He will fricken vapor-lock when THIS (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html) hits...

(Sound on)

I'm going to laugh at all of you guys if Kerry ends up winning.

Hell Im gonna move to england if kerry wins

Hell Im gonna move to england if kerry wins

Move to Mexico, it's much closer and easier to take your rig

I may end up in Canada :brownbag

It doesnt matter who wins---it'll still be the same old shit.......meet the new boss, same as the old boss-Neil Young That's why regular folks just hafta look out for themselves and each other......I got shotgun, rifle and a 4 wheel drive and a country boy can survive-Hank Jr

I'm going to laugh at all of you guys if Kerry ends up winning.


BadKARma, not trying to debate you or bust your balls, but does any of this make you think about John Kerry's past? again not rying to come down on you I'll leave that up to Marv but what do you think about John Kerry trying to slash the Intelligence budget?

It doesnt matter who wins---it'll still be the same old shit.......meet the new boss, same as the old boss-Neil Young That's why regular folks just hafta look out for themselves and each other......I got shotgun, rifle and a 4 wheel drive and a country boy can survive-Hank Jr


Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss "The Who" :thumbup

might as well slash it, it aint workin anyway......

I'm going to laugh at all of you guys if Kerry ends up winning.

Gee.... will you promise to pour gasoline on yourself and light it when Kerry loses?

Gee.... will you promise to pour gasoline on yourself and light it when Kerry loses?

Who sang that?

Gee.... will you promise to pour gasoline on yourself and light it when Kerry loses?

Oh, the hostility :goodfinge

I think it was the "Bhudist Monkeys"

That clip alone is enough to make me not vote Kerry!

Im not going to start a debate or anything. I hate all the political debating crap because I dont care what anyone else has to say. I will belive who I feel like I think is right to make an honest decision.

With that I ask...I wonder why so many of those guys have bronze stars? Thats a pretty high honor. :shrug

And before you start blasting me about voting for Kerry, Im not. Im a republican, I just thought it was kinda weird how almost all of those guys had atleast 1 bronze star some even had 2.

once again, more conservative right wing propaganda from our favorite Republican, 95 BXL, who seems to wet his pants with excitement when Republican backed ads like this come out. once again i am forced to expose the background behind this "group" of "non-partisan" vets who claim to have served with kerry. chew on the following and see if this isn't just a bunch of folks with an axe to grind:

Commentary

On May 17, 2004, Matt Gunn shares a segment from Joe Conason's recent registration-required Salon "uncovering" of "yet more 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' Republican ties, as if there weren't enough on record already" [Gunn comments]:

"When the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' launched its campaign against John Kerry 10 days ago, leadership and guidance were provided by Republican activists and presidential friends from Texas -- notably Houston attorney John E. O'Neill and corporate media consultant Merrie Spaeth.

"On closer inspection, the ostensibly nonpartisan 'Swift Boat Vets' seem to have another pair of significant sponsors with deep and long-standing Republican connections in Missouri. Both are officers of Gannon International, a St. Louis conglomerate that does lots of overseas business in, of all places, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

"Ties to Gannon can be traced via the Swift Boat Vets Web site ... On April 14, the site was registered under the name of Lewis Waterman, Gannon's information technology manager, at 11301 Olive Boulevard in St. Louis, the firm's headquarters address. Although Waterman wouldn't discuss why he had set up the Web site, he didn't deny that his boss, Gannon president and CEO William Franke, had asked him to do so.

"'The information about my client is confidential,' said Waterman. He acknowledged knowing, however, that his boss Franke is a Navy veteran who served in Vietnam on swift boats. Gannon vice president Stephen D. Hayes, who oversees the company's office in Alexandria, Va., is likewise a swift boat veteran who first met Franke when they served together in the Mekong Delta."

"What is most intriguing about Franke, Hayes, and Gannon -- especially in light of their apparent role in the campaign against John Kerry -- are their strong commercial interests in Southeast Asia. While Gannon is a highly diversified holding company whose divisions range from real estate in Florida and Missouri to Internet technology and software, it maintains an unusual presence in Vietnam, with offices in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Indeed, Gannon has operated in that country's tourism, real estate and import-export sectors for a decade. (The target market for its tours was fellow Vietnam veterans.)

