quote:Originally posted by glassman: well FO a glance tells me i have seen and or heard all of that when it came out...
none of it changes the fact that Bush invaded on "evidence" of WMD.....
he was wrong, he's been wrong about a lot of stuff... and i believe the headlines after his last UN speech were [b] Bush demands U.N. help for Iraq
By Joseph Curl THE WASHINGTON TIMES
the UN gave him the cold shoulder..
that's not the kind of leadership we need... cuz the world ain't interested in Bush's demands...hasn't been for quite a while...
the GOP is getting desparate now......cuz the stabilization in the mid-east is not happening either...
remeber how Bush kept saying "it's a hard job"?
well after all the enemies he has made, it's gonna be a lot harder.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 13, 2004).][/B]
Originally posted by glassman: Keith, i am NOT anti-war... Heck, if they had WMD....it would be fine..RIGHT? the problem is simple....they didn't....
this is like shooting somebody on the front lawn cuz they look wrong......
the cops throw you in jail and you get sentenced to 20 to life......unlees the guy has a gun.....no gun????? :::::: my replies: I could not disagree with you more.
::::::::: Also do you think the ability to produce these weapons is any less of a threat than actually having them? Especially when considering the man who had control over the facilities, and has defied over and over again any resolution that the un passed, and someone who (most agree(d)) on wanted to start up the weapons program again.
I can not find any truth in the senator, everything he said tonight as far as the economy was either a stretch or a full straight out lie when basing it on his record. There is truth to what our President has been saying about his opponent.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 14, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
I don't know if this subject was touched on yet, but who has any opinions on the kerry's and their treatment of the VP's daughter and wife? I don't see (aside from some backfired political comment) the point Kerry and Edwards (his was a more valid comment though compared to kerrys) were trying to make with respect to the VP's daughter? I think kerrys should not have even come up in the first place. Then his wife making the claim she did about the VP's wife... most unwarented.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 14, 2004).]
posted
I think it was a rotten move, even when edwards did it. My best guess is to why they are trying to put her in the spot light is that. Those who are anti-gay marriage will vote bush, so they are trying to offset at least some of those by calling out his daughter.
The problem is both times i saw it, it made my stomach turn as in "scumbag".
thats just my opinion...
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
October 14, 2004 Here's my guide to how to talk to a Kerry voter. On the Arizona for Bush mailing list I participate in, I’m often the one who goes after the Kerry trolls. Despite my blog name, I’ve gotten a reputation for being the most civil responder. So here’s my guidelines for how to have a civil discussion with a Kerry voter.
First off, ask them to come up with 3 positive things to say about Kerry, without saying something negative about President Bush, and without mentioning Vietnam.
Most of them can’t. Sympathize with them, and then tell them:
It’s not a mystery why that’s hard to do. The fact is, Kerry’s is an empty suit. He looks good, but the reality is that he has no major accomplishments in his life since Vietnam. In the 20 years in the Senate, he’s only passed 6 laws, and one of them was to rename a building.
Now I suspect that you’re really an anti-Bush voter, so I’d like to tell you some positive things about him, and counteract some of the negative things you’ve heard. Your vote is your own of course, but perhaps you’d like to be able to vote “for” a candidate instead of “against” a candidate.
The major issue for you is probably Iraq. While the media likes to nitpick about this detail or that, if you review all of the president’s options, he really didn’t have much of a choice but to go into Iraq, even without the stockpiles we thought were there.
What would you have done if you were President, you’d been told personally by Putin that Saddam was busy planning terrorist attacks against the US, and you also knew that he had been bribing members of the Security Council?
President Bush has been willing to take the fight to the terrorists, something Senator Edwards praised in the debates saying: “The best defense is a good offense.”
So that’s probably the big negative issue for you this election. Let’s talk about some positive things about President Bush:
President Bush doesn’t just say he has a plan, he actually will tell you what it is, and you can download it in detail from his website. If you do that, you’ll find some interesting things.
President Bush has been willing to discuss reforming Social Security for the younger generation, and has promised to do so. Social Security is famous as the “third rail” in American politics, so this shows a lot of political courage to do so.
If you work for a big company, you have an alternative for your retirement: A 401K plan. If you work for a small company, you have at best, an IRA, but you can only put a little bit of money in that every year. Don’t you think its silly that big companies can help employees plan for their retirement when little companies can’t given that most people work for small businesses? If you do have a 401K, if you change jobs, you have to move the retirement plan. Part of President Bush’s plan is to let everyone have access to the same sort of quality retirement, and attach that plan to the person, not the company.
