"You can run but you can't hide"
Our Fuhrer, George Bush, is now repeatedly using this phrase to 1) associate John Kerry with Al Qaeda, and 2) accuse Kerry of lying when he says that he can pay for all of his proposals without increasing the tax burden of the middle class.
The best way to respond to this charge is to ridicule George Bush and the Republican Party, using the arguments presented at www.taxwisdom.org. It's time we went on the offensive in the debate over tax policy.
Linette
Posted by Taxwisdom.org at October 12, 2004 02:46 AMLOL! Jr. is running from his record as fast and furious as he can!
Sinclair is starting to back down.
Posted by ga6thdem at October 12, 2004 03:25 AMThe movie (Going Upriver) is great. Before watching it, I wanted to vote against George Bush. I now want to vot for John Kerry.
I have made 3 copies and given them to neighbors who plan on voting Bush.
Posted by Tito at October 12, 2004 04:20 AMI was kinda hoping for more of a fight out
of Sinclair..
It was really helping to energized Kerry's base
Posted by Warrior Lost at October 12, 2004 05:49 AMI have an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer that states the Iraqi war boosted terrorism. I think it is important because the author of the report is the Jafee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. This report can't be dismissed as partisan politics. I would like to send it to you if you like. How??
I think this would make an excellent commercial in targeted markets!!
marty copy and paste it into this thing
Linked text
and take out the *'s
"A total of 28 million jobs, or almost 25 percent
of all available in the [America], can no longer
keep a family of four above the poverty level"
yeah... that didnt work
just copy and paste it's url, Marty
Posted by Warrior Lost at October 12, 2004 06:24 AMCNN current headline calls Pres Race a "dead heat", but the actual story reveals a slight Kerry lead. The Media might as well work out of the WH.
Posted by T2 at October 12, 2004 06:35 AMThis is only my second posting and I have a favor to ask. Going back to the first debate, I read several blogs that talked about how the right wing was going crazy because Kerry did so well and Bush looked so retarded. I tried, with no success, to Google my way to a right wing blog. I was curious about the bile being spewed on these sites.
It would be nice to have a couple places to go to read some of this nonsense. Could someone please post the name of a right-wing blog site for me? I have a special yen to read what they say on election night as Bush goes down the old drain. Thanks in advance. This site attracts some of the wisest comments anywhere. Love to read it every day.
Posted by Great Earth Mother at October 12, 2004 07:14 AMI was going to add a comment on your three-part piece about Kerry's Cambodia connection, but the thread appears to be closed.
If it is alright, I'll comment here. If not, feel free to move or delete.
Interesting links and background but how does this connect with Kerry's various claims about missions in Cambodia? That question does not suggest that there were no Americans in Cambodia at any time prior to the 1970 incursion, however, the focus is on Kerry -- or at least Swiftees -- actually going on missions of that sort with Special Forces.
Since he's talking openly about it for more than a decade or so, secrecy shouldn't be a problem for any of the Swiftees who support him and served with him. Anyway, you provided a lot of material and I looked through it.
1. The long list of MIA incidents do not include insertions or extractions via waterways. The material you have provided describes the use of helocopters, not Swift Boats. That was the preferred means although SEALs had their own specially-built attack boats -- very well-armoured, extremely fast, and much quiet than a Swift Boat.
2. The sources listed here do not describe a connection between Coastal Divisions 11, 12 and 13 regarding cross-border operations. According to the info provided, for example, Daniel Boone's Area of Operations was in northeastearn Cambodia which is mountainous terrain.
3. While the links provided material on the tri-country region northeast of the Mekong Delta, there's no material about operations that might have occured in the border areas patrolled by Kerry's PCF-44 and PCF-94 between Dec-1968 and March-1969.
4. And there's nothing to show that Kerry had travelled near any border area other than the Ha Tien-Rach Giang Thanh canal system. The upper reaches of which could have been navigatable in by Swift Boat during favorable conditions in the annual flooding of the wet season (May-Oct), but not very likely during the low waterlevels of the dry season (Nov-Apr). Kerry and PCF-94 were in the border patrol area Feb-Mar 1969.
5. Kerry and his crew were not trained and equipped for special operations. They didn't have the firepower, the speed, or the in-country knowledge to undertake a mission of that sort. But maybe they helped with ambushes or with the insertion of troops in VC infested areas via the larger waterways within Vietnam. From what I understant the SF guys didn't like to involve regular forces in their clandestine missions.
Posted by F. Rottles at October 12, 2004 08:08 AMCongrats to downloading it! - It is truly a superior film - it was not nearly promoted enough - To see the film is to know we've got the right guy running for President.
Posted by Dorothy M. Ligon at October 12, 2004 09:02 AMSomething interesting, given the election season:
BIG TOBACCO means BIG MONEY. Not only are tobacco interests spending millions in campaign contributions right now, they’ve spent over $100 million directly lobbying Congress since 1999.
