World Champion Location: Wayne, America Registered: October 20, 2002 Posts: 5714 |  posted Let me say that, politically speaking, I have been independent for most of my adult life and vote for the best candidate for the job, not the best political party. Having said that...I just watched a video documentary online that accurately shows John Kerry flip-flopping on the war on Iraq over the last two years. This guy will say anything to get elected President, as this documentary will attest. Go to Kerry On Iraq.com and watch this video. If you can watch this video and not have your mind made up about who to vote for this November after watching it, then I don't know what to think. Isn't it interesting that the last three Democratic presidents we have had have all done more to stain our nation's image and place its security in a precarious position than they claim George Bush to have done in the aftermath of 9-11? (LBJ escalated Vietnam, Carter's backbone turned to jelly with the Iran hostage crisis, and Bill Clinton was too busy chasing skirts to worry about such things as terrorist attacks on U.S. interests). Can we AFFORD to have another Democrat in the White House in this day and age? "Energy Flows Where Attention Goes" -- James Arthur Ray |
| <gocke> | posted I need to get my spelling of the words hear/here and there/their right...so please disregard errors. |
| World Champion Location: Wayne, America Registered: October 20, 2002 Posts: 5714 | posted The thing about Vietnam for me is this: Those that served their country should be commended, but what does a war 3 decades in the past have to do with today's modern terrorism? As far as lying to Congress, helping large corporations, etc., here's an interesting little tidbit -- BOTH parties are guilty. The previous President was a pathological liar, and the man who would have followed him made outrageous claims (my favorite -- he invented the Internet). And Clinton/Gore sold nights at the Lincoln bedroom to wealthy individuals who contributed big bucks to their campaign. Bush inherited the recession, as many financial experts will attest, from the fall of the dot-com boom that took place during the Clinton regime. And here's another interesting note -- the rich are the ones who use the tax cuts to help create the jobs that put people to work earning money so they can pay their fair share of taxes. Nixon was a power-hungry moron, that much is true, and Ford was a dead man walking, politically speaking. Reagan also ended the Cold War, turned our nation's economy around AND brought a sense of pride and confidence in our nation that Carter AND Clinton obliterated during their times in office. The question was asked: can we afford another 4 years of a Republican? When compared to the alternative offered by the Democrats, how can we afford NOT to have President Bush continue his service to our nation? Vote Kerry at your own risk...and if you do, start brushing up on your Islam. "Energy Flows Where Attention Goes" -- James Arthur Ray |
| <berean> | posted Thats the same liberal media that won't cover wrestling. |
| <Guest> | posted hey guys move this political talk somewhere else and let us talk wrestling ! Neither party is better than the other one, it's politics. |
| <Guest> | posted Kerry will do anything to get elected? How can this be explained? The man who was in charge of the decision desk at FOX on election night was Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis. * “John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002. * A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/ 11/14/politics/main249357.shtml. * John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/ 11/14/politics/main249357.shtml, November 14, 2000. * “The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.” Mark Zoller Seitz, “Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,” San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000. * The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state’s database, but mistakes were rampant. “At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003. * Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, “was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida’s voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, “Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners,” The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001. * In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Melanie Eversley, “Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001. Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Opensecrets.org, “Frank Borman.” |
 World Champion  Registered: August 27, 2002 Posts: 6425 | posted Here's my take on John Kerry and why he is a legitimate threat to the future of our country's well being. I have studied this man in depth, every single day for the past 5 months and here's my thoughts. -Kerry is a radical left wing nutjob with typical liberal agenda-big government; big beauracracies; big tax and spend; soft on defense. The independent national taxpayer union has graded him an F or a D on his tax policies for every session of congress since 1992. Thinks that the government is more qualified to make decisions on what to do with your money than you are. If he seems wishy washy on all these issues it's because he's just a puppet for a bunch of special interest groups that are pulling him like a piece of taffy in all directions. The man really has no conviction and no ideas of his own-but he's full of criticisms. He talks big but he's empty on solutions time