President Bush did something else that needed to be done, but was politically courageous. He helped reform the rules for overtime, something Clinton tried and failed to do, because the overtime rules had been last updated in 1945. Except President Bush was willing to do this in an election year. Now that’s a minor detail in our government actually. But it was something that needed to be done, so the President just did it.
President Bush has worked really hard to promote education, and responsible education at all levels of life, from elementary school to secondary education. There’s plenty of money in our educational system, the United States spends more then any other country per student, for which we get the least. The fact is that education is a simple problem: most of that money gets spent on administration instead of the classroom. No Child Left Behind is really about making schools actually responsible for teaching children, something that strangely enough, doesn’t happen now.
President Bush knows that tariffs or trade barriers don’t protect American jobs, they cost American jobs, because they always have. All over the world, not just in the United States, manufacturing jobs have declined. Manufacturing jobs are 20th century jobs, we need to have people that can work in 21st century jobs. We need to work smarter, not harder, so that’s why President Bush has already increased tuition grants for community college, and wants to increase them some more.
Everyone likes their own lawyer, but hates all the other lawyers. Its our lawyers that drive jobs overseas. We really need tort reform.
If you’re a big business, you can offer health insurance and provide your employees with a cafeteria plan to pay for medical expenses tax-free. If you’re a small business, you can’t offer health insurance, and if your employees buy their own plan, they get taxed on it! President Bush has promised to both make it possible for small businesses to afford health insurance, and for everyone to have their own medical account so that everyone can pay their medical expenses tax free. Now health insurance is a tough problem, so his plan is just a start, but it comes from a key idea the same idea that you see in his retirement plan: Health Insurance is about the person, not who they work for.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited October 23, 2004).]
posted
The Top Ten Reasons Why John Kerry Should Not Be President (John Ziegler - KFI Radio Host) John Ziegler Show ^ | 10-11-2004 | John Ziegler
Posted on 10/13/2004 9:24:49 PM PDT by Joy Angela
The Top Ten Reasons Why John Kerry Should Not Be President
While the election is still to be won or lost, it now appears increasingly possible that Americans may indeed do the “unthinkable” and actually elect John Kerry to be the next President of the United States. While there are MANY reasons not to vote to reelect President Bush, the case against allowing John Kerry the opportunity to the leader of the “Free World” is FAR more compelling.
While the mainstream news media has made it abundantly clear that they are not going to let the average American voter know about the real John Kerry, here are just ten (in no particular order) of the indisputable FACTS that every voter should know about before they head into the polling booth. In my opinion, EACH one of these should disqualify ANYONE from being President, especially in a post-9/11 world.
-- The candidate who says that we need to pass a “Global Test” before using military force and who said in his first congressional campaign that the United Nations should have “veto” power of the use of U.S. force, was almost alone in voting AGAINST the FIRST Gulf War, despite the strongest coalition ever assembled and full U.N. support.
-- Kerry has clearly radically altered his position on the second Iraq war on numerous occasions. As dangerous as such an inability to make up one’s mind on such an important issue in such uncertain times is, Kerry’s constant waffling is greatly exacerbated by the fact that it was obviously caused not by a sudden change in conviction, but rather because of the shifting political winds caused by the Howard Dean candidacy and the news accounts of a seemingly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq. The fact that he is now being allowed to lie about having flip-flopped on Iraq only puts the exclamation point on why this reality should be devastating to his candidacy.
-- The man who has made his medal-winning four months in Vietnam a centerpiece of his campaign, accused (without evidence) fellow vets of war crimes and met with the enemy (which still honors him today with a photo in their war museum) in Paris while the war was still going on. He also essentially now admits to lying on the Senate floor in 1986 when he claimed to be illegally in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. Incredibly, Kerry has not been forced to answer any questions about any of these well-documented episodes.
-- He has tried desperately to get out of his vote for the Iraq war by lamely claiming (despite numerous statements at the time to the contrary) that his vote was just to allow the President to THREATEN force as a bargaining chip. What Kerry has done here is not only incredibly disingenuous, it has destroyed the credibility of any future pro-war vote in the Senate because any prospective enemy has now been publicly told, “Don’t concern yourself with such a vote, it is just a bluff.” Here Kerry has not only lied, but he has put his own election far ahead of the long-term best interest of the United States. This is systematic of his entire campaign that has been predicated on things going poorly and Americans dying in Iraq, a cause that was furthered by Kerry surrogates like Ted Kennedy who on numerous occasions made statements that could easily be construed as providing aid and comfort to the insurgency.
