, in a political discussion that opinion is hardly a "freak out" and is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Simply dismissing it as "fake outrage" is insulting to millions of people who believe otherwise.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:38 pm

Voice

It is Cheney's perogitive to discuss his daughter's sexual orientation. He is her father.
I think it was very clear why Kerry brought it up. Because he knew that it is a sore spot with some conservatives.

yep, that is exactly what I was going to say, Vor. It would be like one of us confessing or announcing something about ourselves, which is obviously not a comfortable subject, but something we intimate about ourselve, though done in an open setting; then someone takes it upon themselves to bring it up again during an open debate, and uses it as an example. I would call it overstepping tactful boundaries, and a lack of class by Kerry. It almost is in the same realm as someone telling you a personal secret, and then you spread it around freely;

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:45 pm

I'm not sure how it could be a "personal secret" when Cheney brought it up in a debate. Sure, Kerry knew it was a sore spot so he brought it up. That's politics. If the shoe were on the other foot, you guys wouldn't mind at all, would you?

Heck, you guys whine about Teresa Kerry as if the First Lady matters. Irrelevant info that you can use, you're happy to use.

Voice · Post by **Voice** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:18 pm

Heck, you guys whine about Teresa Kerry as if the First Lady matters.

The two matters are completely different.

The first lady is critisized for things SHE did while in public, or things that are a matter of public record.

Chenney's daughter did no such thing. Chenney brought the issue up originally, as I recall, as a way of beating the opposition to the punch. I'm sure he discussed it completely with his daughter first. If he didn't then that would have been wrong.

"You guys"? Just who are "You guys"? I can't recall ever saying jack crap about Mrs. Kerry.

So, you commented on the unimportant part... how about this part?

You talk about this issue as if you feel your opinion, or the Democrats "general" opinion is correct and that the Republicans opinion is a "freak out".
While you may disagree with the opinion of those who find homosexuality offensive, in a political discussion that opinion is hardly a "freak out" and is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Simply dismissing it as "fake outrage" is insulting to millions of people who believe otherwise

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:23 pm

Voice wrote:The two matters are completely different.

The first lady is critisized for things SHE did while in public, or things that are a matter of public record.

Chenney's daughter did no such thing. Chenney brought the issue up originally, as I recall, as a way of beating the opposition to the punch. I'm sure he discussed it completely with his daughter first. If he didn't then that would have been wrong.

You're right, they ARE completely different. Cheney's daughter wasn't criticized at all. Kerry simply stated that Cheney's daughter was gay. If this is going to be a big problem for the Republicans, then the Republicans have a problem.

Voice wrote:"You guys"? Just who are "You guys"? I can't recall ever saying jack crap about Mrs. Kerry.

In that context, "You guys" meant the chorus of people who HAVE posted about Mrs. Kerry. One quote, as I recall, said that comparing T. Kerry to L. Bush was like comparing "Corelle to fine china." Gotta love dramatics.

Voice wrote:So, you commented on the unimportant part... how about this part?
You talk about this issue as if you feel your opinion, or the Democrats "general" opinion is correct and that the Republicans opinion is a "freak out".
While you may disagree with the opinion of those who find homosexuality offensive, in a political discussion that opinion is hardly a "freak out" and is a perfectly valid opinion to hold.
Simply dismissing it as "fake outrage" is insulting to millions of people who believe otherwise

Sorry, I do believe that it's disingenuous outrage. If it were true outrage, it would have been just as outrageous when Cheney himself said it. Cheney said (in effect) "my gay daughter" and Kerry said "his gay daughter." Was it in poor taste? Probably, but it was fair game--and if the shoe was on the other foot, not only would Bush and Cheney be playing it to the hilt, but it would be mentioned in every Republican mailer. "Kerry supports the destruction of the American family by supporting the idea that same-sex couples should be able to marry."

