Can you hear it ? Off it the distance the fat lady is warming up.


"THE BAGEL CANDIDACY

By DICK MORRIS, July 30, 2004 --

I LOVED Bill Clinton's speech. I was inspired by John Edwards. Barack Obama thrilled me. Max Cleland made me grow as a person as I heard him . . . And then there was John Kerry.

All around him was eloquence but, in the center of the bagel, there was a speech that was a letdown.

And did he just tell 140,000 men and women fighting in Iraq that they are there because of a mistake?

By insisting that we are in Iraq because we "want to be," rather than because we "have to be," he is telling them that they are risking their lives for an optional, elective adventure. The fact is, that the reason we have not been attacked in the United States is that the terrorists are fleeing from cave to cave in Afghanistan and from building to building in Iraq — pursued by our heroic young men and women.

I honor his service in Vietnam. I think a man who knows what it is like to fight in a war is a good person to have as commander-in-chief. John Kerry is a good man. But what else is there?

Last time I checked, Sen. John Kerry was 60 years old. But to listen to his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, you would think he was still in his 20s.

He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the "goose bumps" he remembers getting when the band struck up "Stars and Stripes Forever."

Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.

But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.

Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.

What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?

What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?

What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?

Kerry's biography ends at 24.

America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us.

The Democratic National Convention closes as a nutritious, tasty, appetizing bagel — with a hole in the middle.

John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go?

Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.

He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president.

"Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do brother...

.....Zero the Hero."


What...no one remembers Ian Gillan era Black Sabbath?

Never mind.

must be nice having your own writers.....ever considering coming up with your own stuff?

All the pundits I heard reviewing the speech (Republicans included) said it was Kerry's best to date.

I watched and thought he came through in the clinch as well. It's up to the undecided now...

Dick Morris was responsible for Clintons 2 wins in Arkansas.

I love the message within the message for the troops. Hey you guys in the armed forces in Iraq, your there for no reason and Btw I would send even more if I am elected. Boy they have to be motivated.

And now you're a huge fan?

"All the pundits I heard reviewing the speech (Republicans included) said it was Kerry's best to date."


Have you heard his other speaches?? I don't think calling it 'his best' is supposed to be a compliment...

To the king, Kerry did not say that he would send more troops, He said that he would increase the size of the military by 40,000. Special forces, covert ops, that sort of thing, he also said that he would do away with the back door enlistment of the national guard and reservists.
In the past you have gone to great lengths to "quote" and blather on about this or that, if you are going to try and make points about something someone said, at least get it right. Cause with all of the fingerpointing that you do,you are going to be called on it.

Oh and almost forgot, your hero is truely the ZERO here, draft dogding war monger that lied to go get Saddam.
War Hero or War Monger, the choice is obvious!

John Kerry wasn't belittling the troops in Iraq, he was telling them the truths of the matter and not dodge balling around like our current president. Bush had an agenda from day one to go into Iraq and finish his daddy's work. His daddy messed up in the first place by not finishing the job when men and women risked and gave up their lives in the gulf war. Old George went into this war with a red hot iron up his ass all fired up and without a dead sure plan to get in and out as quick as possible with as little loss of life. I understand that war is a terrible thing and lives on all sides can and will be lost. This is an awful reality, but losing lives because our president is sending men and women into battle without the best bullet proof protection and armor available, it makes me turn red to think of families pooling moeny together to out fit their son, daughter, wife, husband, grand child, or next door neighbor, because some idiot sitting in the whitehouse wants to see his filthy rich, crooked scum of the earth corporate a holes, earn an extra buck and leave the soldier in the trenches without every option for optimum survival at his or her's disposal. Like the future president said last night, America will not back down from a tyrant or necessary war but only will he when assuming the role of commander in chief send troops off to a foreign land only under absolture necessity. And how about the soldiers of previous wars and battles being shafted by our current president's policies that prevent veterans from getting the health care they deserve. Our current president has a lot of holes in his story regarding the reasons and backbone of the skelital structer of reason explaining why our country has lost a mind boggling 900 men and women. From top to bottom in the Bush administration their is a sickening corrosion of integrity. The current climate of the Bush administration behind closed doors is comparable to a scene of little boys and girls who are trying to hide a grape juice stain on a pearly white carpet. Sure it will remain hidden for the short term but when the heat is turned on and the stench comes from underneath the throw rug and the powers that be start to smell what is cooking there is no hiding the truth and efforts of deception. I want to see a president in office in the next four years who is making a positive effort to improve all arenas of American government, not a president who is trying to hide from truth and is constantly running an uphill and winless race of deception and corruption. Kerry for President hell yes, Bush packing his Jammy's and bankie to go back to the ranch hell yes. Signing off JFK

