You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Proposed Slogan for John Kerry
- Thread starter catmango
- Start date
Quote from max401:
Moreover, Newsmax.com reported last Saturday that officials of terrorist-friendly North Korea are âstalling negotiations on dismantling their nuclear program, hinting that they hope to get a better deal from the U.S. if a Democrat wins in November.â
This is very telling since Kerry has already proven â much like Bill Clinton and Al Gore did â that heâs nothing more than a spineless enemy appeaser,
And Reagan had a cheerleader in the Ayatollah Khomeini in the election of 1980. (And a deal to boot). But that was OK...Reagan was a Republican, not a "spineless enemy appeaser". Like Clinton, Gore, and anyone else who wouldn't get approval from Joe McCarthy to date his sister.
Meanwhile I have not heard anyone making comparisons of Bush to a serial murderer, nor have I heard anyone saying "Bush may be a rapist, because we don't have proof he isn't".
Max, why not respond to what I said rather than what you wanted to say? I mean it's fine to express your opinions. But why are your comments directed at my post about the loose characterizations I mentioned?
No explanation required. We get it.....I am RS, you are Max, and you have an obligation to ET to keep me in line. It's a good thing you are around to police my posts. You really provide a valuable service.
As for your comment to ART about him not researching enough...good point. Everyone should devote their existence to finding supportive opinions of their own. Would you like a list of web sites that will support every off the wall conspiracy theory about the Bush family?
Hey, did you hear the one about Dubya's grandfather doing business with Hitler? Etc. Oh, that's right. That's not a theory, nor is the Bush family doing business with the Bin Laden family a theory. Let's make sure that we never talk about facts. Let's stick with "We don't have proof that Kerry isn't a rapist"....I really like that a lot.
And of course Ted Kennedy is a drunk. What would you expect from the son of a rum runner? And such a successful crook on Wall Street they had to make him the head of the SEC, 'cause he knew all the tricks. Which probably means Caroline Kennedy is a murderer and drug kingpin like the Clintons were (I will ask Jerry Falwell next time I see him in church).
Max, ever think of getting a dog? They need to be taken for walks occasionally. It would do you good to get away from your computer screen a few times a day.
As you would say: "sheesh!"
Don't you EVER tire of doing what you do?
peace,
RS
You always make it a personal attack.Quote from Error 404:
t would do you good to get away from your computer screen a few times a day.
As you would say: "sheesh!"
Don't you EVER tire of doing what you do?
I don't need to "police" you RS7, I don't believe you have enough credibility to warrant it.
Gosh, sorry for staying home today and get some things done; my golf partner for today, Glenn Frey, couldn't make it.
Lets make one thing clear, I am not part of the "you guys". I'm going to assume the word 'guy' is not meant as a gender qualification so when I say I'm not one of the "you guys" I'm referring to the fact that I'm not part of the Republican attack guard.
However here is one remark by an independent source. By independent, I mean they attack the claims and accusations made by both sides.
Kerry says he's changed. He still defends his opposition to the MX missile and the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, but concedes that opposing some other weapons was a mistake.
This was not in evidence Feb. 21, when Kerry lashed out at the Bush campaign's criticism of his voting record. In a letter to President Bush he said -- wrongly -- "you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam," which is not the case. In fact Bush spokesmen at the White House, the campaign and the Republican National Committee have gone out of their way repeatedly to distinguish between Kerry's military service, which they call honorable, and his legislative record.
But Kerry was less defensive and more candid in a June, 2003 interview with Boston Globe reporter Brian Mooney. The reporter quoted Kerry as conceding that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now.
You're right in some things, the Republicans have overstated Kerry's opposition to military defense and intelligence spending. However, Kerry & Co are not without error as well in their statements. And in fact have leveled some totally outrageous charges against Pres. Bush.
Kerry is neither a communist nor socialist.
Perhaps not by the standards you are use to. Their agenda however IS Socialistic in nature. I've had the experience of sitting in Platform Committee meetings discussing these very issues. You've lived in or under Socialist/Communists conditions and feel you know whats what. I have been involved in private discussions with the powers that be within the democratic Party so I KNOW what their agenda is.
However here is one remark by an independent source. By independent, I mean they attack the claims and accusations made by both sides.
Kerry says he's changed. He still defends his opposition to the MX missile and the "Star Wars" strategic defense initiative, but concedes that opposing some other weapons was a mistake.
