I found a neat poll on who Kerry will choose for a running mate and voted for Hillary...

10 times!

Who should John Kerry choose as his Vice-President running mate?

Here is what someone had to say about Kerry and the poll:

by Anonymous on Jul 04, 2004 - 11:19 AM

It is sad that we are supposed to be concerned as to who Kerry's VP candidate will be when we should be questioning why Kerry is to be our candidate in the first place... Kerry has consistently voted against every military expenditure since 1988 including the M-1 Abrams Tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Aegis missile system, F-15 eagle, F-16, p-3 Orion upgrade, B-1, B-2, Patriot missile system, FA-18, B-2 again, F117, Battle armor for our troops, he also voted to cut all funding for anti-terrorism activities of our intelligence agencies, the FBI by 60%, CIA by 90%, NSA by80%... He did vote to increase our funding for the UN by 800%... 800%!!!!!

Oh yes! He also managed to be honored by the North Vietnamese as having been essential to winning the war due to his activities when he returned to the USA from Viet Nam.... His picture & plaque commemorating those activities are on display at the Vietnamese war memorial in Hanoi. This is the man to be nominated by the Democratic Party? This is the man with vision for the future of this country? Is this the man you want to be our President???

This election is indeed crucial to the future & safety of our country, never has any major party placed a man so unqualified in the position of possibly becoming President. Most of that which John Kerry has done & is of public record is closer to treason then actions which qualify him to be President. If you want him in public service then let's put him in Leavenworth prison making Federal license plates... That is where he really belongs. All of you loyal Democrats should be bombarding the leadership of the Party demanding Kerry be removed & a patriotic candidate replace him. I cannot believe that my fellow countrymen will ever vote for Kerry as the truth of his past activities is made available.

Please check out his record yourselves & then let your conscience be your guide.

I can see why that guy wanted to be Anonymous considering it is full of misleading information and some flat out lies.

Here\'s the nonpartison facts to Kerry\'s weapons votes.

By the way, if you do the research you'll learn that Cheney himself bragged about cutting Reagan's defense budget and killing some programs of his own. Then, of course, we have Georgie's stellar military record... :rolleyes:

Great stuff, Plunk.

I'm sure the majority of 4th graders who read it will believe it.

I think Edwards is a good choice. He will bring a lot of energy and enthusiasm, especially compared to some of the other choices. While he may be a bit short of political experience, I don't think that is critical to a VP. Yes, he must be able to step in and be the Pres if required. I consider the personal qualities of the man to be more important than "Washington Experience." If you were to compare the political IQ of a Kerry / Edwards ticket to Bush / Cheney, I'll take Kerry / Edwards any day.

The stuff about weapons systems is a bit troubling to me, but the Bush administration seems to be giving plenty of new projects to Lockheed Martin. While it may just be political pandering during his visit here, Kerry did mention that he believes the US needs to step up and support Boeing given the subsidy advantage to Airbus.

This ticket is growing on me.....the big thing was watching Kerry throw a baseball.

He looked alot better than Bush did, looked a lil like Bush went to the Lamar Latrell school of pitching, if you know what I mean.....

Revenge of the Nerds right?

Nice catch but I think you might have just set yourself up for a ribbing....

...yeah, I think Bush would benefit from a ball designed especially for his limp wristed throwing style....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:

In fact, during the run for the dem nomination, conservatives and independants preferred Edwards over Kerry.--AuntyM

Is that because John Kerry was rated the #1 most liberal in the Senate, and John Edwards was rated as the more palatable forth most liberal in the Senate ( right behind #3 Ted Kennedy)?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Seems like I whined about Edwards not being the nominee a few months back. --AuntyM


Is that because you agree with his position that Partial Birth Abortion should be legal into the ninth month of pregnancy -when the baby is fully developed and can live outside the mother's womb and the mother's health isn't even in question?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:

Nothing I've read so far indicates that is Edwards position. Do you have a legimate and objective site regarding his position you care to post?--AuntyM


On October 21, 1999 in the first session of the 106th congress both John Edwards and John Kerry voted nay (against) a bill (s.1692) that would ban Partial Birth Abortion (a grusome procedure that most Americans including many that call themselves "pro-choice" oppose).

I'm not much of a computer wiz AuntyM--But I can give you the address I found it at:


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...ns=1&vote=00340


If that takes you to the U.S. Senate page but says,"The query string parameters are incorrect for this page."

Then click on votes-- then scroll down to Roll Call Tables and click on the 106th congress, 1st session (1999)-- then scroll down and click on 00340/ 21 Oct / S. 1692.

I can't see how anyone can take Jane Fonda Kerry seriously as presidential material as yes he is a decorated Veteran by both the US and North Veitnam after all he served on both sides of the Veitnam conflict.