"None of Gannon's profitable activities in the communist republic would be possible, of course, without the approval of the Hanoi government, which Franke has described as 'strong' and 'stable.' Nor would Gannon be conducting business in Vietnam without the Clinton administration diplomacy, assisted by Sen. Kerry, that established diplomatic and trade ties with the United States in 1994. Franke first began traveling to Vietnam on behalf of Operation Smile, an American charity that provides plastic surgery to children abroad. The relationships he established during those humanitarian missions provided a considerable advantage in doing business under government auspices.

"It was also during those early visits to Vietnam, as he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that Franke reached a clearer understanding of the war he had once fought as a young Navy lieutenant.

"'As I looked back 20 years, I saw that it was a very imperial relationship we had with these people,' said Franke in 1989. 'We were young. We were there because we were told to be there and that they were the enemy. This time I saw them as human beings who had fears and hopes the same as we.'

"Yet he evidently cannot forgive John Kerry for reaching the same conclusion about that war and its victims, so many years before he finally did."

but wait, there's more...

Joe Klein, "The Long War of John Kerry," The New Yorker, January 5, 2004 (Courtesy of Matt Gunn and Mike Stark):

"Nixon's chief counsel, Charles Colson, didn't just tap John E. O'Neill to attack Kerry, he also formed an entire group around him called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace: [1]

"[Kerry] was an immediate celebrity. He was also an immediate target of the Nixon administration. Years later, Chuck Colson--who was Nixon's political enforcer--told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group."

"'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' can be seen as merely a 21st century reinvention of Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace."

Joe Conason writes on May 4, 2004, in Salon that the "latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth', which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat 'unfit to serve as commander in chief.' Billing itself as representing the 'other 97 percent of veterans' from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be 'totally honest and forthcoming' about their military service.

"These 'swift boat vets' claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's 'free fire zones.' More than three decades later," Conason writes, "facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target" U.S. presidential election, 2004."

"Conason identifies "veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth" as being behind the group. Spaeth, "listed as the group's media contact," is the widow of Tex Lezar, "eternal Kerry antagonist and Dallas attorney" John E. O'Neill's law partner.

The group's founder is "retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as 'the classic body-count guy' who 'wanted hooches destroyed and people killed.'" Hoffmann "first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance," according to Conason.

"Until now," he adds, "Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and 'scorekeeping' may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9-11 Commission."

Conason says that Spaeth is not "as well known as" Karen P. Hughes but yet is "among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.)"

Conason concludes that "Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's 'independent' supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq."

my apologies to squattyd and stang for the length of these posts. pm me if you want the condensed versions.

I will vote for Kerry, simply because I cant bitch if I dont vote and I am totally non-republican (but not necessarily Democrat either), but I know that it probably wont matter....this electoral college (yes I was awake during civics!) bullshit makes most of it null anyways....

george elliott, one of kerry's former lieutenant commanders who criticizes kerry in this ad, fully supported kerry in his 1996 senate run, and gave him a glowing review in 1969. kinda makes you wonder about the "about face"...was elliott lying in '69, '96, or now?

and he isn't the only commander to have given kerry glowing reviews, ones who now discredit kerry, some 35 odd years later. how do they explain this except for partisan politics at work?

o'neill, a texas lawyer, has been a vociferous kerry antagonist for many years, as mentioned above, and was found and used by the nixon admin to attack kerry in the early 70's. apparently he didn't like kerry exposing american war atrocities in vietnam, atrocities which have since been exposed and documented and which put egg on the face of the republican administration.

draw your own conclusions.

It doesnt matter who wins---it'll still be the same old shit.......meet the new boss, same as the old boss-Neil Young That's why regular folks just hafta look out for themselves and each other......I got shotgun, rifle and a 4 wheel drive and a country boy can survive-Hank Jr

damn streight

Jackhart, quoting Salon and the New Yorker? Of course the Swift Boat Veterans are going to be labeled as a Republican pit bull ONLY because of their opposition to Kerry.

Interesting that their personal business interests are brought up. Then haphazardly countered by including Kerry as opening up ties to Vietnam. Whats the problem? ANYONE can do business in Vietnam, our company will make purchases in excess of $1 million this year alone in furniture componets.