You know that's true...right? And you know it wouldn't bother any of you...right? If I'm wrong, and if you would be equally outraged if the shoe were on the other foot, then at least you're consistent. But I suspect most Republicans who are "outraged" about Kerry's comment would respond more like this, if it were Bush who had said it:

Well, you Democrats are always running around saying that there's nothing wrong with being gay, so it shouldn't bother you at all. That and, of course, saying exactly what I said: The other guy said it first, so it's fair game.

Again, this post is not directed at anyone in particular, so please don't think that I put words in your mouth.

OBSESSED · Post by **OBSESSED** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:08 pm

Sticking my nose in here for a second....

I do believe that it's disingenuous outrage.

Lets talk disingenuous....

Kerry is being killed in the polls of likely "Christian Voters"

So he brings up his faith first in one of the debates. Problem he sounded like Algore talking about inventing the Internet.

When Bush was asked about his 'faith' he connected with the faith based voters.

So I asked my Agnostic Lib/Socialist Bro in Law about that fact. He said he'd rather have Kerry bla-bla-bla. He didn't get the part about Kerry pandering to the Christian voters.

Then yesterday, Kerry in Camo out shooting ducks, need I say more?
Who is that pandering to?

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:33 am

Poiks:

If the shoe were on the other foot, you guys wouldn't mind at all, would you?

Yes, I for one, would still view bringing up the daughter's preference again, when in fact, it should have ended with the introduction made by the lady's father, in ill taste, even if it had been the other way round re the candidates.

If you think about it, even though politics works both ways, Bush has been very careful, or maybe just naturally avoided making reference to personal issues about the other candidate, when asked. On the other hand, Kerry and Edwards have been considrably more willing to make personal evaluations and characterizations of their adversaries. What does that tell us? it indicates a lack of class and a hautein, that somehow, their saying it, makes it so, or at least that is what they are attempting to promote; destruction of the opponent through repeated inuendos or direct reference to the character of the opponent and anyone connected to that person.

Also, related to that perhaps, is the manner in which John Kerry characterized the Vietnam War and his fellow soldiers. Now, he is coming very close on the issue of Iraq and the war on terror to repeating his oft used habit of criticsim and condemnation, rather than support and suggestive reinforcement. The guy is an enigma in and of himself, a person not begotten of choices, but rather of dark gloom, self promotion, and lack of consideration of the situations as they pertain to the whole.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:57 am

FunRunner wrote:Also, related to that perhaps, is the manner in which John Kerry characterized the Vietnam War and his fellow soldiers. Now, he is coming very close on the issue of Iraq and the war on terror to repeating his oft used habit of criticsim and condemnation, rather than support and suggestive reinforcement. The guy is an enigma in and of himself, a person not begotten of choices, but rather of dark gloom, self promotion, and lack of consideration of the situations as they pertain to the whole.

Have you read Kerry's testimony? Based on what you just wrote, I believe you have not.

Re: the Iraq war, Kerry has never once criticized the soldiers, he has criticized the leadership (specifically, Bush and Rumsfeld). The Republicans keep trying to make that analagous to being 'against the soldiers' but that's a crock.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:34 pm

Poiks:

Have you read Kerry's testimony? Based on what you just wrote, I believe you have not.

Re: the Iraq war, Kerry has never once criticized the soldiers, he has criticized the leadership (specifically, Bush and Rumsfeld). The Republicans keep trying to make that analagous to being 'against the soldiers' but that's a crock.

I said Kerry was coming close to repeating his Vietnam stunt; of course he hasn't criticized the troops; he wouldn't dare;

No, I have not read John Kerry's testimony; I'm basing it on what he has said in the debates and on the ads, etc.