ssf,

Kerry said in his speech that Iraq was a mistake. So the 140k troops there are to think what. For the past 6 months he has been saying we need more troops on the ground in Iraq and has proposed 40k which has nothing to do with the 40k he mentioned last night. It helps to tie all his proposals and thoughts together to form a clear picture of what he is saying. taking one speech at a time you would never pick up his cosistant inconsistancy.

Here is more on how Kerry says one thing then does another.

Kerry defensively said 2 years ago 'no intention' to use Vietnam film for campaign purposes

On the defensive for filming himself during the Vietnam war, John Kerry once told a reporter he had "no intention" of using the footage for campaign purposes, but some of it will be featured tonight in a video of introduction before his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech.

New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller was a columnist when he wrote in a Sept. 7, 2002, piece of his encounter with Kerry after having mocked the senator for "pulling out a movie camera after a shootout in the Mekong Delta and re-enacting the exploit, as if preening for campaign commercials to come."

Keller said Kerry invited him to his office to see some of the 8-millimeter footage, which had been transferred to videocassette. Keller wrote: "'It is so innocent,' [Kerry] said by way of introducing his youthful cinematic effort, adding a little defensively, 'I have no intention of using it' for campaign purposes."

The introduction video, however, by Steven Spielberg protege James Moll, makes prominent use of some of Kerry's footage to depict him as a war hero capable of becoming the nation's next commander in chief.

A Kerry campaign spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Moll told the New York Observer that after starting his video project, "it was a pleasant surprise that [Kerry] had taken his own footage while in Vietnam."

"When Army Green Beret Jim Rassman is talking about how John Kerry saved his life, I'm using some of that footage," Moll said. "It shows the swift boat and various shots of the swift boat, and some firing like you see in the water. Bullets in the water." But Moll said the bullets are "just illustrative," not from an actual event.

In his column, Keller said he changed his mind about Kerry's motives for taking the film footage, but a former swift-boat crewmate who witnessed some of the future presidential nominee's filming insists it wasn't a normal thing to do. Steve Gardner, who served for two and a half months under Kerry from late 1968 to early 1969, has no doubt that all of the footage was re-enacted.

"It was just dumb," he told WorldNetDaily. "Every bit of that was staged. Nobody in his right mind is going to take an 8-millimeter camera in a firefight to take pictures of John Kerry."

Gardner, of Clover, S.C., said he didn't express it, but thought to himself, "What an idiot."

"The stuff he was doing was just antics," said Gardner, a gunner's mate 3rd class. "Nobody knew at that time he had a hidden agenda. We just thought it was goofy stuff." But some of Kerry's swift-boat colleagues say they were well aware then of the future politician's ambition.

John O'Neill, who took over Kerry's swift-boat command, says in a book scheduled for release next month, "Unfit for Command," that a "joke circulated among his colleagues that Kerry "left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."

The book charges "Kerry would revisit ambush locations for re-enacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero." The Boston Globe reported in 1996 that Kerry's films appeared "as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109." Thomas Vallely, a fellow veteran and one of Kerry's closest political advisers and friends, told the Globe, "John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely."

O'Neill, an attorney, is spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a coalition of more than 200 vets familiar with Kerry's service who oppose his candidacy for president based on their judgment of his character. As WorldNetDaily reported, O'Neill's organization stated last month Kerry was a "loose cannon" in Vietnam and is unfit to be commander in chief.

The group includes the entire chain of command above Kerry during his tenure in Southeast Asia, as well as enlisted men. The group has called on Kerry to stop unauthorized use of their images in national campaign advertising.