and time again. That being said, this campaign is all about the war on terror and how we deal with rogue nations around the world. Kerry takes a Jimmy Carter like approach by believing that he can shake hands with the terrorists and get them to like us. He talks about bringing our allies together (France and Germany) while failing to realize that not every country in the world subscribes to our agenda or policies. France and Germany were both sucking kickbacks from Iraq with the corrupt oil for food program which is why they had no interest in shutting Saddam Hussein down. Jacque Chirac is perhaps the most anti-american French president in history and he's repeatedly laughed at the notion of John Kerry's grand proposals towards his country. -The domestic issues are not of high priority to me even though I don't agree with a large majority of his policies. If he doesn't put the safety of the country first then none of the other stuff matters. His repeal of Bush's tax cuts is really going to kill the small businesses. The idea that raising taxes stimulates economic growth is absurd. -His senate record is so abysmal and so far left that he can't even run a campaign on it. Yet he'll say anything he has to in order to appear like a conservative. He criticizes Bush on intelligence yet after the 1993 WTC bombing he said that we need to cut our intelligence. He proposed a $6 billion cut in intelligence, that was defeated by a 78-20 vote (even Ted Kennedy voted against this measure). -In 1997, he mused on the floor of the Senate, "Why it is that our vast intelligence apparatus, built to sustain America in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, continues to grow at an exponential rate? Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?" Kerry knew then about the global threat al Qaeda poses. Is this how he and Clinton prepared us for the war on terror? -How dare John Kerry vote to send our troops into battle but vote against providing them armor and benefits? There's simply no excuse for that type of rhetoric no matter what the cost is. -Absent on 39 of 48 senate intelligence meetings. -Voted to cut every major weapons system our military has in place today. -Michael Dukakis' LT Governor. -Anyone that would lie and fabricate war stories in front of congress and endanger fellow soldiers during a time of war is completely unfit to hold the commander in chief position. -Within 15 months Iran will have the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Unless you're complete moron, you'll agree that there is no way that a country that supports terrorism like Iran can be allowed to possess Nuclear weapons. This will have to be dealt with and dealt with very soon. Does Kerry have the stones to make the tough decisions on Iran and North Korea and Iraq? With the special interest, hippie beatnik groups pulling his strings, we could find a disasterous situation around the world (like saying let's leave Iraq in 6 months-well you dumbass if you let the insurgents know we're going to leave by a certain date then they'll lay low until we're gone!). I think it would be a huge mistake to put John Kerry into office. There's too many idiots that subscribe to the Michael Moore school of "Anybody but Bush." To those people, I say be careful what you wish for because you just may get it. -As far as Bush goes, I agree this administration hasn't been perfect but look at the events that have had to be dealt with-Enron, 9/11, Iraq. They've spent way more than I like but the problem is that the democrats spend even more. The President has stood tall and refused to waver among an onslaught of criticism from the liberal biased media like Dan Rather, CNN (Communist News Network), Tom Brokaw and the NY Times. He has shown the ability to make the tough decisions that will ensure future generations the same freedoms we have today. |
| World Champion Location: Wayne, America Registered: October 20, 2002 Posts: 5714 | posted Ross, you hit every freakin' nail on the head with John Kerry. Isn't it funny that all this guy is really running on is his alleged service in Vietnam? All we're hearing is how he saved this guy, or doctored his injury records so he could get the medals needed for an early out, etc., etc., etc. Three words: WHO FUHHHHH-REAKIN' CARES???? I don't give a rat's ass about what John Kerry was doing in 1971. I was FIVE YEARS OLD -- it would be four more presidential elections before I would cast my first vote (for Reagan, considering the alternative was Grandpa Mondale and Gramma Ferraro). What happened in 1971 is of no consequence to us in the year 2004. Vietnam is over. We are now dealing with a much bigger threat, and the record shows that, time and time again, John Kerry is incompetent and ill-equipped to be in charge of the greatest country in the world. George Bush is not perfect. No leader is (his predecessor certainly proved that in spades). But we live in a different world today. And we are fighting a unique enemy. These scum know only one mission -- destroy America, destroy Christianity and, if that's not enough, destroy this world so they can spend eternity with their 72 virgins. They want to kill YOU. They want to kill YOUR MOTHER. Your FATHER. Anybody and everybody who does not share their belief system MUST BE DESTROYED! Which one of these two candidates best understands that and is willing to protect our nation and our world from these thugs and has the track record to back it up? The economy is what it is. It's up and down all the time. Frankly, I'm better off in 2004 than I was throughout much of the Clinton regime (divorce notwithstanding). I'm doing better financially, building a business and praying for our nation's continued strength and safety. Back then, I was struggling to get ends in the same area code (never mind actually making them meet), wishing I could build a business and praying that we could find somebody who would beat Al Gore and save our nation's future. (The thought of Al Gore being in the Oval Office, to this day, makes my skin crawl in terror.) As D-Day said in "Animal House" -- The war's over. Move ahead and let's elect the one leader who will keep us moving ahead...George W. Bush. "Energy Flows Where Attention Goes" -- James Arthur Ray |