This was not in evidence Feb. 21, when Kerry lashed out at the Bush campaign's criticism of his voting record. In a letter to President Bush he said -- wrongly -- "you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam," which is not the case. In fact Bush spokesmen at the White House, the campaign and the Republican National Committee have gone out of their way repeatedly to distinguish between Kerry's military service, which they call honorable, and his legislative record.
But Kerry was less defensive and more candid in a June, 2003 interview with Boston Globe reporter Brian Mooney. The reporter quoted Kerry as conceding that some of his positions 20 years earlier were "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now.
You're right in some things, the Republicans have overstated Kerry's opposition to military defense and intelligence spending. However, Kerry & Co are not without error as well in their statements. And in fact have leveled some totally outrageous charges against Pres. Bush.
Kerry is neither a communist nor socialist.
Perhaps not by the standards you are use to. Their agenda however IS Socialistic in nature. I've had the experience of sitting in Platform Committee meetings discussing these very issues. You've lived in or under Socialist/Communists conditions and feel you know whats what. I have been involved in private discussions with the powers that be within the democratic Party so I KNOW what their agenda is.
Quote from max401:
You always make it a personal attack.
I don't need to "police" you RS7, I don't believe you have enough credibility to warrant it.
Gosh, sorry for staying home today and get some things done; my golf partner for today, Glenn Frey, couldn't make it.
Attack? What was an attack? Please explain. Really? How did I attack you? Or did you mean my comment about Reagan? Who did I attack and how? Was it you? Ronald Reagan? Maybe the ayatollah? (wouldn't want to attack him....bad form to insult the dearly departed).
Glenn Frey...here comes the spin. (Comical). I mentioned that I once was in a foursome with the guy at a fundraiser shotgun. Period. I bet he didn't remember my name a half hour later. But you made him into my "pal". Was that the same night I played lead guitar for the Allman Brothers with a large caliber handgun in my coat?
Whatever Max. You are right. My post about believing it is dirty politics to say "Kerry must be a rapist because there is no proof he isn't" was way out of line. That is not dirty politics at all. It's good clean Republican (as in True American) campaigning. Howard Hunt told me so once. The fucker tried to distract me in the middle of my backswing. I got the hole in one anyway (and it was on a par four!!!!).
I was just confused why you addressed the issue with what you did. Was my confusion what you considered a "personal attack"? Now I am even more confused. So is this confusion on my behalf making it a more severe attack?
I really don't get it. The good news is I think despite my obvious clinical mental problems, I am recognizing I HAVE this problem. That's the first step they say. Recognition. So now I will try and deal with my confusion. Maybe you can be a kind soul and explain to me what "attack" you were referring to. Then I can curb my confusion about at least that one thing, and that's a good first step. Every journey, etc.
Quote from cdbern:
I have been involved in private discussions with the powers that be within the democratic Party so I KNOW what their agenda is.
Wow! Does Max know about this? Can you prove it to him? Do you have photos?
Peace,
RS
I'm giving you 9 in the "Rambling" category.Quote from Error 404:
Attack? What was an attack? Please explain. Really? How did I attack you? Or did you mean my comment about Reagan? Who did I attack and how? Was it you? Ronald Reagan? Maybe the ayatollah? (wouldn't want to attack him....bad form to insult the dearly departed).
Glenn Frey...here comes the spin. (Comical). I mentioned that I once was in a foursome with the guy at a fundraiser shotgun. Period. I bet he didn't remember my name a half hour later. But you made him into my "pal". Was that the same night I played lead guitar for the Allman Brothers with a large caliber handgun in my coat?
Whatever Max. You are right. My post about believing it is dirty politics to say "Kerry must be a rapist because there is no proof he isn't" was way out of line. That is not dirty politics at all. It's good clean Republican (as in True American) campaigning. Howard Hunt told me so once. The fucker tried to distract me in the middle of my backswing. I got the hole in one anyway (and it was on a par four!!!!).
I was just confused why you addressed the issue with what you did. Was my confusion what you considered a "personal attack"? Now I am even more confused. So is this confusion on my behalf making it a more severe attack?
I really don't get it. The good news is I think despite my obvious clinical mental problems, I am recognizing I HAVE this problem. That's the first step they say. Recognition. So now I will try and deal with my confusion. Maybe you can be a kind soul and explain to me what "attack" you were referring to. Then I can curb my confusion about at least that one thing, and that's a good first step. Every journey, etc.