-- The man who has sold his entire plan for “victory” in Iraq on the presumption of his being such a superior “Diplomat” that he will be able to persuade our allies to share more of the burden, has gone out of his way to insult the allies that have put their neck on the line by calling them the coalition of the “coerced and the bribed.” As the President has asked during the debates (in one his rare spurts of inspiration), how can he convince anyone to join us for what he has demeaned as a “grand diversion”? Even if he could do what no one seriously thinks is possible, how exactly was John Kerry proving what a great diplomat he was when he personally ridiculed and discredited Iraq’s lone hero, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, just moments after he addressed a joint meeting of Congress?
-- When John Kerry made his most important appointment of the campaign, he chose John Edwards as his Vice Presidential candidate. Edwards, whose credentials to be President where ridiculed by Kerry during the Democratic Primaries, is FAR less qualified than Dan Quayle was in 1988. Kerry made his choice for who could a “heartbeat” away from the Presidency based seemingly on little more than Edwards’ charming good looks. Making his choice on such a trivial basis would have been reprehensible BEFORE 9/11, but afterwards it should be completely unacceptable. This is true without even considering Edwards despicable tenure as a plaintiffs attorney who specialty was suing doctors for causing a disease (cerebral palsy) that is genetic by convincing jurors that he was “channeling” the either dead or unborn stricken child. After seeing his choice of Edwards, how can Kerry be trusted to replace Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge, or Donald Rumsfeld?
-- Kerry’s Tax plan, created for pure political pandering by dividing the country through class warfare, is not only morally corrupt, it is based on numbers that even with Kerry’s unrealistic expectations don’t come close to adding up with the rest of his liberal agenda. His assertion at the second debate that “after looking at the people in this crowd,” only three of the attendees (himself, Bush and the moderator) would ever be impacted by the increase in taxes on those making more than $200,000 year was both insulting and ludicrous. It revealed Kerry as being both an elitist snob and someone who is insensitive to the plight of working moms whose second income often puts a household into the realm of those who would be forced to pay an even greater portion of the tax burden than they already do (unless they are like Kerry himself and manage to make millions while somehow only paying a 12% tax rate). Kerry’s plan is not only immoral and doesn’t add up, it also punishes achievement and will destroy job creation (supposedly his ultimate goal) because discretionary spending will be radically stifled and small businesses will be even further overtaxed.
-- Kerry has been embarrassing in his desperate and deceitful pandering to African Americans for the purposes of creating racial hatred and division. African Americans should be insulted and every American should be outraged at the way Kerry and his surrogates have lied about what happened during the 2000 election in Florida. Kerry continually claims in front of black audiences that he will not allow a repeat of the “one million disenfranchised black voters.” If this outrageous allegation was remotely true, or if Kerry (or anyone else) provided a shred of evidence to support his highly inflammatory and serious charge, it would certainly be a VERY legitimate campaign issue, but the reality is that is not close to being the case.
If in 2000 there were REALLY one million “disenfranchised” black voters in America, how come we don’t know the name of ONE person who was not allowed to vote because of their race? When I confronted the author of a book on this issue while on the “Dennis Miller Show,” all she could come up with was the sister of Al Gore’s campaign manager claiming she was forced to show three forms of ID before being allowed to vote. An even more perplexing fact for those who continue to lie about blacks not being allowed to vote in Florida (and the news media that lets them get away with it) is that the black turnout there in 2000 was an extraordinary 50% HIGHER than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton (the supposedly “First Black President”) was on the ballot.
-- Along the same lines, Kerry said to BET that he has “engaged in Affirmative Action” in his hiring of blacks during his career. Apparently Kerry believes that the ONLY way a black person could/should be hired is through Affirmative Action. If such an offensive statement had been made by a Republican would have been thoroughly examined for indicating a potentially racist mindset. Because a liberal Democrat made them, he was allowed to get away with it with the vast majority of blacks and 99.9 % of whites having no idea it ever even happened.