That’s bad for democracy, and bad for our kids.
Go to www.KidsBeforeProfits.org and urge candidates and elected officials in your district to protect our kids from Big Tobacco.
You have a chance to influence this election and shape future tobacco control policy by getting involved. Go to www.KidsBeforeProfits.org today!
Thanks for your Help
Posted by Lisa at October 12, 2004 09:52 AMExcuse me,
I 'm from the UK and I and most of my family and the people I know are, if not 100% happy about the war in general, are at least glad somethings being done to combat terrorism, rather than sitting around on our arses waiting to be attacked.I know you're all hell-bent on tearing Bush apart, believe me I'm no fan and most brits take the piss out of him, but at least look at the positive acheivements of the Iraq war, and no matter what your greivances with Bush, don't side up with these evil terrorists in order to take shots at him.
Don't give me any crap about the coalition have made the world more dangerous.There's more terror and violence in Iraq now, because the coalition's presence has brought them all out of the woodwork, were they can be fought. They are the ones attacking innocent iraqis who want a better future.The iraqi people can see that now Saddam's gone they've got a chance , finally, of living a decent life , earning a decent living, and living in a democracy, but the terrorist don't want that to happen , they want the chaos to continue, they don't want the US and Britain to look good, they don't want a democracy to replace their oppressive religious laws, they want to keep things in the dark ages.
And they know if a democracy does get a chance of being formed, and all the positive things that will be gained from it (as they are in the west), other arabs, who've been force-fed horror stories, about the US being the "great satan" and all infidels being their enemy, will realise it is all BS religious hatred spread by extremists, and they'll start seeing them as the enemy at last, cutting off their support (which I'd say is a pretty effective war on terror in the long run wouldn't you).
And before anyone comes back at me with "the insurgency want coalition gone" note that most of the terrorist aren't even iraqis, and the ones that are are either brutal extremists, or part of some foreign terror organisation. Trust me I've been there and worked there, I know a lot more about it all than most of you who just sit there whining about human rights on your computers, while you are actually helping the agenda of the ones who have the least respect for human rights, tolerance, and all the other messages you preach about.
Posted by Ricardo at October 12, 2004 10:23 AM...if not 100% happy about the war in general, are at least glad somethings being done to combat terrorism, rather than sitting around on our arses waiting to be attacked.
Right. Right. Everyone here says that's exactly what we should be doing. Sitting around, doing nothing, waiting to be attacked.
...look at the positive acheivements of the Iraq war, and no matter what your greivances with Bush, don't side up with these evil terrorists in order to take shots at him.
That's it? We're with Bush or we're with the terrorists?
Excuse me. That's bullshit.
The invasion of Iraq is not the only reason that most of the people here want George Bush out of office.
Don't give me any crap about the coalition have made the world more dangerous.There's more terror and violence in Iraq now, because the coalition's presence has brought them all out of the woodwork, were they can be fought.
You have some supporting evidence for this?
...but the terrorist don't want that to happen , they want the chaos to continue, they don't want the US and Britain to look good, they don't want a democracy to replace their oppressive religious laws, they want to keep things in the dark ages.
So are you saying that all strict Muslims are terrorists?
And before anyone comes back at me with "the insurgency want coalition gone" note that most of the terrorist aren't even iraqis, and the ones that are are either brutal extremists, or part of some foreign terror organisation.
Again. You have some proof that most of those fighting Coalition forces in Iraq are non-Iraqis?
Trust me I've been there and worked there, I know a lot more about it all than most of you who just sit there whining about human rights on your computers, while you are actually helping the agenda of the ones who have the least respect for human rights, tolerance, and all the other messages you preach about.
Shorter Ricardo = Shut up and do as you're told.
Excuse me Ricardo. For a Brit you really seem to have your Rethuglican talking points down pat.
Go bugger yourself.
Posted by muckcat at October 12, 2004 10:48 AMmuckcat:
You said it better than I could. Thanks.
Ladies and gentleman MSNBC ran all their stories on headliners and legends on the Bush family and Rush. Have not seen anything on Kerry and his anti vietnam protests or his liberal voting record. So, I say why not Sinclair. This is called freedom of the press. By the way CBS gee I guess they were doing the right thing. Where is Kerry's release of all his records or his apology to the Vets of Vietnam? Kerry is a sad example of a military war hero who desecrated the name of many a good man by meeting with the North Vietnam communists and throwing what he said and then retracted his medals over the Whitehouse fence. Sorry group but you just can't have it your way. Freedom of the press means just that. Michael Moore isn't the only one who gets to state his side.