Here is a photo being used for a Kerry ad. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto# And the feelings of the people in the photo. ONLY 1 of his fellow 23 Boat commanders support his election efforts. Why? Perhaps 2-3 could be blamed on partisanship but 22 of 23 REFUSE to support him.

Your articles are mere opinions of the situation. But the FACT is that he isnt supported by the men he worked with in Vietnam.

Also the men in the pic sent a letter to the Kerry campaign demanding not to use their image in an ad. If he was supported there would be no issue from them AND the photo would still be in use, correct?

Gee.... will you promise to pour gasoline on yourself and light it when Kerry loses?

You willing to do the same if he wins ? :shrug

There were a lot of guys in that picture , just a few spoke up .......Hmmmmmm .

I like this link better..............Here's Your Republicans ! (http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html)

Jackhart, quoting Salon and the New Yorker? Of course the Swift Boat Veterans are going to be labeled as a Republican pit bull ONLY because of their opposition to Kerry.

Franklin, did you read the other posts? the Republican backing is well documented. do you deny it?[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]

Interesting that their personal business interests are brought up. Then haphazardly countered by including Kerry as opening up ties to Vietnam. Whats the problem? ANYONE can do business in Vietnam, our company will make purchases in excess of $1 million this year alone in furniture componets.

the point is, they wouldn't have the luxury of doing biz there and making millions without the work of john kerry.

Here is a photo being used for a Kerry ad. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto# And the feelings of the people in the photo. ONLY 1 of his fellow 23 Boat commanders support his election efforts. Why? Perhaps 2-3 could be blamed on partisanship but 22 of 23 REFUSE to support him.

i'll allow you that where there is smoke there is probably fire, if that many aren't supporting him, it makes me wonder also. but i do see evidence, NOT OPINION, that more than a few of these so called commanders have flip flopped on their support of him. when i finish the research i will tell you what i find.

Your articles are mere opinions of the situation.

no not opinion. it is a fact, for example, that elliott supported kerry in 1996, and that he gave him glowing reviews in '69. why the flip flop now? that also makes me wonder, as it should you.

But the FACT is that he isnt supported by the men he worked with in Vietnam.

some of the men, yes. question is, why? i don't accept at face value, as you might, their reasoning. especially when i see people flip flopping their support for him. makes me suspicious.

Also the men in the pic sent a letter to the Kerry campaign demanding not to use their image in an ad. If he was supported there would be no issue from them AND the photo would still be in use, correct?

it follows that if they don't support him, they would not want their images used in connection with an ad for him, that makes sense. however, the issue we are really talking about is why they don't support him, correct? if kerry is the liar they make him out to be, why don't they talk about it and provide proof? right now it's just propaganda, heresay, idle accusation. consider this:

Hoffmania blogspot provides the following excerpt from the May 4, 2004, NewsMax article "Swift Boat Veterans Condemn Kerry As Unfit To Command". His comment follows the quote.

"O'Neill told NewsMax.com that the medals and their back stories were not the real issue being targeted by the organization, referring to the second paragraph of the letter to Kerry:

"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us.) Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."

"But it is with regard to the latter sentence of the charge that John E. O'Neill and others get vague.

"When asked by NewsMax if they had in mind any potential smoking gun of distortion that might be revealed by an unfettered examination of Kerry's military records, there was no answer forthcoming."





so you see, i can't make an fully informed decision on this until i have more facts. as you can also see, i need help with my colors in this post :brownbag

so you see, i can't make an fully informed decision on this until i have more facts. as you can also see, i need help with my colors in this post :brownbag

Like that's ever stopped you?

All this about "backing." As in, who's backing who....

As if it matters to you who's backing say. moveon.org?

See, JH, that's what I love about the rank hypocrisy of the left.

You act like everything in that ad is a lie, and back it up by claiming that SwiftVets is a "Republican-backed group."

Yet, you have no problem with the socialists/leftist who support your perspective, do you? Or if you do, could you please post some links to the posts you've made laying out those concerns?

As a former Regular Army Officer, my only concern was what the officers serving in similar capacities with Kerry had to say about him. They have spoken. The rest of it doesn't matter.

If Kerry doesn't like it, he can come back with an ad where the enlisted men he worked with can call him Bull Halsey incarnate.