How could you be against the soldiers? that's crazy; what he has stated, is enough to say that he disagrees what is being done in Iraq, which is enough to tell the soldiers he doesn't believe in what they are doing; of course they have their orders, so the critique falls on Bush and the other leaders.....maybe Kerry could bring Berger out of hiding and hire him to be his guide, if he makes it....that ought to put the frosting on the cake; oh yeah, and Clinton wants to be the leader of the UN. Apparently he sees easy pickings there.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:59 am

Tactics that are being used by Democrats to confuse voters:

Something To Yak About - Ambassadors Debunk Kerry's Lie On Meeting With UN Security Council

Ambassadors with foreign nations represented on the United Nations Security Council are debunking John Kerry's false claim of having met with the UN body before its 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In trying to boost his image as a man of the world, John Kerry has claimed on a number of occasions to have met with all members of the UN Security Council. Not so, reveals an investigation by the Washington Times. "Of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either."

Military Families Preyed Upon In Colorado

First, there was John Edwards telling people a vote for John Kerry would let people rise from their wheelchairs. Now, military families in Colorado are receiving calls saying a vote for the Gentleman from Massachusetts will keep their loved ones serving in Iraq alive. Is it possible for the Kerry campaign to be any crueler? Read on...

Mother Of Slain Soldier Dis-Invited By Kerry Campaign

The Kerry campaign hit a new low when it sought to have the mother of a soldier killed in the war on terror appear at a rally supporting John Kerry only to di-invite her. When the mother, Peggy Buryj of Stark County, wanted to ask John Kerry why he voted against the $87 billion military appropriation for combat troops, Kerry's people suddenly changed their mind. "The Kerry campaign, after hearing this, told this mother she wasn't needed," wrote a family friend to The Canton Repository, which confirmed the events with the mother.

'Kerry Thugs' Harassing Voters

The Democrat Machine backing John Kerry is starting to turn ugly in early voting in Florida, where supporters of President Bush report widespread harassment. The Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel reports Republicans trying to cast early ballots are "voicing complaints of being blocked by political mobs, or being singled out for their political views. Others say they have been grabbed, screamed at and cursed by political partisans of all stripes." In assessing the worsening situation there, U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney said the culprits are "Kerry thugs," hassling Bush backers. Said Feeney, "If you ask me whether I believe there is an organized effort to intimidate Republican voters, the answer is absolutely yes."

Authorities Investigate Suspect Registrations By Kerry Backers

The Left Wing group calling itself the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, otherwise known as ACORN, is under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after receiving widespread complaints of suspected voter fraud. The FDLE is currently investigating concerns that ACORN's efforts to support John Kerry may have involved, "voter registration applications have been switched, duplicated, destroyed, forged and otherwise improperly obtained."

Florida Voters Warned Of 'Cheap Tactics'

Education Secretary Rod Paige warned people in Florida this weekend to beware Democrat "cheap tactics," involving bogus allegations of voter suppression and so forth, explaining that John Kerry supporters are trying to, "direct attention from themselves by making unfounded charges against others."

Democrats Make It Easy To Predict The News

The track record of the Democratic National Committee, coupled with their recently discovered guide on how to gin-up fake accusations of voter intimidation in the hopes of snookering a gullible news media not interested in documentation, now lets you to predict the news. Check it out - bet your host or producer on whether John Kerry or his allies will, over the next 36 hours, lodge complaints published in the establishment press about how, "we're not going to let Florida voters be disenfranchised like they were in 2000," or something like that. Problem is, this beef about the 2000 elections is simply made-up to invent a problem where none exists and further Democrat efforts to divide Americans.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:17 am

throw that stuff out and set the record straight; the conservative spin is predominantly over the top, as shown by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, FoxNews, Sinclair, and all the other diminishing in stature stations. The facts are hard, and they are cold, when the conservatives are caught with their pants down; yet, still they bluster on, that though they used forged and falsified info, it was still pretty much the straight scoop; uhuh, yeah, right; cold hard facts; throw ice water on those suckers; chill em out! those are your cold hard facts.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:28 am

What'sa matter Poiks? don't have anything original to say? gonna do like the Kerry team and stick with criticism and turning words around? there is all of one station you liberals can point to: Fox, and there reporting is more central than the other big 3. You recognize of course, what the ratings have to say? I'm not so sure O'Reilly is all that pro conservative. He doesn't go out of his way to sway voters, but in reality, is going to have more liberals to counter than he does conservatives, in that the liberals are far more vocal.