Only two of 20 officers in one photo Kerry has used support him, they say.

http://www.swiftvets.com/

I remember the Ian Gillian stint with Black Sabbath Much better with Deep Purple though As far as this thread goes...Just Vote!No more Duhbya for me thanks

Cannibal Corpse does an amusing cover of "Zero the Hero".

Funny, but you play the riff from that song with vintage gear and some volume and it just rips, even though it comes across kinda soft on the album.

hey stlhd it is good to hear from a fellow metal head, so so sad about Phil leaving pantera, and am waiting for a couple of years to go by and have pantera get back together and just unleash a new black metal dose of heaviness. But in the meantime I will rock some deftones, which really kick ass, and some old glass jaw, poison the well, hatebreed, and old metallica pre- new ****, VH DAVE, any way good to hear that there is somebody on here that is into heavy music. I play guitar too, so I hear what your saying about the volume and the gear. keep pumpin the fist too the sound sof the creature of the night

dude, your an animal.

i hate phil (although I do like Pantera to 'Vulgar....') and I really, really hate kiss.

oh yeah, great moniker zep....

Jackiepoo, could not agree with you more on your post about Dumbya.............Way to go.

To theking, get a bunch of like minded people in the same room, ask them a bunch of slanted questions leaning to the right, and then conclude that they are all leaning to the right is not an objective conclusion.
Are you on here trying to win more votes for a president that the average voter see's to be dictatorial, simple minded, and plain money grubing. I see that you have started numerous posts to these same effects and was wondering what exactly your efforts are directed towards? Is it that if you keep telling yourself these things that they will be so? Are you so closed minded that you can not see the truth about "your" beloved president?
The question to your true motivation will forever escape us as I don't think that it will ever be brought to light, Honestly!
Bottom line, Dumbya should not have been president and has used that position to line his and his cronies pockets with blood stained money. Sleep well..........Fishy.....

SSF,

In this case you made a counter to my assertion about Kerry. I showed you that Kerry in fact as saidf the war is a mistake at the same time saying he would addd 40k troops. As a by product of that we can see that Kerry is inconsistant. So I continue to show that the libs for some reason look past all his inconsistant proposals etc. for one reason on this board they hate GW because he is overtly Christian.

Elvis, put your glasses on; you're only seeing half of what's written.

Kerry said he would add 40K to the active duty rolls, not in Iraq. He will double the Special Forces of each branch to aid in the fight against terror using covert military action. He will obtain NATO and other support in Iraq to decrease the number of Americans fighting there.

Strategically it's a pretty solid plan. Whether he can pull it off or not is another question. But it's tough to argue that "staying the course" is strategically the right thing to do.

GH,

You forgot the part where he called Iraq a mistake. What are these new troops US or foeign supposed to think about that?

I thought you might like this. It supports what Bush has siad and refutes you "lies" claim. It also shoots your "Powell" would be a great leader claim in the head.


Retired Gen. Tommy Franks Says U.S. Should Put Iraq On 5-Year Plan Franks Talks Candidly In Exclusive Interview With PARADE Magazine About War, Israel, Saddam and Osama

NEW YORK, July 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who led U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, says he never thought the U.S. could be out of Iraq in a year. Five years, he says, is a realistic timeline. "It takes time to solve problems when you're talking about 25 to 26 million people," Franks tells PARADE magazine for this Sunday's issue, noting that Iraq has to dig itself out of a "30-year hole." Franks, 59, who retired from the military in July 2003, had a lot to say in this exclusive interview with PARADE, his first national interview since leaving command:

* The biggest surprise for him was that they've found no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the "reason we went to war." He says multiple Middle Eastern leaders, including Jordan's King Abdullah and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, told Franks that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In January 2003, Mubarak said point blank to Franks, "Saddam has WMD-biologicals, actually-and he will use them on your troops."

* Franks and his warplanners expected 150,000 additional international troops to help with peacekeeping operations. They never materialized.

* Franks singles out White House Counter-terrorism Czar Richard Clarke as never providing him with "a single page of actionable intelligence" and of engaging in mostly wishful thinking. Franks also believes the U.S. invested too much in electronic spy surveillance and not enough in spies. "We can't send a Princeton-educated New York lawyer to infiltrate al-Qaeda. To get information, we have to marry the devil or at least employ him. You have to deal."