He is nothing more than male version of a Gold Digger.

AS far as his running mate John Edwards is concerned he is nothing more than an Amulance Chaser, who made his millions chasing ambulances, sueing Doctors for aledged malpractice practices driving up Medical Costs.

That's a pretty darn interesting statement. I'm sure you have credible evidence to back that up. And, by the way, "decorated" doesn't mean a picture hanging in a museum for propoganda purposes by the Vietnamese.

I'd also be curious to see what credibly factual evidence you have that anything Kerry did benefitted or aided the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam conflict.

He doesn't.

...and he actually thinks someone might believe that junk, that's what I find amazing. Although I shouldn't be surprised, he probably also believes that Bush dodged the draft under honorable circumstances......

If the fetus can't survive at term, but the mother's life is in danger if she carry's to term, then she should receive proper medical intervention and neither you, nor Bush should be allowed to prevent such intervention.--AuntyM


------------------------------------------------------------

Did you even read the bill AuntyM?

-----------------------------------------------------------


The bill (S.1692) that John Kerry and John Edwards voted against cleary stated that the BAN on Partial Birth Abortion would not apply if, "the partial birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by physical disorder, illness, or injury."

------------------------------------------------------------

With regards to the statement, The most common justifiications at the time are: "The fetus is dead."

If the baby dies naturally in the womb in the ninth month of pregnancy then it wouldn't be a Partial Birth Abortion--It would be an induced miscarriage.

The bill to ban Partial Birth Abortion (S.1692) cleary states that it applies to the," overt act which kills the fetus" while that feus is intact and living.


------------------------------------------------------------


I think reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the PRO LIFE/PRO CHOICE positions in the EARLY stages of pregnancy.

However, standing on the side of Kerry and Edwards and saying that women should have the right to kill a fully formed and healthy baby that is capable of living outside of the mother when health of the mother isn't even in question seems to be anything but reasonable to me.


Why is it when someone takes a power tool and drills into the the brain of a one day old baby and sucks it inside out with a shop-vac-- It's called murder .

But when a doctor does the same thing to a living baby inside of a healthy women one day before the baby is born--It's called choice?


BTW-- the bill doesn't penalize women who are victims of this senseless and horific act--But rather seeks to hold the butchers who perform the grusome act acountable.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:

Meanwhile, I will wonder why the life of those already born seems far less important to you.--AuntyM

The loss of a single innocent life is important.

However, there is a difference in whether that life was lost regretably by accident or whether that life was knowingly taken.

------------------------------------------------------------

The innocent Iraqi people who have done NOTHING to harm you or any other american have died.--AuntyM

Would that sentance still hold up if you took the words "Iraqi people"out and inserted the words "4,000,000 + babies"?

------------------------------------------------------------
Where is your outrage at that?--AuntyM


Why can't someone be outraged and concerned about the loss of all innocent lives?

POW!!

So True!!

.
I guess with John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate, he really does want to stand up for all Americans, from those worth only $60 million to those worth in excess of $800 million.

In one of the many stratagems Democrats have developed to avoid telling people what they believe, all Edwards wants to talk about is his cracker-barrel humble origins story. We're supposed to swoon over his "life story," as the flacks say, which apparently consists of the amazing fact that ... his father was a millworker!

That's right up there with "Clinton's stepdad was a drunk" and "Ted Kennedy's dad was a womanizing bootlegger" on my inspirational life-stories meter. In fact, I'm immediately renouncing my university degrees and going to work for the post office just to give my future children a shot at having a "life story," should they decide to run for president someday.

What is so amazing about Edwards' father being a millworker? That's at least an honorable occupation -- as opposed to being a trial lawyer. True, Edwards made more money than his father did. I assume strippers make more money than their alcoholic fathers who abandoned them did, too. This isn't a story of progress; it's a story of devolution.

Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases -- unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... "

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.

Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why can't he hear those babies saying, "Let me live! Stop spraying this saline solution all over me!" Edwards must experience interference in channeling the voices of babies about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to muffle those voices.

And may we ask what the pre-born Jennifer Campbell thinks about war with Iraq? North Korea? Marginal tax rates? If Miss Cleo here is going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, I think the voters are entitled to know that.

While making himself fabulously rich by taking a one-third cut of his multimillion-dollar verdicts coaxed out of juries with junk science and maudlin performances, Edwards has the audacity to claim, "I was more than just their lawyer; I cared about them. Their cause was my cause."

If he cared so deeply, how about keeping just 10 percent of the multimillion-dollar jury awards, rather than a third? In fact, as long as these Democrats are so eager to raise the taxes of "the rich," how about a 90 percent tax on contingency fees?