-- In the second debate Kerry mocked the President for straddling the stem cell issue because his stance implies that it is okay to destroy some life in some circumstances. If this was just a distortion of the President’s view (the stem cells that he made available for research were never going to become “life”) that would just be politics as usual. However, during the same debate where he chastised Bush for his being too “wishy washy” on “life,” Kerry proudly stated that he is a Catholic who believes that life begins at CONCEPTION but who, because he can not allow his religious beliefs to impact his public stances, also believes that poor women have a “Constitutional Right” to have their abortions paid for by the government. During the very same week, in a black church, Kerry contradicted his “keep religion about of politics” claim by saying, “faith without works is dead.” How can anyone have any idea what John Kerry really believes about ANYTHING when he continually takes both sides of even the most important and fundamental issues of our time?
posted
11 Reasons Not To Vote for Kerry While I'm sick of talking about the guy, I once again feel the need to explain why he is not worth our votes. Many people,.specifically liberals, think this election is so important. They're right. But their conclusions are wrong. While Bush may have some issues, he doesn't hold a candle to John Kerry.
1. Kerry was an anti-war protester.
I would no more want an anti-war protester to run our military than to let Michael Jackson run a boy's orphanage.
Not only was he an anti-war protester, he actively worked to discredit the US effort in Vietnam by making outrageous and unproven claims to congress and on television. He persisted in these false claims long afterward, saying he was in Cambodia on a secret mission, when no such thing ever happened.
The upshot of his anti-war stance is he enabled the North Vietnamese to subjugate the south. He then turned around and blocked a bill to link US aid to Vietnam to their Human Rights record. So, not only did he help the North Vietnamese take over the South, he stood in the way of the US holding them accountable for their human rights abuses.
He also supported another repressive communist regime in the 80s Using the excuse that he didn't want the US to make the same mistakes they made in Vietnam. What's that, letting the Communists win?.
[Amended 8/19] Kerry was also a radical protestor who wrote an anti-war book then pulled it at the last minute when he realized how it might ruin his political future. He also attended radical meetings where political assassinations were discussed.
2. He's favored by Eurocrats.
He's repeatedly stated that "world leaders" (aka Eurocrats) would rather have him President than Bush. Being favored by incompetent bureaucrats who are ruining their own economies and who subscribe to crackpot notions like the Kyoto Accords and GM Crop hysteria, is hardly a positive.
Kerry seems eager for the US to be liked by creeps like Chriac. Ain't gonna happen, even if he details their car.
Europe is not exactly on our side, anyway. After we spent trillions of dollars in aid to help their reconstruction after the two world wars they started, after spending trillions of dollars to protect them from the Soviets during the cold war, and after losing many thousands of soldiers lives fighting to free their people from the Nazis and others, the Eurocrats only see us as "dangerous" and competitors who must be boxed in and minimized.
Only the UK has been a stalwart ally of ours. And they're being sucked into the EU, so who knows how much longer that will last.
If Kerry is truly favored by the Eurocrats, that is not something we should feel comfortable with. The Eurocrats want to diminish US power in the world. Do you really think the Kyoto accords are just about global warming? It would have next to no effect other than to bankrupt the US. No wonder they Europeans are so interested in seeing it pass.
3. He has all the wrong friends and allies.
Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Tom Harkin, Al Sharpton, the Clintons, a plethora of dimwitted celebrities.
Need I continue? They all endorse Kerry. What does that tell you (aside from them being Democrats)?
4. He has a trial lawyer as a running mate.
John Edwards made a fortune suing doctors and hospitals into the stone age, based on junk science and touchy freely stories about what babies would think if they had been born. Frivolous malpractice lawsuits have been shutting down hospitals and driving up health care costs to obscene levels. Many hospitals won't do birthing anymore because of lawsuits.
Why this is relevant is the Democrats are heavily supported by the Trial Lawyers association. And the Democrats have threatened massive lawsuits if the election is close again, and they could tied up the election for a long time. They also threatened to sue TV stations that air political ads they don't like who attack Kerry.
This is only a preview of what a Kerry administration would be like. Under Clinton we saw lots of government shakedowns of corporations like the Tobacco Industry and Microsoft. When the Democrat's are in power, they'll get back into business trying to milk the corporate cow for all its worth.
All those platitudes Kerry is uttering about saving American jobs will ring hollow when more companies have to cut back on hiring because of the expense of doing business in the US. Why are these companies setting up elsewhere, anyway? The greed of politicians and trial lawyers have made America too expensive for many companies to operate here.
5. He's a liar.
He was in Cambodia during the Vietnam war? No he wasn't. After repeating this lie over and over he's now saying he was "near" Cambodia, but he's sure he was there sometime. The problem is, he kept telling the Cambodia story until people caught him in a lie. Liars change their story when they're caught.