* Franks steered clear of Israel while he was a U.S. military commander and openly told Arab leaders that he was sympathetic to their issues. "For years," he tells PARADE, "I had told my Arab friends that I had 'no Israeli visa' in my passport. This was an unofficial way of letting them know that I understood their side of the story."

* Franks was disappointed that the Iraqis initially chose looting and insurgency over pulling together to rehabilitate their country --immediately coming out to guard museums, weapons depots, etc.

* Franks describes contentious battles among the military service chiefs over his warplans for Afghanistan and how he told his civilian bosses in the Pentagon that he wanted "to be left the hell alone" to run the Iraq war.

* Franks openly rebuts and takes issue with the long-standing "Powell doctrine" of over-whelming military force. Powell criticized Franks' warplans for Iraq, drawing his ire.

* Franks believes the world is "far safer" without Saddam Hussein. Asked about Osama bin Laden, he says that, unlike Saddam, who was hated in Iraq, tens of thousands of Arab families would happily take Osama in as their hero. Franks believes Osama will be caught eventually, "even though we don't have enough sources on the ground."

This Sunday's PARADE also features an adaptation from Gen. Franks' new book, American Soldier, to be published Aug. 3 by ReganBooks/HarperCollins.


SOURCE PARADE Magazine

I'm back from vacation and thankfully recorded Kerry's speach.

TK, I thought you would come to your senses after hearing a Presidential candidate who actually has some intellectual capacity and quit coming up with your dirt digging campaign to smear Kerry...

Elvis

for one reason on this board they hate GW because he is overtly Christian.
------------------------------------------------------------

That's a buch of hog wash. Bush is disliked moslty because of his incompetence as exemplified in his many disastrous foreign and domestic policies.

Guys like you are no different than the followers of Jim Jones back in the late 70's to middle 80's. You will enjoy the taste of that poison Kool Aid until the very end. That's why it's not good when Government is controled by religious Cult's, whether it be the Taliban and it's Muslim extremist, Zionist, fanatic Christian fundamentalism, Moonies, Guru's or any of the many other's cult's, to numerous to mention. Here in America we advocate the separation of Chuch and State, for protection against our own stupidity.

The brain washing is so thorough that the extremists are convinced that their soul mission in life is a Crusade of spreading their culted religious values troughout the World and destroy all others including the burning of books. The main problem is amplified when it involves your Government and the millitary. When that happens(religious fanatics govern), everyone is forced (including our Millitary) to participate in an irrational agenda that's dangerous and vague, without logic and often fails as in Iraq for us and Afghanistan for the Taliban.

An example is the polarization and division that's so apparent in our country today. It's the us against them, Right vs. Left, Christian fundamentalist vs. All the rest of um campaign that he is running on in this election. Most of his Political adds are focused on deamonizing his oponent and never pointing to his record over the last 4 years! His record is no longer important to the majority of his supporter. That's wrong (the polarization) and devisive, not in the best interest of this country and the reason he needs to be sent back to Crawford Texas this fall. They are only concerned with the fear generated with the belief that everone else is evil and they are devine. Bush = God and good and Kerry = Devil or Evil.

Again, government should not be pushing a religious agenda over everything else including policy.

I still say it's not that Bush is a Christian, but it's his actions concerning policy that are contrary to the logistical and rational chioces that governing requires and independent of the Church.

Ia Presidential candidate who actually has some intellectual capacity and quit coming up with your dirt digging campaign to smear Kerry...

Lets stack up your education and resume against GW's jeff'ed Whats a buyer from Snohomish have over the president. Lets hear it?

I have a 4 year degree from the UW. But what does that have to do with the qualifications of the next president? I'm sorry, but Bush's C+ GPA and his underwhelming vocubulary doesn't exactly inspire me, evidentially it does you.

Hell, I'd be happy if Bush told the whole and complete truth about what he knew about the justificaiton for war and could actually explain it to the American people. And TK, don't bother to post what was recorded for the vote for Afganistana and Iraq. What I'm talking about is Bush's ability to persuade people and be a leader.