The volume of hollow rhetoric by the liberals may win the election, just through the sheer repitition and making issues of every little twist, such as the vaccine shortage; if it does, we'll watch for the "better plan" to unfold. I believe, if the Democrats win, the Country will remain divisive. If Bush wins, the Democrats will retrench and come to grips with where they went wrong in this campaign, and how to rethink their tactics and message of the candidate they choose to represent them.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:07 am

Roger, you're actually tiring me out. You never address issues; you just blather on about the ignorant, unethical other half of the country. I can honestly say that (other than Steve) I can't imagine anyone with whom a political conversation would be more pointless than with you.

In your world, 1/2 of the people are ignorant, misinformed, or evil; the other half is intelligent, informed, and good. Simply laying out your own thoughts on the table should be enough for you to realize that something's wrong with the way you think. Or is it thinking at all? Maybe you gave up on thinking...and became the embodiment of a closed mind.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:13 am

Poiks:

Roger, you're actually tiring me out.

you're correct for a change, Jon; the conversation is getting tiresome, and I'm sure since you and I are pretty much the only ones carrying it on, that the rest are bored with our ineptitude. Consider me finished replying to your posts; I am not saying I am finished posting, but our conversation is done.

Voice · Post by **Voice** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:05 pm

I have only one more thing to say on this subject...

You are calling the "Same sex marriage" an issue about being gay. It is not. It is an issue of granting special priveledges to a special interest group.

Marriage... TRUE marriage does not require a single thing from the State.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:46 pm

Voice,
I assume you're talking to me (sorry if I'm wrong). I can't find the specific post you're referring to, but it was probably about Cheney. The reason I sometimes bring that up with respect to Cheney is that he is essentially a conservative straight down the line until it comes to gay marriage. It strikes me as odd that Cheney forsakes his conservative principles when sticking to them would cause his family pain. Would Cheney be against the war in Iraq if he lost a loved one there? For abortion if someone is his family needed one?

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:12 pm

Poiks wrote:Voice,
...Would Cheney be against the war in Iraq if he lost a loved one there? For abortion if someone is his family needed one?

Cheney is a man that sticks to what he believes in, so no and yes.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:08 pm

This was written in the Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington paper) on Wed. Oct. 6, 2004. It was written by Mathew Manweller who is a Central Washington University political science professor.

"Election Determines Fate of Nation."

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance.

Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history.

If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be twofold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10.

The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest generation.' But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation'. Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American'. But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:05 pm

schraderrl wrote:
sbheg wrote:Hey Bob did you go to the protest?
Yes
Did you volunteer at the SSSS?
No I did not go to the show this year and Iâ€™m not an ASA member
I resigned a long time ago because of their position on fees
I believe the BLM is trying to close all the public land to â€œintense recreationâ€ and open small fee areas. I donâ€™t like this and hate to see other off-roaders used by the BLM to support their plan.
I hope to meet up with some of you sometime but it wonâ€™t be soon if itâ€™s out on the ISDRA because I have decided to do what I can to help the situation out there by staying away for a few years.

Bob, I am Glad to see that you are active and not just talk.

Bob it is too bad that you are hung up on this Fee issue and that has prevented you from working with an influential organization like the ASA. I chose the ASA not because I agree with then whole heartedly, but because ASA IMO is the best bang for my buck and my time to protect the endangered Duner.

There are plenty of other worth while organizations to join in the endangered Duner fight.

Bob I hope one day you can overcome your issue with fees and work with the ASA in achieving some of your other goals related to protecting off-road rights.

sbheg

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:11 am

Bin Laden Hints Of New Attacks

In his first video in a year, Osama bin Laden said he ordered the 9-11 attack, tied it to U.S. and Israeli acts against Palestinians and Lebanese and derided President Bush as similar to "corrupt" Arab rulers. "Bush is still deceiving you . . . and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," he said. Both Bush and Sen. John Kerry called the U.S. "united" vs. bin Laden.