And let's not forget he lied in order to trash the government. The very government he wants to run.
Kerry also regularly lies about the state of the economy, comparing it to the Great Depression, or more recently, about stem cell research.
Bush critics call the president a liar, but he doesn't change his story and he's been vindicated time and again. Not so, Kerry.
6. He's an unprincipled opportunist
Kerry got out of the military early to run for congress. When his war hero approach didn't play to the crowds in his native Mass, he turned into a anti-war protester. He supported the war on Saddam until he saw how successful Howard Dean became early in the Democrat primaries, so he suddenly changed his tune and became (look out!) an anti-war candidate who waffled on his support of the war and didn't vote to pay for the troops much needed gear. But now that Dean has been diminished and looking strong is tantamount to getting elected, he suddenly says he would have invaded Iraq anyway, WMDs or not.
Kerry has a long record in his home state of voting to appease his left wing constituents, yet he tries to pass himself off as a moderate. A war hero, even. Yet this war hero has worked to undermine our military since he got back from Vietnam. By first testifying against us during the Vietnam war, voting against intelligence and military spending, even after the first World Trade Center bombing. And voting against appropriations to pay for our war in Iraq.
7. He'd empower leftist Democrats
Aside from Trial lawyers, Kerry is good buddies with Ted Kennedy, one of the most extreme lefties in the Democrat party. All indications is that he would appoint more left wing judges and make left wing policy decisions. After 8 years of Clinton we've seen what kind of societal mess we're in with moral relativism being rampant for too many years. More of the same is not going to help things. And more left wing activists judges is not going to help solve a lot of important issues we're having in our society right now.
[Amended 8/19] He also has the potential to appoint three new supreme court justices if he gets elected, which would throw the balance of power in the supereme court (which is pretty even right now) to the left. The nany state is bad enough as it is without the supreme court being thrown to those lovers of government intrusion in people's lives.
8. His stated War on Terror policies are clearly unworkable.
He claims he can solve our involment in Iraq by getting Europeans to replace our troops. Ain't gonna happen. Europeans are opposed to getting involved in Iraq, almost to the same degree as they opposed spending money to protect themselves against the Soviets in the Cold War. Why get involved when America is willing to do it for you?
They've been getting mostly a free ride off the Americans for almost 100 years now. And Kerry seems to think he can pull our troops out of Iraq in six months, while he's opposed to pulling our troops out of countries where they're no longer needed.
This guy reminds me a little of Jimmy Carter, who was all smiles when he ran for president, and promised to bring honor to the White House. Once he was elected, his face became sour and the country went through an extreme down period where public morale was at an all time low. Carter's wimpy polices made the US look ineffective and weak around the world and encouraged terrorists all over the place.
In a time like this, we don't need another weak, waffling prevaricator for president.
UPDATE: 9 - Kerry is no leader.
He's been in the senate 20 years and has two bills with his name on them. That's an average of a bill a decade. Either he's an underachiever or he like to ride on people's coat tails (see his marriage). A leader would champion issues he cared about and get those bills through, or do his best to try. Kerry's career is lackluster and highlighted by the number of times he's skipped work.
If I had a job that paid as much as his, only had to do one thing every ten years and showed up whenever I felt like it, why, hell...why would I want to change it?
UPDATE: The Washington Times explains why Kerry's Vietnam record matters.
I've decided to add a couple more:
10. He's a Tax lover - Kerry votes for tax hikes at every opportunity and despite his claim he won't raise taxes on the middle class, campaign promises from Democrats are as sincere as "the checks in the mail". Kerry has constantly complained about the Bush tax cuts, which he said he won't amend for the middle class. But promise not to raise taxes from Democrats ring hollow because their hole world view is that raising taxes is a solution to everything (see Bill Clinton).
11. Gun Fraud - He claims to support gun ownership for hunting. That's gun grabber code for "We're going to let hunters have approved hunting rifles, under control of new laws we'll try to pass. But we decide which guns and where they can be kept". This is one of the worse things about the Democrats in my mind. They really don't respect the bill of rights. When the second amendment says: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." that's pretty damn clear. I don't trust anyone who uses code words when it comes to my civil rights. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:YN3ILqsguKsJ:jameshudnall.com/archives/002131.html+reasons+why+kerry+should+not+be+president&hl=en
posted
April 24, 2004 No Kerry, No I am currently taking a class called Y200: Election 2004. One assignment we had in the class was to write a paper outlining the election (or reelection) strategy for any of the candidates in the upcoming election. The following is a excerpt from my paper that I think summarizes quite well the reasons John Kerry should not be elected:
There are five basic reasons why John Kerry should not be elected President and why Bush should be chosen instead.