But at the end of the day, Kerry, himself, has proven that his military record is NO reason to vote for him, and does NOTHING to show where he's more qualified to be president then the guy we've got.

Providing eye-witness testimony to his cowardice should impact him negatively. But then, the democrat hypocrisy on service in Vietnam reeks so badly that in fact, Kerry's got it coming.

i dont talk politics much because we never get the true info on anyone but something
about kerry just turns my stomach. i dont debate. just want to say that i cant stand the guy

Like that's ever stopped you?

typical condescending remark that has no bearing on anything except your arrogance

All this about "backing." As in, who's backing who....

i note that it's important to you who's backing who when they say bush is unfit to be prez. hypocrite.

As if it matters to you who's backing say. moveon.org?

yes, it does matter to me. unlike you, i like to see the whole picture, whether they are criticizing the republican or the democrat. you only seem to care when a volley is fired at your candidate.

See, JH, that's what I love about the rank hypocrisy of the left.

you don't love it, it drives you crazy. however, i see the hypocrisy of BOTH sides and am not afraid to point it out. you can't, you're blinded by your totally biased support of the right.

You act like everything in that ad is a lie, and back it up by claiming that SwiftVets is a "Republican-backed group."

you don't even bother to read my posts, so i don't take you seriously anymore. notice the part where i say, where there is smoke there is fire? far from claiming it's a lie, i give it credence. how much is up to debate. but you weren't smart enough to read that part were you?

Yet, you have no problem with the socialists/leftist who support your perspective, do you?

i am not a socialist nor a leftist and your remarks to that effect smack of ignorance. that or you haven't read my posts very carefully. why don't you tell me what my perspective is there 95?

Or if you do, could you please post some links to the posts you've made laying out those concerns?

why, so you could not read those and make blanket false statements that don't apply to them either?

As a former Regular Army Officer, my only concern was what the officers serving in similar capacities with Kerry had to say about him.

only because it suits your purpose for the present time


They have spoken. The rest of it doesn't matter.

that's right, stick your head in the sand and don't look any deeper than the snippet of comments these folks make in the ad. forget that many of these folks have flip flopped on their support of kerry, and don't ask why. continue to blindly follow the fold without doing any deeper digging.

If Kerry doesn't like it, he can come back with an ad where the enlisted men he worked with can call him Bull Halsey incarnate.

gee, now there's a brilliant idea. maybe YOU should be kerry's political advisor.

But at the end of the day, Kerry, himself, has proven that his military record is NO reason to vote for him, and does NOTHING to show where he's more qualified to be president then the guy we've got.

the sad thing you can't or at least won't seem to realize is that i am not a kerry supporter. you shouldn't be trying to convince me that this statement is true, and despite that you try to assert this type of statement as fact rather than opinion.

Providing eye-witness testimony to his cowardice should impact him negatively.

now there is one statement you've made that actually makes sense. i would have to agree with you.

But then, the democrat hypocrisy on service in Vietnam reeks so badly that in fact, Kerry's got it coming.

if you would expand on this a little i might have a comment about it, otherwise it is just your typical right wing self-serving political babble.



:duh

95 BXL Wrote:

Like that's ever stopped you?

Jackhart wrote:

typical condescending remark that has no bearing on anything except your arrogance.

95 BXL replied:

Ooooohhhh…. THAT hurt. Must have hit you close to the bone, eh, JH?

All this about "backing." As in, who's backing who....

i note that it's important to you who's backing who when they say bush is unfit to be prez. hypocrite.

Typical condescending remark that has no bearing on anything except your arrogance.

As if it matters to you who's backing say. moveon.org?

yes, it does matter to me. unlike you, i like to see the whole picture, whether they are criticizing the republican or the democrat. you only seem to care when a volley is fired at your candidate.

If it DOES “matter to you” (and we all know you just lied when you wrote that) feel free to provide links to your many posts on this board discussing leftist hypocrisy. You can’t, of course, because you never have.

Like most on the left, JH, your talk is cheap. It’s your DEEDS that are of interest when it comes to unsupportable claims like the crap you just wrote here.

See, JH, that's what I love about the rank hypocrisy of the left.

you don't love it, it drives you crazy.