Peace,
RS
See what a twister you are, RS7. That wasn't your statement about Frey. Your statement was this:Quote from Error 404:
Glenn Frey...here comes the spin. (Comical). I mentioned that I once was in a foursome with the guy at a fundraiser shotgun. Period.
"I once played golf with Glen Frye and asked him this same question. He laughed and said something to the effect that if I came up with a really good explanation, he would use mine."
That leads the reader to believe that you had more than a cursory or temporary relationship. Not that you were by chance "once in a foursome." Of course, your credibility is so bad it can't believed in any case.
1. Where did I say "Logan is not under FAA or DOT?"
2. Sullivan gave his OPINION that DOT and FAA were innefective. He looks to have been right in his OPINION, although I did not read his report or view his video tape. It is surprising that after 911, this tape did not appear on TV, as it would have given the liberal media a chance to bash the administration for failure of the DOT and the FAA to prevent the attack of 911.
Maybe Sullivan's presentation, or his method of discussing the problems he saw were innefective. We don't know, we only have Sullivan's OPINION on what really happened. Did Sullivan say specifically who in the FAA, and at what level of authority of the FAA this person was who rejected his concerns as not valid enough to warrant a change in policy?
3. Do we know that Kerry didn't pass the report onto a higher level of DOT or FAA than Sullivan was dealing with when his ideas were rejected in order to help the ideas get heard?
4. Kerry, even if he did agree with Sullivan would have had only the power of introducing some legislation, or attempting to call some hearing on the issue. However, he may well have passed it on directly to a high level official in the FAA or DOT who could have enacted the increased security directly without the laborious process of moving issues through the senate.
5. You continue to place some magical power in the hands of Kerry that could have, and should have known Sullivan's report to be so true as to be acted on by himself immediately, that he would know more than the officials at the FAA who rejected Sullivan's report, and that he could necessarily bypass the FAA and DOT and get the job done.
2. Sullivan gave his OPINION that DOT and FAA were innefective. He looks to have been right in his OPINION, although I did not read his report or view his video tape. It is surprising that after 911, this tape did not appear on TV, as it would have given the liberal media a chance to bash the administration for failure of the DOT and the FAA to prevent the attack of 911.
Maybe Sullivan's presentation, or his method of discussing the problems he saw were innefective. We don't know, we only have Sullivan's OPINION on what really happened. Did Sullivan say specifically who in the FAA, and at what level of authority of the FAA this person was who rejected his concerns as not valid enough to warrant a change in policy?
3. Do we know that Kerry didn't pass the report onto a higher level of DOT or FAA than Sullivan was dealing with when his ideas were rejected in order to help the ideas get heard?
4. Kerry, even if he did agree with Sullivan would have had only the power of introducing some legislation, or attempting to call some hearing on the issue. However, he may well have passed it on directly to a high level official in the FAA or DOT who could have enacted the increased security directly without the laborious process of moving issues through the senate.
5. You continue to place some magical power in the hands of Kerry that could have, and should have known Sullivan's report to be so true as to be acted on by himself immediately, that he would know more than the officials at the FAA who rejected Sullivan's report, and that he could necessarily bypass the FAA and DOT and get the job done.
Quote from max401:
Ok, have it your way... To quote you:
1. Logan is not under FAA or DOT;
2. Minetta/Garvey were with FAA/DOT respectively.
Good. So Sullivan goes to the Senator of his state, Kerry, who then hands it off to...
the DOT (even after being warned they were ineffective).
LOL! Poor Kerry, a four term Senator, powerless to do a thing to help a single airport in his own home state to check baggage and passenger's for weapons...Quote from ARogueTrader:
4. Kerry, even if he did agree with Sullivan would have had only the power of introducing some legislation, or attempting to call some hearing on the issue. However, he may well have passed it on directly to a high level official in the FAA or DOT who could have enacted the increased security directly without the laborious process of moving issues through the senate.
5. You continue to place some magical power in the hands of Kerry that could have, and should have known Sullivan's report to be so true as to be acted on by himself immediately, that he would know more than the officials at the FAA who rejected Sullivan's report, and that he could necessarily bypass the FAA and DOT and get the job done.
But you want Bush to throw a magic switch and stop 1/3 of an entire country's GNP!