Bush, Kerry Sum Up Arguments

The candidates hit their key campaign themes hard as they courted swing-state voters heading into the final weekend. President Bush argued he's led with consistency and conviction and called the Iraq invasion the right move in the terror war. John Kerry claimed Bush has fumbled both the terror threat and economy and voters should choose a fresh start. Related story

Polls Put Race Too Close To Call

Zogby's tracking poll had Bush tied with Kerry at 47%, and other polls gave Bush only a small edge in the race's final stretch. RealClear Politics' three-way average put Bush up 2.6%, within polls' margin of error. It tallied 232 electoral votes for Bush vs. 207 for Kerry, but rated 7 states with 99 votes as tossups. It takes 270 electoral votes to win. Some "leaner" states also looked fluid.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:47 am

Tomorrows the big day. Doesn't seem possible, does it? This year has sure gone by fast.

There's been a lot said from both the liberal and more conservative advocates. I hope that some voters, who don't care for President Bush, but who also don't like Kerry, will consider voting for the President and allowing him another term to finish the job in Iraq, get bin Laden and al Zarqawi, and try to make some sense of the Social Security mess.

A vote against Bush, to remove him from office, won't put a better person in the White House, and won't prove anything. Whatever the choice, I hope we all make the right decision and that the right person wins.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed to the discussion re the election. The sparks flew at times, but maybe we made a difference.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:20 am

IMO

A vote for Bush is a vote for more war, more chaos, less rights, slower economic growth by depleting our resource in avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead) and now it is a religious war of neo-con Christians against extremist Muslims. A vote for Bush means you approve of his aggressor stance and that you have no problem with him conquering the Middle East with out reproach. Bush can not maintain the Middle East conflict with out a draft, young poor boys will be the next victims of his policies. Heâ€™s just like his dad â€œRead my lipsâ€ must I say more.

JMO

sbheg

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:27 am

Someone at work told me that Bush Sr. disagreed with the current Iraq war because there was no exit strategy. I have trouble believing that, but who knows?

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:32 am

Poiks wrote:Someone at work told me that Bush Sr. disagreed with the current Iraq war because there was no exit strategy. I have trouble believing that, but who knows?

Yes, He had asked his son what is your exit strategy? It is obvious Today he had none!

sbheg

airkuld · Post by **airkuld** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:23 pm

Well, no matter how you vote tomorrow, remember this:

The networks will tell us who they think won tomorrow night, then

The candidates will tell us who they think won tomorrow night, then

The Supreme Court will tell us who they think won in about 3 months or so, so we've still got awhile to kick this thing around.

airkuld · Post by **airkuld** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:40 pm

"A vote for Bush is a vote for more war, more chaos, less rights, slower economic growth by depleting our resource in avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead) and now it is a religious war of neo-con Christians against extremist Muslims. A vote for Bush means you approve of his aggressor stance and that you have no problem with him conquering the Middle East with out reproach. Bush can not maintain the Middle East conflict with out a draft, young poor boys will be the next victims of his policies"

Just one question in all this spin omelette. Exactly what is he avenging his father for? Bush Sr. kicked almighty a** over there. It was the mother of all beat downs, I don't think Saddam even threw a punch. Avenging?

Anyone see that article on how well Afghanistan is doing these days? Wow, where's all the attaboy's on how successful that was? Strangely silent, hmmm, I wonder.

Anyway, getting back to the omelette, it's too bad the media is so over the top with form over content that a real discussion of these issues can't take place. The American public deserves far better, but sadly does not demand it.

Oh yeah, there's the neo-con part in the middle of all of it.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:50 pm

airkuld wrote:"Just one question in all this spin omelette. Exactly what is he avenging his father for? Bush Sr. kicked almighty a** over there. It was the mother of all beat downs, I don't think Saddam even threw a punch. Avenging?