In your dreams. Although I do appreciate your inadvertent acknowledgment of the fact of the matter, and fail to note any particular denial of the observation on your part. Now, if only you’d admit it to yourself like you’ve just admitted it to everyone else.

however, i see the hypocrisy of BOTH sides and am not afraid to point it out. you can't, you're blinded by your totally biased support of the right.

OK, JH… give us the dozens of threads you’ve started pointing out “Leftist hypocrisy.” I am, however, afraid to hold my breath waiting, because I know damned well I’d suffocate.

You act like everything in that ad is a lie, and back it up by claiming that SwiftVets is a "Republican-backed group."

you don't even bother to read my posts, so i don't take you seriously anymore.

Which is why you, of course, read this thread (which I started) and went to such detail to respond to me in this post…. Because you “don’t take me seriously anymore.”

Hell, JH, you can’t even lie to YOURSELF worth a damn, and that’s difficult to believe, given how delusional one must be to have the role of leftist lunatic down the way you do.

notice the part where i say, where there is smoke there is fire?

Notice the part where I say that you only apply that bullshit double-standard to the right? Because if you actually BELIEVED that crap, you wouldn’t defend Kerry, either, because that guy’s blowing so fricken much smoke he’s got his own personal hole in the ozone layer. And your failure to exhibit this same level of critique on your boy, given all the “smoke” his bogus medals have generated, is just more proof of that hypocrisy the left is famous for.

far from claiming it's a lie, i give it credence. how much is up to debate. but you weren't smart enough to read that part were you?

Christ on a bicycle, you leftists take the cake. If you gave the SwiftVets ANY credibility, at ANY level, you wouldn’t even THINK about voting for that scumbag, let alone wasting your time responding like this to “someone you don’t take seriously.”

Yet, you have no problem with the socialists/leftist who support your perspective, do you?

i am not a socialist nor a leftist and your remarks to that effect smack of ignorance. that or you haven't read my posts very carefully. why don't you tell me what my perspective is there 95?

First of all, what you are (which is well established) wasn't the question. The question was do you have any problem with the leftist/socialist who support your position? You do have enough reading comprehension to get that, right?

Sorry, JH… you long ago failed the Duck Test. That you won’t publicly admit to the reality of your situation, while typical of the delusionary left and understandable, given how embarrassing it is… like your boy keeps saying in those gay speechs, “that doesn’t make it so.”

Or if you do, could you please post some links to the posts you've made laying out those concerns?

why, so you could not read those and make blanket false statements that don't apply to them either?

Nah, it was just conversation. You see, anyone reading this knew you were a lying dick when you wrote this stuff. Like most leftists, you can’t back up a ****ing thing you say… then you start calling ME “hypocrite.”

Let me write this slowly… so even you can grasp it.

Anyone reading this knows how embarrassing it is for anyone to admit they’re ultra-leftist scum. I mean, we all get that part. As a result, I understand why you have deluded yourself into believing that you actually don’t have the politics of that leftist fringe you so admire. But I question why you’re attempting to fool everyone else. We all know better, so why are you wasting so much ASCII attempting to convince us of that we know to be false?

I asked you to back up your “I criticize both sides” bullshit and, as I knew you couldn’t, you failed to do so.

And that, of course, is because you can’t. And you can’t, because you never have. And you never have because you’re so ****ing far to the left that Lenin’s a conservative next to you.

Believe me, we all understand that. Know what I mean?

As a former Regular Army Officer, my only concern was what the officers serving in similar capacities with Kerry had to say about him.

only because it suits your purpose for the present time

And what the hell does THAT mean? Is there going to be some OTHER time when what 22 out of 23 fellow serving officers from his unit who think this guy is a lying scumball for dishonoring the service of the hundreds of thousands who served in Vietnam and for making up bogus medals and putting himself in for citations will suddenly change?

My concern, my good fellow, will extend FAR beyond the “present time.” And, of course, the fact that those who were actually serving with him in other boats…. Who were actually there to watch this crap, who were trained as leaders and experienced as leaders, actually wouldn’t let this scumbag run an elevator for them is, frankly, about all I need to know.

It should be for you as well, since you assign “some level” of “credibility” to their allegations…. But it won’t. You’d vote for this dickhead at gunpoint.