Posted by moe at October 12, 2004 01:12 PMMoe, the Vietnamese prisoners of war should have exactly the same freedom of speech as Michael Moore. They should put their documentary into theaters next week and let people pay $8 to see it.
Posted by Great Earth Mother at October 12, 2004 01:53 PMHave not seen anything on Kerry and his anti vietnam protests or his liberal voting record.
Talk about sounding like a Holocaust denier!
moe,
Pull your head outta your ass and clean the shit out from between your ears. If there's any brains left in there when your done I'll be amazed.
Posted by muckcat at October 12, 2004 02:08 PMMuckat,
Said like a true ignorant loudmouth,
Let me clarify some points ( the fact the one of your friends actually thought you made a GOOD come-back goes to show how far away from the realms of reality you people are.
Right. Right. Everyone here says that's exactly what we should be doing. Sitting around, doing nothing, waiting to be attacked.
Kerry expected Bush and Blair not to attack Iraq because the US didn't have enough allies on board and because Saddam has "nothing to do with terrorists (I find that one particularly funny seen as Iraq at present is over-run by them).
Bush opted for a pre-emptive strike, and why not? Why wait for another thousand or more lives to be lost. It may be about oil, it may not, I'm not as far-right with my views as you might think,but I'm at least open-minded enough to see that Saddam had WMD before ( dispute that??? Well tell the thousands of kurds that were killed in the gas attack), and was going to start his arsenal all over again (if you ask me for proof, then you obviously haven't seen the reports about the yellow-cake factories in Iraq > What do you think he wanted that for , to eat?? Plus there are the chem/bio-weapons experts that al Zarqawi wanted to exchange for Ken Bigley- I note after he decapitated the 2 americans).
That's it? We're with Bush or we're with the terrorists?
Excuse me. That's bullshit.
The invasion of Iraq is not the only reason that most of the people here want George Bush out of office.
Well not exactly.... but you might as well be because as far as Kerry's concerned there is no threat which is ridiculous. Fair enough if Bush has made a mess of everything else (I can't see Blair lasting another term over here, but his replacement will only be more right-wing), I myself would prefer the president who will take threats to our security by the balls.
You have some supporting evidence for this?
What apart from the fact that, Saddams regime has fallen, we have the Iraqi forces on our side now, and the only enemies are terrorist/insurgents/whatever from allover the place that are trying to keep the war going(the left regularly spew out the fact that the war has created more terrorists, well that may be right to a certain degree, but those terrorist are taking there fight against the west to the battleground of Iraq....much better than on our front lawns huh???).
So are you saying that all strict Muslims are terrorists?
If you want to argue against my views then at least do some research, and refrain from gobshite like this. For starters I was born into a muslim family, but I became an apostate, because my father wouldn't let me so much as talk to "infidel" children (my mother is white and was treated like a slave and an animal).
Sharia law, which I know more about than you ever could, states that women can't vote and are inferior to men, gays are to be executed , and among many other oppressive and quite literally draconian laws, infidels (believers of other religions, and atheists) must live as dhimmis (second class citizens) and pay taxes to the islamic people... they are also subjected to degredation and humiliation. A democracy would change all of this, the ones sick of all the shit want change, the religious extremist (which is exactly what the islamic terrorists are) believe that democracy is defying sharia law, and angering their god, and will even commit suicide to stop it (heard of suicide bombers).
If you want proof, I suggest you go check out some of the islamic websites, and do some study of islamic law, and the koran : try googling key-words such as Taqiyya , kitman, dhimmitude . I'm not saying all muslims are terrorist, before you try that one, I'm saying that islam is a very extreme and opressive religion, and a lot of muslims would like to be free of it ( that is why I have so much respect for the west because , had I became an apostate in the Middle East, I'd have been killed).
Again. You have some proof that most of those fighting Coalition forces in Iraq are non-Iraqis?
Tawid and Jihad (Zarqawi's group) are Jordanian and they, as has been reported on many news channels this week control the bulk of the insurgency. aside from that , islamic extremist from allover the middle east, pakistan, and even chechnya, are fllodin over the Jordanian and Syrian borders to fight the "great satan".
Shorter Ricardo = Shut up and do as you're told.
Excuse me Ricardo. For a Brit you really seem to have your Rethuglican talking points down pat.
Go bugger yourself
Muckat, why the hostility, all I'm trying to do is make you realise that the Iraq war was if not necessary, vital. With a democracy in the middle east, the lives of many changed for the better, the extremist are going to be seen as an enemy trying to take away their new-found freedom, other M.E countries may follow suit, and terrorism will slowly but surely die out.
And BTW, most iraqis actually want the coalitions presence, because they're afraid of the insurgency (which you have to admit are responsible for a lot more civilian deaths than those the US forces cause).
You people don't realise how lucky you are to live in a democratic country. In some M.E countries, you'd be executed for expressing anti-government views.