Saddam's assassination attempt on his father is the bases of my opinion. http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

sbheg

airkuld · Post by **airkuld** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:23 pm

sbheg wrote:
airkuld wrote:"Just one question in all this spin omelette. Exactly what is he avenging his father for? Bush Sr. kicked almighty a** over there. It was the mother of all beat downs, I don't think Saddam even threw a punch. Avenging?
Saddam's assassination attempt on his father is the bases of my opinion. http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html

sbheg

Hmm, I think we went over there in an attempt to depose a potentially active or soon to be active state sponsor of terrorism, a man who at the time almost everyone believed was a threat to our nation and our interests over there. We also hoped to establish a democratic (or something like it) Muslim nation where the power was in the hands of the people, not concentrated in the hands of a few angry clerics. If this works, it could possibly bring about a starting point for fundamental change in Middle East society which might serve to take a lot of the wind out of the bad guys sails.

But hey, I guess it sounds better in the blogosphere to say it was a personal grudge and it certainly fits the whole "Bush is a hillbilly loser" stereotype that the Dem's are trying to paint.

P.S. I think if any leader of any country authorizes a hit on a current or former President of the U.S., they should know that the consequences of such will be harsh. I would fully support that.

Voice · Post by **Voice** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:00 pm

A vote for Bush is a vote for more war, more chaos, less rights, slower economic growth by depleting our resource in avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead) and now it is a religious war of neo-con Christians against extremist Muslims. A vote for Bush means you approve of his aggressor stance and that you have no problem with him conquering the Middle East with out reproach. Bush can not maintain the Middle East conflict with out a draft, young poor boys will be the next victims of his policies. Heâ€™s just like his dad â€œRead my lipsâ€ must I say more.

More Chaos? Which is more chaotic, A war in Iraq and possibly Iran or random acts of mass murder perpetrated by delusional psycotic Muslims on unsuspecting citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with any geo-political confilct?

Slower economic growth? By all rights 9/11 should have thrown us into severe depression. As it was we had a recession that we are on our way to recovering from. I'd give the economic growth of the last few years an A- and I doubt ANYONE could do better. I would fully expect to be deep into a serious recession bordering on depression If Gore was in office.

Bush cannot maintain the Middle east conflict without a draft?
First off, It's not a conflict... IT'S A WAR.
Secondly... You know this HOW?
Young, poor boys? Rhetoric... Bullcrap... hyperboly... politics of fear. No facts here... just spin spin spin.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:35 am

Voice wrote:
A vote for Bush is a vote for more war, more chaos, less rights, slower economic growth by depleting our resource in avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead) and now it is a religious war of neo-con Christians against extremist Muslims. A vote for Bush means you approve of his aggressor stance and that you have no problem with him conquering the Middle East with out reproach. Bush can not maintain the Middle East conflict with out a draft, young poor boys will be the next victims of his policies. Heâ€™s just like his dad â€œRead my lipsâ€ must I say more.
More Chaos? Which is more chaotic, A war in Iraq and possibly Iran or random acts of mass murder perpetrated by delusional psycotic Muslims on unsuspecting citizens who have absolutely nothing to do with any geo-political confilct?

Slower economic growth? By all rights 9/11 should have thrown us into severe depression. As it was we had a recession that we are on our way to recovering from. I'd give the economic growth of the last few years an A- and I doubt ANYONE could do better. I would fully expect to be deep into a serious recession bordering on depression If Gore was in office.

Bush cannot maintain the Middle east conflict without a draft?
First off, It's not a conflict... IT'S A WAR.
Secondly... You know this HOW?
Young, poor boys? Rhetoric... Bullcrap... hyperboly... politics of fear. No facts here... just spin spin spin.