1. John Kerry is ranked as the most liberal senator in the senate by National Journal. Therefore he will be completely out of touch with mainstream America, which is not nearly as liberal as the Senator. 2. John Kerry is a “flip-flopper”. He takes positions on issues and then switches them when it becomes politically popular. As a result, he has no real convictions and would not make a good president. 3. John Kerry is weak on national security. In the dangerous new world we live in, Americans cannot trust John Kerry to protect them against all the threats poised against America. 4. Kerry will raise taxes and also proposes massive amounts of new spending. At a time when the United States is finally seeing significant growth in jobs and the general stimulation of the economy, raising taxes or proposing massive amounts of new spending will go a long way towards ruining the economic prosperity that the Bush administration has helped to create. 5. John Kerry is more anti-Bush than he is pro-issues. He is, just as Howard Dean was (although admittedly, Kerry is not as ferocious as Dean was), the culmination of the entire liberal animus towards the president, and typically chooses to attack Bush rather than promote actual tangible policies. We need a debate about issues and not personalities. President Bush is ready to engage in this debate, but John F. Kerry is not. http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:ntCE1aIJ2_oJ:www.hoosierreview.com/archives/000078.html+reasons+why+kerry+should+not+be+president&hl=en
posted
good luck on writing that, my experience with professors even in law is that most are left leaning if not way way overboard...
I did have one professor way back in undergrad who would bring in headlines daily to discuss issues, point out bias on either side etc....
Have 3 different degrees so i've seen a few professors. Its worse in undergrad where if a professor is looked at as good, all the students walk around repeating things they said.....until next semester when they repeat someone else..
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people I know, that are against gay marriage, certainly aren't bringing up Cheneys daughter to further President Bush's cause, but the opposite! They are as insulted as I am!
Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
40 tons?..explosives are pretty dense, so moving the stuff in a hurry? 8 to 10 tractor trailers....no biggy.....
the argument goes back to putting large scale inspections into play tho.... not starting a shooting war and crossing your fingers....which is what Bush did..
posted
100,000 Civilians Died Because of Iraq War, Hopkins Study Says Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- About 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the war in Iraq, according to research from Johns Hopkins University. The findings are the first scientific study of the effects of war on Iraqi citizens, according to the Lancet medical journal, which is publishing the research.
The study, based on a survey comparing mortality rates in Iraq during the 15 months before and 18 months after the March 2003 invasion, found violence was the leading cause of death after the invasion. The majority of the civilian deaths were women and children, said the study, led by Hopkins' Les Roberts. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5qWDoyceuDI&refer=us
these apparently are estimates based on surveys not body counts from direct conflict, they do not included the fighting in Falujah....
the highest estimate that i had seen prior to this was 15,000 civilians.....
[This message has been edited by glassman (edited October 28, 2004).]
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what's a tractor trailer carry?
40 tons?..explosives are pretty dense, so moving the stuff in a hurry? 8 to 10 tractor trailers....no biggy.....
the argument goes back to putting large scale inspections into play tho.... not starting a shooting war and crossing your fingers....which is what Bush did..
Ackually they carry about 24 tons on a 80,000lb. rig. Trucks can carry more but are the slow movers and more of a specialized type.
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact file. When a American league wins the World Series the odds are better that a Democrat wins the White House. lol
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry Lies On Social Security, Flu Vaccine And The Draft By Gordon Bishop (10/25/04)
America’s liberal mainstream media refuses to report on the consistent lies coming out of the mendacious mouths of Senators John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards.
American voters and taxpayers are being fed a flood of lies by Kerry-Edwards, beginning with Social Security, the military draft and even the flu vaccines that are in short supply.
The list of lies goes on and on. . . . but voters and taxpayers will never know the truth, even when President Bush and the Fox News Channel and talk radio hosts expose Kerry’s ludicrous lies that are not reported by the New York Times, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Associated Press, the world’s largest news wire service.
So here’s the Truth:
1. Kerry-Edwards scare senior citizens and the “Baby Boomers” born between 1946 and 1964 by telling them that President Bush is going to kill Social Security. WRONG! Bush and the Republican Party are offering those born in recent years to start their own retirement accounts at much higher investment returns than Social Security. The Bush-Republican plan is purely voluntary. No one has to do it.