They have spoken. The rest of it doesn't matter.

that's right, stick your head in the sand and don't look any deeper than the snippet of comments these folks make in the ad. forget that many of these folks have flip flopped on their support of kerry, and don't ask why. continue to blindly follow the fold without doing any deeper digging.

You mean, “begin to act like you?” No, thanks. And, by the way, you are, I believe, referring to, perhaps 3 out of the 22 opposing this guy’s election. And, of course, again, you hypocritically apply the “flip-flop” brush to ONE side of this issue. If you applied that SAME phuckin’ brush to Kerry, you wouldn’t vote for him to save your mother’s life. But than, that’s what you leftist’s do.

I mean, that’s how you could lose your fricking minds over Clinton, who never served a phucking minute. But did that stop people like you from voting for the cowardly asshole? Phuck no.

See, you already KNOW about KERRY”S flip-flopping, and that shit is legendary. Yet you’re STILL gonna vote for that dickwad.

That’s OK, JH… we’re all used to that leftist delusion. People like you voted for Clinton…. People like you would vote for Kerry if you’d just seen a video tape of ol’ Johnny Boy molesting a Girl Scout troop.

If Kerry doesn't like it, he can come back with an ad where the enlisted men he worked with can call him Bull Halsey incarnate.

gee, now there's a brilliant idea. maybe YOU should be kerry's political advisor.

Is that, or any of this, the BEST you can do?

But at the end of the day, Kerry, himself, has proven that his military record is NO reason to vote for him, and does NOTHING to show where he's more qualified to be president then the guy we've got.

the sad thing you can't or at least won't seem to realize is that i am not a kerry supporter. you shouldn't be trying to convince me that this statement is true, and despite that you try to assert this type of statement as fact rather than opinion.

Your words condemn you very nicely for what you are, JH. You see, in the real world, no one goes out of their way to convince people they’re not what they’re own words clearly show they are, and no one goes this far out of their way to defend someone they do not “support.”

Damn, dude. Just admit it, and move on.

Providing eye-witness testimony to his cowardice should impact him negatively.

now there is one statement you've made that actually makes sense. i would have to agree with you.

Gee…. Thanks.

But then, the democrat hypocrisy on service in Vietnam reeks so badly that in fact, Kerry's got it coming.

if you would expand on this a little i might have a comment about it, otherwise it is just your typical right wing self-serving political babble.

Nah… no more of your “comments” are necessary…. Since you “don’t take me seriously” and all. If you weren’t so far to the left that you’re starting to resemble Stalin, you would understand that to those with dull-normal intelligence or above, the words speak quite clearly for themselves.

No, Jackhart I do not deny at all where support is coming from. But considering the amount of funding that Move.On gets and their bending of campaign rules to finances "issue ads", it no where near a wash.

Kerry cannot accept ALL the credit for opening Vietnam for trade just as Bush cannot take TOTAL credit for the economic upswing. Fair? But wouldnt he be flopping now in wanting to stop most outsourcing

Which is more important in a flip flop, the opinions of men who he is now using to further his career or the actual flip flop of policy from the man himself?

Heres my good ole boy NC take on it. If someone who was so honorable and coureagous during his 3 months in Nam, why dont an OVERWHELMING majority of his fellow crewmen support him? Was it because he didnt act so coureagous during battle or was it because they consider what he did IMMEDIATELY after he got home as a slap in the face and vowed to never support him? NONE of us know but IMO the men who he served with, who are/were effected directly by his efforts during and after the war, fail to support him for President. Regardless of the reasons, that MUST speak volumes about him.

Also why wont Kerry release his military file? Bush did.

you cant suffocate by holding your own breath :goodfinge






















now Dave, do you like debating, cause I know you aint a Kerry supporter. Just curious

95bxl, calling me a "dick" because i both disagree with your black and white view of bush and kerry is vulgar, juvenile and in poor taste. it also leads me, and others reading this, to believe that we are dealing not with a rational adult, but with a prepubescent teen who cannot handle his emotions and accordingly is unable to refrain from personal attacks on someone who sees the world differently than you. calling me a "leftist" i don't consider name calling, btw, even though you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off on that comment. in fact, i have voted Republican ever since Ronnie Reagan, my favorite prez, was in office. so no, i didn't vote for slick willy. so take your leftist characterizations of me and shove them. your inflammatory comments about what you "think" i am make people lose interest in what you are saying, no one's interested in a personal pissing contest between you and me, especially me. all it tells me is that you haven't a clue where i stand on the issues and makes me laugh out loud at your thoughts about me. yeah, sure, i have an "agenda to fool people" about my political leanings on a bronco board!! :histerica :histerica :histerica in fact, i don't give much of a rat's ass about politics at all, i just can't stand to see you try to brainwash folks with your one-sided arguments.