Voice your just the Biggest Crap spinner on the site, why don't you voulunteeer for your Holy War and I'll shutup!
sbheg

snewbank · Post by **snewbank** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:54 am

sbheg wrote:"....avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead).....

So, I guess what your saying is when some country tries to assassinate the President of the United States, we should just "turn the other cheek"????

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:31 pm

snewbank wrote:
sbheg wrote:"....avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead).....

So, I guess what your saying is when some country tries to assassinate the President of the United States, we should just "turn the other cheek"????

Before President Carter it was US policy to assassinate other heads of government via the CIA. I am sure Bush Senior planned such attacks while he was head of the CIA. Stop being so righteous and he was the Former President at the time.

This means he was a civilian. You don't care that civilians are killed, why should I care that an attempt was made on a civilian whom had been president. You would rejoice if it was me that was assassinated by a bomb! You would not go to war because I was killed and I would not expect you too.

My point is that Bush is a typical Christian hypocrite! That is what I am saying! Do you get that point now, what I really mean? Say one thing do another, lying is okay when it is god's work and I think god is leading me. I can do no wrong, now he belives he has a mandate from God because he won the election.

"God depicted by man can not exist, it is flawed by man own desires." sbheg

JMARO

schraderrl · Post by **schraderrl** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Iâ€™m so ecstatic I feel like buying an ISDRA pass, slapping the old 10 paddle back on the WR500 and whip it out to Glamis for the Poker run

snewbank · Post by **snewbank** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:57 pm

sbheg wrote:
snewbank wrote:
sbheg wrote:"....avenging his father (kind of eye for eye, Old Testament, hmm, born-again, he should be turning a cheek instead).....

So, I guess what your saying is when some country tries to assassinate the President of the United States, we should just "turn the other cheek"????
Before President Carter it was US policy to assassinate other heads of government via the CIA. I am sure Bush Senior planned such attacks while he was head of the CIA. Stop being so righteous and he was the Former President at the time.

This means he was a civilian. You don't care that civilians are killed, why should I care that an attempt was made on a civilian whom had been president. You would rejoice if it was me that was assassinated by a bomb! You would not go to war because I was killed and I would not expect you too.

My point is that Bush is a typical Christian hypocrite! That is what I am saying! Do you get that point now, what I really mean? Say one thing do another, lying is okay when it is god's work and I think god is leading me. I can do no wrong, now he belives he has a mandate from God because he won the election.

"God depicted by man can not exist, it is flawed by man own desires." sbheg

JMARO

Some Facts for you:

1.) Before Carter it was NOT US policy to assassinate foreign leaders. There just was no executive order against it. If it was policy, we would have killed a lot of leaders.

Can you name one leader that was assassinated or died mysteriously before Carter that you suspect US involvement?

2.) What you call "being so righteous" many of us recognize as "Moral Clarity". Something that your bitter partisanship prevents you from having.

3.) George H. W. Bush is not a civilian. He is a retired President which means he is still entitled to Secret Service protection. Same as Clinton and Carter and every living president. If ex-presidents were considered civilians, then Ronald Reagan's funeral would have been only 15 minutes long.

4.)

sbheg wrote: "You don't care that civilians are killed, why should I care that an attempt was made on a civilian whom had been president."

It's pathetic, self-centered, lame attempts to make an arguments like this that led to your party loosing so miserably today.

5.)

sbheg wrote: You would rejoice if it was me that was assassinated by a bomb! You would not go to war because I was killed and I would not expect you too.

I would NOT rejoice if a fellow American was assassinated by a bomb and as President I would go to war to protect Americans from being killed (yes, even you).

With values like yours, I hope a George W. supporter never has to depend on you for help in the dunes. It sounds like you would rather leave them to die.