2. Kerry-Edwards blame Bush for the shortage of flu vaccines. WRONG! Kerry voted against legislation that would have protected vaccine manufacturers from punitive damage lawsuits by trial lawyers. (Kerry and Edwards are both trial lawyers, like Bill and Hillary Clinton.) Trial lawyers have been suing manufacturers and businesses, including doctors and hospitals, for “negligence,” forcing them to shut down or move out of America where there are not tens of thousands of lawyers filing lawsuits every day, many of them frivolous. The cost to America’s economy exceeds $500 billion a year.
3. Kerry-Edwards are telling voters that President Bush is going to reactivate the draft to recruit more men and women into the armed forces. WRONG! Only two members of Congress, both liberal Democrats, introduced legislation to bring back the draft. The legislation was defeated almost unanimously by both parties. The only two votes for the legislation were from the two liberal Democrats, one a U.S. Senator, the other a Congressman from New York City – Charles Rangel.
The Democrats continue to play the “race” card to get the black vote. It won’t work. President Bush has more blacks in his Cabinet than Bill Clinton, who called himself America’s first “black” President (another big lie). Among Bush’s closest advisors are his Secretary of State, his National Security chief, and his Education Commissioner – all prominent black leaders in America.
The Democrats continue to create “class warfare,” by labeling Republicans the rich and powerful, and the Democrats the protectors of the poor. WRONG! “U.S. News & World Report” publisher, Mort Zuckerman, wrote last week that the Democrat Party today is comprised of the rich and elitist members of American society, led by Kerry and Edwards, both multi-multi millionaires, far richer than Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is a billionaire, and John Edwards, one of the wealthiest trial lawyers in America, has more money than both Bush and Cheney combined!
So much for “class warfare” propaganda by the Far Left, led by Kerry-Edwards.
Kerry is the leading “liberal” in the Senate, and Edwards is ranked the fourth most “liberal” member of the Senate.
They are the liberal leaders expanding America’s already Big Government “Socialist State.”
In Kerry’s so-called “Winning First Debate,” the Fox News Channel found some 25 lies, misrepresentations, distortions and contradictions made by John Kerry. As a Yale lawyer, he should know better.
Americans finally have a clear choice for President: Bush Vs. Kerry.
Kerry is a slick, smooth, slippery speaker with a 20-year record in the U.S. Senate that produced only one piece of legislation approved by Congress. Kerry was AWOL most of the time while a Senator. Last year, he missed all sessions of the Senate while preparing for his presidential campaign. Kerry has missed 76 percent of the Senate voting sessions since he has been in Congress.
Bush was a two-term Governor of Texas, and almost one-term as President. Bush has a remarkable record of achievements. He’s there when decisions must be made. He’s not an absentee elected public official living a life of lies and empty rhetoric. http://www.americandaily.com/article/5530
posted
Looks like it is a go. Four more years of sanity, and forward looking national and global concerns which will undoubtedly leave our great country in a better position. Looks like The President will have the opportunity bring this country back up to the levels it belongs at. After 8 years of a democrat in office, now President Bush has a total of 8 years to undo the bad done. Amen to tax breaks, Amen to Global concerns and forward looking actions to keep our country at a level it belongs at. And finally Amen for for more years of sanity and the temperament it takes to get todays job of being President and Vice President. Thanks to all who went out and placed a vote based in reality, thanks for Voting for President Bush and Vice President Cheney
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited November 04, 2004).]
posted
futuresobjective-lying and blameing the other party for lying has been a stratigy of the Dems for some time now. It hasn't worked well lately but still has some affect. My mother is a good example of beleveing what they hear on CNN and from the Dems politicians. She told me several times things like they were going to take her social security away. That reason and many more is why I seldom vote Dem any more. There are a few good Dems around though. Its a shame that the radical special interests have hijacked the Dem party. If they don't see that soon, it will, or perhaps has done, irreparable harm to the Dem party. By the interviews I've seen since the concession speach, I see no sign of the Dems realizing it. By the way did anyone actually here Kerry use the word concession. I didn't (but I may be wrong) and if for some reason Ohio gets a little closer look out.
[This message has been edited by timberman (edited November 04, 2004).]
Posts: 474 | From: Central PA | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by timberman: . If they don't see that soon, it will, or perhaps has done, irreparable harm to the Dem party. By the interviews I've seen since the concession speach, I see no sign of the Dems realizing it.