Jeff'ed,

Well Bush has a UD from Yale and a masters from Harvard and unless you are proposing that his family got those for him. I doubt you could even get accepted to either school on merit.
I thought libs did not like stereotypes? If you cannot understand what Bush's positions are it is you not him. You don't want me to post certain things because you cannot defend or refute them. You have all but admitted you are basing your position on feelings and emotions not facts and logic. Your last two posts show this very well. It's how a candidate sounds not the meat of what he says that you go for. If you want meat Kerry is not the guy. If you want a feel good feeling he just may fit the bill.

TK,

What makes you an authority on how GWB got admitted into those schools? Do you really know what his schoolastic scores were prior to admission? Ya, he certainly has some nice degrees, but they don't manifest themselves when he speaks off the cuff. I could make an accusation that there is no way he could have gotten into those schools without family pull, but that would be no more of factual claim than your assertion that he got there based on merrit.

Why do you keep dragging my ability to get admitted into these schools into this discussion? It's not about me, its about who is the better candidtate....

If you don't understand that a Presidents ability to lead is based on his ability to communicate, influence other countries, negotiate effectively, then your missing a big portion of what makes a good President.

You speek of Bush as if he's just a cog in the political wheel with your spin of "facts." Show me how Bush has been an effective communicator and brought this country together the way a leader should....The fact is that he has dividided this nation in half, not the uniter that he ran on, and turned out to be quite the nation builder, didn't he as opposed to his accusation of Clinton / Gore.

Frankly, I don't care what you post. It's not my intention to sensor.

Jeff'ed,

A good friend has a son attending Yale so I know what the admission standards are for Yale. I work with 5 Harvard PHD's in economics so I konw what the requirements of Harvard are. I bring your education into beacuse it is very clear you are not qualified to attend either school yet you pretend you are qualified to rate the intelectual capacities of Kerry and Bush based on the campaign to date. Completely ignoring certain facts. The most glaring is that no senators saw Kerry write or sponsor bills that they saw as cutting edge or insightful. That the republicans as a part of their strategy never even listed Kerry as someone to watch in the senate. So it seems that this powerhouse intellectual has flown under the radar for most of his career. Except to gain notice as a political opportunist. Ronald Reagan had many conflicts with so called intellectuals. He pointed out what most people with any ecpirience know that at some point you have to make decisions and take action and then be held accountable for the same. Something intelectuals rarely do they leave it up tot others. And lastly as with most corporations the President is only as good as those around him. The president of the US or for a corp. provides the vision and others believe in in and execute the day to day details. People like Kerry or Al Gore are incapable of allowing others to shine brighter than themselves because it's alll about them. If you read interviews with Kerry over his whole life a pictue becomes very clear, it's all about him. A scary thought for a country and recent polls show fewer and fewer people are buying it as they learn more about him.

Typical Elvis reply; what you can't refute you claim as emotional.

That post by Jeff'e'd has two distinct facts:

• Kerry presents himself more intellectually than Bush

• Bush has not been completely forthcoming with the American populous.

Speaking of emotion, I have ascertained that many of your posts are filled with hate towards America and anything mainstream and to the left there-of. You can't seem to endorse Bush because of his record, but rather because he's not Kerry, or any other Democrat for that matter. That's not very logical. Kind of emotional, too, wouldn't you say? However, from all accounts as to how the GOP does business, I suppose it is their definitive modis operand. And those are just unemotional facts as I see them.

As far as Franks is concerned, seems he left out that part about being visually upset upon receiving the warning order to invade Iraq. He was somewhat less than highly amused. And does it surprise you that he lashed out at Powell after Powell publicly criticized his war plan? And can you say that his plan for fewer troops has been a success? No one in my professional circle thinks so. And even a civilian should find it odd that he chose retirement in the middle of a war instead of seeing it through.

GH,

Nice try. Pick any topic and I will post facts to your hearts content relating to why I do or do not support any candiate for any office. Single or multiple issues feel free.
On franks seems to me you where holding Powell up as someone you could get behind as a VP or even a presidential candidate. If I remember correctly Franks was pissed at Powell for not delivering the peace keeping forces he promised and did not see that as a role for US combat troops. I also remember Franks making the fastest Military advance in US history and accomplishing the objective of the US military, defeating the Iraqi military. It also seems to me that all the second guessers like you and yours hampered the efforts of a guy like Franks. Hard to motivate REMF's that are second guessing every step of the way vs. rolling up their sleves and getting down to business. New day in the armed forces when peoplethink they can pick and choose who and what they support.