6.) Regarding your "Bush is a typical Christian hypocrite!..... blah...blah... thinks lying is ok... blah..blah..thinks God is leading him..blah" comments,

Just keep drinking your Kool-aid if it makes you feel better.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:46 am

When I return from the Dunes this weekend I will address your questions, but you know nothing about what I would or would not do to defend my country or to help others. I and the other 49% of America found that we did not want Bush any more. So you have almost half of America still split and divide among multiple candidates running. These results even though the Republicans are screaming mandate Victory, I believe it not to be a mandate. Half the country dislikes Bush and he is out of sink with what the other half wants.

I hope Bush brings Armageddon for you so you can ascend to nirvana.

sbheg

snewbank wrote:
sbheg wrote:
snewbank wrote:
So, I guess what your saying is when some country tries to assassinate the President of the United States, we should just "turn the other cheek"????
Before President Carter it was US policy to assassinate other heads of government via the CIA. I am sure Bush Senior planned such attacks while he was head of the CIA. Stop being so righteous and he was the Former President at the time.

This means he was a civilian. You don't care that civilians are killed, why should I care that an attempt was made on a civilian whom had been president. You would rejoice if it was me that was assassinated by a bomb! You would not go to war because I was killed and I would not expect you too.

My point is that Bush is a typical Christian hypocrite! That is what I am saying! Do you get that point now, what I really mean? Say one thing do another, lying is okay when it is god's work and I think god is leading me. I can do no wrong, now he belives he has a mandate from God because he won the election.

"God depicted by man can not exist, it is flawed by man own desires." sbheg

JMARO
Some Facts for you:

1.) Before Carter it was NOT US policy to assassinate foreign leaders. There just was no executive order against it. If it was policy, we would have killed a lot of leaders.

Can you name one leader that was assassinated or died mysteriously before Carter that you suspect US involvement?

2.) What you call "being so righteous" many of us recognize as "Moral Clarity". Something that your bitter partisanship prevents you from having.

3.) George H. W. Bush is not a civilian. He is a retired President which means he is still entitled to Secret Service protection. Same as Clinton and Carter and every living president. If ex-presidents were considered civilians, then Ronald Reagan's funeral would have been only 15 minutes long.

4.)
sbheg wrote: "You don't care that civilians are killed, why should I care that an attempt was made on a civilian whom had been president."
It's pathetic, self-centered, lame attempts to make an arguments like this that led to your party loosing so miserably today.

5.)
sbheg wrote: You would rejoice if it was me that was assassinated by a bomb! You would not go to war because I was killed and I would not expect you too.
I would NOT rejoice if a fellow American was assassinated by a bomb and as President I would go to war to protect Americans from being killed (yes, even you).

With values like yours, I hope a George W. supporter never has to depend on you for help in the dunes. It sounds like you would rather leave them to die.

6.) Regarding your "Bush is a typical Christian hypocrite!..... blah...blah... thinks lying is ok... blah..blah..thinks God is leading him..blah" comments,

Just keep drinking your Kool-aid if it makes you feel better.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:38 pm

sbheg wrote:... I and the other 49% of America found that we did not want Bush any more. ..

You are in the minority. Get over it already.

I hope Bush brings Armageddon for you so you can ascend to nirvana.

Still bitter after that crushing loss, eh?

The better man won. Your wonder boy was a lost cause from the beginning. It was only thru the Media Wing of the Democratic Party's lies and half-truths that got him as far as it did, and that was only because it seems 1/2 of the country is either ignorant or blind followers who are incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Before you start crying and fighting with everyone because of a 'split' country, try to remember that it was the Dems and the Media Wing of the Democratic Party that fueled the split.

Again, you lost. Get over it. Move on.

Voice · Post by **Voice** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:46 pm

It's funny, everyone talking about this 49% crapola...
Watched some very interesting stuff on C-Span last night.

Did you know that the Republicans have more seats in the House and Senate since the 1940's?
Our ELECTED Government is leaning more to the right then ever. Those legislators were elected by the entire country. Our little 51% didn't do it.

So, while you go on and on about how 49% of the country didn't vote for Bush you just remember that this country has made it clear that they prefer Republicans to Democrats. And not just a little bit.