[This message has been edited by timberman (edited November 04, 2004).]
They have failed to make the connection since 94'. By their lack of cooperation with Bush in his first term (judicial appointments,...), I think their motive is pure hatred for the man. Being ruled by such emotions will prevent them from identifying the REAL cause of their party's demise--they offer no hope, only reasons NOT to vote for the other guy (Kerry was very ambiguous about his vision for America during the campaign--no one knew what he stood for). They are deeply allied with special interest groups (labor unions and NEA). Their party is devisive not united, negative not positve--look at how they vultured over Trent Lott when Byrd can do and say what he does with little consequence, or the outrage of Gingrich's book deal when Hillary signed a record deal herself? (the instances are unlimited).
Slowly but surely they are erroding their base (record turnout this election boded well for the Republicans--not the Dems). They perpetually run on social issues and verballize solutions that never sees action. They obstruct real action by the other party because a solution to a problem means less dependance on THEM--it all goes to their party's core beliefs. Dependance on government keeps us in power.
Their platform swings to the liberal side of social and moral issues--ostracizing many in the party or forcing them to adopt a platform many don't approve of in total.
The party is a mere shell from what it was 40 years ago and the chasm between the two parties is ever widening. The Dems do not and will not see it and the real reasons why their party is falling apart. I think this will result in the continued downfall of governorships, seats in the House and Senate, and less frequent victories in the White House--look at the trends over the past 40 years. Will they see the light? I doubt it.
posted
I don't care how much the pollsters claim moral values were the power behind all those who voted for the President (although I do agree it was a large part of his vote). I do feel that what put him over the top was that Republicans know how to get an economy moving, they historically add to the military (hence adding to the feeling of security and actual ability to protect ourselves and others), and the finally for the fact that kerry really had nothing to offer to the office of President of the United States of America. Of course there were those like myself who had many many more reasons to vote for President Bush, but when it is all said and done I feel those are the real reasons he ended up in victory lane.
[This message has been edited by futuresobjective (edited November 04, 2004).]
posted
A buddy of mine sent this to me figured I would post it. An explanation of the war in Iraq to a child. If you ask me it was a little much for a kid, and it lacks the many reasons behind the war, but still I thought it to be a little moving. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Don't close your blinds
> > The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at >war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband >and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to >serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would >give him a good explanation.
> > My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go >stand in our front living room window. He said "Son, stand there and >tell me what you see?"
> > "I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.
> > "OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the >United States of America and you are President Bush."
> > Our son giggled and said "OK."
> > > > "Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every >house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.
> > > > "OK Dad, I'm pretending."
> > > > "Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend >you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the >hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her >in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to >death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are >screaming and crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they >are kids and they are afraid of their father. You see all of this, >son.... what do you do?"
> > "Dad?"
> > "What do you do son?"
> > "I'd call the police, Dad."
> > > > "OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your >call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What >do you do then son?"
> > "Dad.......... but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts >to whine.
> > "They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place >or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my >husband says.
> > "But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.
> > "I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I >want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who >you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his >children."
> > "Daddy...he kills them?"
> > "Yes son, he does. What do you do?"
> > "Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next >door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.
> > "Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to >get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop >him," my husband says.
> > "But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"
> > "WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.
> > "OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask >for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller >and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?"
> > "What Daddy?"
> > "He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down >her door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on >fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in >the window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"
> > "Daddy..."
> > "WHAT DO YOU DO?"
> > Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I'd close the >blinds, Daddy."
> > My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks >him..."Why?"
> > "Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help people who needs >them...and they won't help.... You always say that neighbors are >supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help >me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself Daddy.....I can't >look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things >and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds.... >so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it >is not happening."
> > I start to cry.
> > My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, >looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband's questions and >he says..."Son"
> > "Yes, Daddy."
> > "Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front >door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"
> > My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He >balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without >hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM >HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA >FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
> > I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs our son to >his chest and hugs him tight, and says... "It's too late to fight him, >he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should >have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, and his children and the old >lady across the way. > > > > You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before >it's too late." my husband whispers.
> > THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When >good men stand by and let evil happen son, THAT is the greatest EVIL of >all. > > > > Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must >understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men >from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are >not afraid to look out our window so that my nine year old son won't >grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds >the atrocities in the world won't affect him. > >
> > "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT!, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO >DO IT ALONE!" BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! >SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL >NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS..." > >
> > This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school >in America. Of course that won't happen so we'll use the internet.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