For someone who didn't care about the money, it's interesting that Edwards avoided cases in which the baby died during delivery. Evidently, jury awards average only about $500,000 when the babies die, and there is no disabled child to parade before the jury.

Edwards was one of the leading opponents of a bill in the North Carolina Legislature that would have established a fund for all babies born with cerebral palsy. So instead of all disabled babies in North Carolina being compensated equitably, only a few will win the jury lottery -- one-third of which will go to trial lawyers like Edwards, who insists he doesn't care about the money.

Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million. This is the essence of the modern Democratic Party, polished to perfection by Bill Clinton: They are willing to insult the intelligence of 49 percent of the people if they think they can fool 51 percent of the people.

So while Michael Moore, Al Franken, George Soros, Crazy Al Gore and the rest of the characters from the climactic devil-worshipping scene in "Rosemary's Baby" provide the muscle for the Kerry campaign, Kerry picks a pretty-boy milquetoast as his running mate, narrowly edging out a puppy for the spot. Just don't ask the Democrats what they believe. Edwards' father was a millworker, and that's all you need to know.

July 7, 2004

That's right up there with "Clinton's stepdad was a drunk" Plunker

-----------------------------------------------

G. W. Bush, was an AWOL drunk, that avoided going to Vietnam and risking his life for his country, while kerry, McCain and many others did. He is now our wet brain Chicken Hawk leader, that's within arms reach of destroying the World. Man that's some scary stuff. Clinton's Stepdad never ask me for my vote. He never asked anyone to put their life in harms way. So what's your point?

By the way, I consider a Sportsman as being honorable and trust worthy and G W doesn't fit that criteria.

I believe the point Plunker is attempting to make is that he can copy / paste Ann Coulter's drivel with the best of 'em!

------------------------------------------------------------


If that were true then it I could say it appears as though we have something in common.

Plunker is Ann Coulter.

Harley, Nah - Plunker is cuter and (dare I say it) more reasonable than Ann.

Thanks for the compliment eddie but I think it is time we all come out of the closet.


Harley,

I love it! I must admit however that my transgender experiment was motivated by the promise of meeting some real feminist women.




The two Johns on the other hand...
You still with them harley?


The Edwards-Kerry presidential ticket is the most "gay-supportive" in the history of the U.S., the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute has declared.

The group's executive director, Matt Foreman - who has vowed to politically "punish," "terrify" and "torture" activists who oppose his organization's agenda - says in a statement the presumptive Democratic ticket is " the most gay-supportive national ticket in American history."


The group commented on Edwards' "strong support for key issues important to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and [transgendered]" persons, including supporting nine of 13 key issues of importance to homosexuals.

While it enthused over Edwards' opposition to a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, the lobbying group lamented that he "does not support extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples."

Foreman urges Edwards to use his "strong Southern and populist roots to speak out against the ugly, divisive and anti-gay campaigns being waged all across the country in the guise of 'protecting' marriage."

Kerry's campaign website includes a page devoted to the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) community. The site declares:

"With a 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign since 1995, John Kerry is a powerful voice in the ongoing fight for civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans."

One of Kerry's priorities, according to the site, is "protecting gay and lesbian families."

"John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need," the site proclaims. "He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 senators - and the only one up for re-election in 1996 - to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act."
July 8, 2004

Plunker

"I love it! I must admit however that my transgender experiment was motivated by the promise of meeting some real feminist women."
------------------------------------------------------------

One would ask, how can therre be satisfaction in a cut and paste sexuality and at what cost $? :rolleyes: Is a keyboard and VISA card needed for consummation? And how did you get those cut-n-paste chicks drunk enough to volutarily let you cut-n-paste them all over the internet.

Keep that key board oiled up and ready to paste, because all those cut-n-paste chicks are sure to give it a work out.

Curious. Why is it that homophobes search out and post more gay innuendo photos than anyone else? Are they trying to hide something? Afraid of themselves?

"Brutus, me thinks you protest too much."

I love how righty tries to use the wealth of the other candidates against them...

Hello.....Carlyle group! Hello.... Halliburton!

....almost as much as when Bush looks out at any crowd and says 'I share your values'....

...any wonder why people like ourselves, who have voted for both republicans AND democrats for president, would find this administration so despicable?

Plunker, I bet those cut-n-paste chicks that are smiling and seem so glad to see ya, were really dissapointed when they found out that bulge in the pocket iis actually a cut-n-paste mouse.

Yeah!

It's kinda' like when enviromental champion John Kerry makes a speach about saving mother earth by using less energy and says, "we all need to conserve energy". Then get into one of his 8 suv's to take him to his private jet to fly back to one of his 7 air conditioned homes.