GH

"Kerry presents himself more intellectually than Bush" this is not a fact it's someones feeling. Post some examples as proof please.


"Bush has not been completely forthcoming with the American populous" Again someone feelings post some examples please.

Seems to me you have a hard time telling the difference between emotion and fact now why does that not suprise me?

Let me post an example for you. "Bush lied and people died" was your quote for quite a while. Since then it has been the opinion of 3 independant investigations two US and one Brittish that that statement is not true. Secondly Bush's reasons for invading Iraq Are identical to Bill Clintons reasons for propsing the same in 1998 . Yet Bush is a liar. Third Clinton awarded a similar contract to Halliburton after the Balkan war under identical circumstances to the Bush Admins cantart with Halliburton in Iraq. Yet Bush did it for financial gain for friends. Do you see a pattern here in the facts?

If I am a registered voter (and I am), then I'm qualified (by exercizing my vote) to decide if Bush is an intellectual. In fact, I and everyone else that casts their vote had better have a an opinion as to whether the sitting President has the right skill mix (including intellectual ability to analyze important issues ---like stem cell research) to be President. What are you proposing TK, that we go back to "only the qualified" are eligible to vote?

And by the way, just because you know someone who got admitted Yale or Harvard, doesn't make your opinion credible. I was admitted to Boston U and went there one year, so there!

Elvis.... :rolleyes:

REMF??? Gawd, you're clueless. Now you're trying to throw around military acronyms like you're "one of the boys?" Typical chickenhawk.

I don't know where you come up with me supporting Powell for either president or vp. I may have mentioned he'd be an interesting candidate, but that hardly is campaigning.

Pretty interesting that when someone posts some facts you spin it around to interpret it as emotion in your black and white world. I'll admit that the emotion you're getting out of me now is one of disbelief that you actually believe yourself. Amazing that you sincerely subscribe to these thought processes.

You should of quit while you were ahead, you're losing more credibility with every post. You'll rank right down there with SCOWAK real soon. Your "facts" are so partisan and opinionated by agenda-driven authors that they border on lunacy.

But I gotta say your pompous arrogance is perfectly at home in the GOP.

Jeff'ed,

Well if thats one of the criteria you have come up with knock yourself out. BU wow I did not know that the Terriers had such prestige attached to their name outside of Ice Hockey.

GH,

Losing credibility with libs hurts me as much as saying I was not best friends with Ted Bundy. I notice you failed to address the key question in my post. Typical 99% emotion 1% fact.

Another point to ponder.... regardless of whether Bush has the right skill mix, the perception around the world is that he is a "Cowboy who is quick to use / misuse American might." That perception of him may very well be irreversable.

So whether you like him or not, the real question is whether he is the right candidate to take the next steps.......

OK King, so where did YOU go to school?

If I were to speculate based solely on your ability to compose a coherent sentence (grammar, punctuation and spelling not withstanding) or compose an ORIGINAL thought or opinion, I'd venture a guess... Oh, let's see... maybe Tupelo Alternative High School. :p

You can tell by the reek of patchouli he went to evergreen.

You college boys sure like to measure.....

How's that saying go? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ... Elvis?"

AM,

I used to have 250+ mostly Ex Navy guys working for me. They had the electronics background I needed so the Zero thing was intentional. I learn a few things from them, not much but a few things.


4salt,
Could not come up with anything but that. Posting all this time and never saying anything on topic or even close to being insightful means you went to school where? BTW I am not the one touting the intellectual capacity of the candidates as a valid measure of their ability. I don't know anyone else that is besides Jeff'ed.

GH,

Again zero facts all emotion. I think you are A Hens alter ego and do not really exist beacuse you never see one without the other.

"Stop Mad Cowboy Disease!"

You lead by example!

Hen,

Quit cackling and let the people I name called answer for themselves. If and when I address you its real clear. Busy body!

This is better than the WB...