| <Guest> | posted And again. Looks like Mr. "Bring it on!" really had his finger on the pulse of the nation. “The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.” • Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/ hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf • “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003. • “I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.” Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004. |
| <another guest> | posted It appears we have a Michael Moore fan here. quote: “In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 P.M., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 P.M., Fox called Florida for Gore. Then at 8:02 P.M., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed. About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.) The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states. Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes. At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.) In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call. Over four hours later, at 2:16 A.M., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 A.M. At 3:59 A.M., CBS took the lead in retracting the Florida call for Bush. All the other networks, including Fox, followed the CBS lead within eight minutes. That the networks arrived at similar conclusions within a short period of time is not surprising, since they were all using the same data from the Voter News Service. (Mason, et al. "CBS News Coverage.") As the CBS timeline details, throughout the evening all networks used VNS data to call states, even though VNS had not called the state; sometimes the network calls were made hours ahead of the VNS call. quote: That is the job of the Secretary of State. The election commissioners from each county tally the votes then report them to the Secretary of State who certifies them. If you want information on the numerous recounts that is available too. quote: The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida. There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons. Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to a large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged. The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties. Analysis by Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh, dissenting from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, suggests that about 5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida. (The Thernstrom/Redenbaugh dissent explains why little credit should be given to the majority report, which was produced by flagrantly ignoring data.) When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger. As the Palm Beach Post details, all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of mistaken identity. DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race...[A] review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted. Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races. The appeals record supports the Palm Beach Post's findings. Based on the numbers of successful appeals, blacks were less likely to have been improperly placed on the purge list: of the blacks who were purged, 5.1 percent successfully appealed. Of Hispanics purged, 8.7 percent successfully appealed. Of whites purged, 9.9 percent successfully appealed. John R. Lott, Jr., "Nonvoted Ballots and Discrimination in Florida," Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 32 (Jan. 2003), p. 209. quote: Labash, Weekly Standard. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Jonathan Foreman, "Moore’s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004. In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission. McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times. Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington. Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com. On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan. quote: Some Saudis left the U.S. by charter flight on September 14, a day when commercial flights had resumed, but when ordinary charter planes were still grounded. When did the bin Ladens actually leave? Not until the next week, as the the 9/11 Commission staff report explains: Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure. No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace. The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity. The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches. The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion. The final Commission Report confirms that Clarke was the highest-ranking official who made the decision to let the Saudis go, and that Clarke's decision had no adverse effect on September 11 investigations. See pages 328-29 of the Report. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm |
© huskermat.com 2004