Very astute, Elvis - there was no fact in that statement. But it is full of emotion. An emotion of hilarity and comical wonderment at your thought processes. If nothing else, you are entertaining. I even share some of your thoughts and posts with my fellow employees. They get quite a laugh out of your "wisdom," too, but don't let all that go to your head.

Ever consider taking your act on the road?

"I even share some of your thoughts and posts with my fellow employees."

It's quite common for someone who has little confidence in his thoughts or opinions to enlist the help of others to support his position for comfort. Rather than stand up an defend his position. But we know with you GH that only happpens every 20 posts or so. All the blather inbetween is just a stall tactic so you can do a goggle search for your next " Bush lied and people died" type tag line.

You mean like posting Zell Miller's opinion?

Sorry.......but that one was just HANGING over the plate.

Trust me Scowak makes this stuff up as he goes along. I repeat on more time for those( that one person that is a little s-l-o-w).Kerry said he would increase the military by 40,000, but would send no more troops to Iraq.Listen to the speech, buy a clue, but stop taking guesses about these thing and posting them like we are the type of tripe that would not know enough to have our own opinon. You know, clarity to see, analysize and interpret before running off at the mouth.

SSF

"Kerry said he would increase the military by 40,000, but would send no more troops to Iraq" He said that at the convention. But before the convention and for the last 6 months he has manitained troop strength was too low and would send more troops into Iraq. I think he was playing up to MCCain at the time. The problem with Kerry is he moves his poistion from day to day.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=us&sid=apQHTegvEtDo

Kerry Calls for More Troops to Bolster U.S. Military (Update1)
May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for increasing the U.S. military by 40,000 troops, probably for a decade, in order ``to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.
The added troops would help ``relieve over-extended'' National Guard and reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kerry spokesman David Wade said. Half of the additional 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists; the other 20,000 would be combat troops. The U.S. now has about 138,000 troops in Iraq.

I suppose you could see it both ways depending on the slant of sources. But at the time the contention was that Kerry was calling for adding troops in Iraq. It was at the same time Mccain was saying it. If you read the later articles it appears that the number would stay the same because of rotations. It hard to decipher because Kerry maintained months earlier that he would reduce US troops in Iraq and out lined several plans to do so.


KUCINICH CATCHES KERRY IN TROOP TRAP

Kerry Denies Calling For 40,000 More Troops. KUCINICH: “You said you want to send 40,000 more troops [to Iraq].” KERRY: “I have never said that.” KUCINICH: “You never said you wanted to bring 40,000 more troops ever?” KERRY: “No …” (CNN/Los Angeles Times, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Los Angeles, CA, 2/26/04)

But Kerry Did Call For 40,000 More Troops To Meet Commitments In Iraq And Around World. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Tuesday he would expand the U.S. military within his first 100 days as president, contending 40,000 more troops are needed to meet America's responsibilities around the world. Kerry told supporters at Drake University that the occupation of Iraq as well as the global war against terrorism require more troops.” (Mike Wilson, “Kerry Would Expand Military As President,” The Associated Press, 12/17/03)

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

That's the great thing about John "Pierre" Kerry--if you don't like his position on a particular issue, just wait a few days and if it becomes politically advantageous he'll change it.

"If the press misrepresented what Kerry's plan was, I don't think you can tag Kerry with a flip-flop. The press release is only ambigous to you.

Kerry has a clear vision of what he wants to accomplish. That involves takiing pressure OFF the troops and reservists already serving. I would say that is called "supporting the troops" and taking care of their needs."


AM,

I do not think the press or anyone including any of the Dems or repubs misrepresented what Kerry said. Kerry said it and only clarified his position over time to the point where it is today. He has yet to show how he will pay for it .

Am,

You need to check that because he has since changed his mind again. As late as Monday when asked he no specific plan to pay for the proposal or his health care proposal etc. He will be challenged more an more on it in the next 90 days.

Making campaign promises is easy when you have to be elected to be held accountable for them. Flippers record is very clear he has provided no ground breaking or even exciting changes to the senate or to the American people as a senator.

Women and Democrats who tend towards emotion like his kind of talk. But then again they do not want to be held accountable so why should they hold Kerry accountable?

But he has a plan!

Your hero is a real ZERO

BOOK CLAIMS KERRY WAR 'FABRICATIONS'

**Exclusive**

A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND:


Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.


All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.


A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.


Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.


Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.


Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.

The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is pay for play, and the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever played on a candidate for the presidency. How low can they go?"

Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton.

UNFIT FOR COMMAND will not be released until August 15.

The names. The details. All on the record.

Developing..

Q: Daddy, why is John Kerry a better candidate for President?
A: Lots of reasons, honey.
Q: Can you name one?
A: He's got a different plan for handling the war on
terrorism.
Q: What plan is that?
A: Hmmmm... well, I don't know the details, yet. He's keeping it a secret, because he knows that Americans are too stupid to understand. All we need to know is that it's different and Kerry is better.

Q: Did he support invading Iraq?
A: Well, yes. He did vote for it.
Q: Why did he vote for Iraq?
A: Honey, it was very popular to do so. Polls showed that a huge majority of Americans were in favor of getting rid of Saddam.

Q: He must have supported our troops. Did he vote to increase necessary funding?
A: No, he didn't.
Q: Why was he in favor of sending our troops to combat but not funding them properly?
A: Two reasons. First, he truly didn't want them to succeed. If they were funded and equipped, then the war would be a greater success. Polls showed that if the war was successful, then President Bush would be more popular.
Q: What's the second reason?
A: Because liberals only want to spend tax money to purchase votes.

Q: Daddy, whats a poll?
A: A poll is something great leaders like Kerry use to make decisions.
Q: Why can't Democrats make a decision on their own?
Why do they need polls?
A: Because they're really disinterested in doing the right thing. They only want to do ANYTHING that makes them look good, with as little political risk as possible.

Q: Doesn't Senator Kerry want what's best for the
American people?
A: Not really, sweetie. He only wants what's best for certain demographics who will vote for him. In return, Senator Kerry will give them beautiful government programs, which will solve all their problems.
Q: You mean problems like unemployment?
A: That's right, sweetie. If elected President, Kerry will create millions of new jobs.
Q: How is Kerry gonna create these jobs?
A: By raising corporate taxes, sweetie.
Q: But, if Kerry raises taxes on corporations, how will businesses afford to hire new employees?
A: Let's talk about health care, honey.
Q: Will Senator Kerry give drugs to the elderly?
A: He sure will, sweetie.
Q: How will Senator Kerry pay for these drug costs?
A: By making the working American pay for them.
Q: You mean that when you grow old, Daddy, and I'm a working adult, that I won't have to take care of you like responsible Americans should? I can have the government do it?
A: That's correct. Remember, in President Kerry's world, all you have to do is worry about yourself. You'll have no family responsibilities because the government will take care of everything.

Q: How did Senator Kerry get so popular?
A: Because there's two types of Americans that are attracted to Kerry. The first group are the goofy liberal socialists like Hollywood celebrities. The second group are the lazy angry Americans, who don't want to work yet still get the fruits America has to offer. They want a government hand out to make lifem more comfortable.
Q: But, who funds these government programs for the lazy and the liberals?
A: The people who work hard and want to make a better life for themselves.
Q: Isn't that the opposite of the values this country was founded on?
A: Let's talk about other issues, honey.

Q: Why is my public school not teaching me how to read or do math?
A: Because the public schools need lots more money.
Q: Doesn't the public school system get lots of money already, and has for years?
A: But, polls show teachers are very liberal. We need to support that voting block.
Q: But, they're not teaching the three Rs. I can't read, Daddy!
A: As long as they teach you to be tolerant of special interests like gay and lesbians, then that's all that matters. Besides, if you could read, then you'd have access to filth like Sean Hannity's book.

Q: Daddy, why is my little sister a ghost?
A: Because I am a goofy liberal and I believe in partial-birth abortion.
Q: But, Daddy, she was merely weeks away from becoming a real baby. You wouldn't believe what those doctors did to her little head.
A: It was your mother's choice. You're not in favor of taking a woman's choice, are you?

* * *
Hattip: Eric Baity

Oh, my.........I don't think I can top a joke like that!

Willie Horton and I are having a little chuckle on that one.