i however, have a very clear understanding of where you stand, and all i see is that it is impossible for you to accept ANY criticism of your guy at ALL. tell me, do you have one thing that bothers you or you disagree with Bush on, even just ONE thing? i doubt it. kerry is not MY candidate btw, so please stop the banter to that effect. i have been to TWO republican national conventions, have YOU? still think i am a leftist? i have said in NUMEROUS other posts i wish that there was an alternative candidate to these two. in fact i have even PRAISED Bush in other posts (ask Franklin if you didn't read them) for the war in Iraq, which i was in favor of, and performing his presidential duties with rigid resolve, among other things, things I don't think Kerry would demonstrate if elected. still think i am up there with Lenin? your comments to that effect are as far into outer space as your right wing radical views.

i am disappointed in your attempts to characterize me in the manner that you have. not only are you wrong about me, but your decision to use personal attacks has, as Franklin would say, stooped to a new low. in addition, i note i am not the only target of your personal attacks, either, you perform them with reckless abandon all over the board and you are earning quite the reputation, and it ain't a good one. again, juvenile and immature. perhaps you need to attend some type of therapy to address these unresolved feeling of hostility that emerge when someone disagrees with your point of view and/or cuts your radical right wing arguments into swiss cheese.

with that, care to comment on McCain's statements below? or is that a left wing conspiracy that has infiltrated the Republican party also?

WASHINGTON (Aug. 5) -- Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service ''dishonest and dishonorable'' and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

The White House declined.

''It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,'' McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.

The 60-second ad features Vietnam veterans who accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his decorated Vietnam War record and betraying his fellow veterans by later opposing the conflict.

''When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry,'' one of the veterans, Larry Thurlow, says in the ad. Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.

The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed, Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in 2000.

''I wish they hadn't done it,'' McCain said of his former advisers. ''I don't know if they knew all the facts.''

Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, ''I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.''


"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me."
-Sen. John McCain

McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, ''I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt.''

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to condemn the ad. He did denounce the proliferation of spending by independent groups, such as the anti-Kerry veterans organization, that are playing on both sides of the political fence.

''The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law,'' McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.

In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.

McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because ''it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal.''

''I deplore this kind of politics,'' McCain said. ''I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.''

No, Jackhart I do not deny at all where support is coming from. But considering the amount of funding that Move.On gets and their bending of campaign rules to finances "issue ads", it no where near a wash.

i think we can both acknowledge that there are groups out there, on the left and right, that are similar to move.on with regard to funding, so i don't disagree with you on that point.

Kerry cannot accept ALL the credit for opening Vietnam for trade just as Bush cannot take TOTAL credit for the economic upswing. Fair?

Fair.

But wouldnt he be flopping now in wanting to stop most outsourcing

Which is more important in a flip flop, the opinions of men who he is now using to further his career or the actual flip flop of policy from the man himself?

Your point is well made. However, I myself have changed some views I held from the past. I guess it depends on how recently he flip flopped, and the issue being discussed

Heres my good ole boy NC take on it. If someone who was so honorable and coureagous during his 3 months in Nam, why dont an OVERWHELMING majority of his fellow crewmen support him? Was it because he didnt act so coureagous during battle or was it because they consider what he did IMMEDIATELY after he got home as a slap in the face and vowed to never support him? NONE of us know but IMO the men who he served with, who are/were effected directly by his efforts during and after the war, fail to support him for President. Regardless of the reasons, that MUST speak volumes about him.

I don't necessarily disagreee with you. but consider this, which i just read:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day - Jim Rassmann, who says Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, said the group was lying.

They say Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account ''pure fabrication.''

The general counsel for the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee sent television stations a letter asking them not to run the ad because it is ''an inflammatory, outrageous lie'' by people purporting to have served with Kerry.

Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats

so if NONE of the people calling out kerry were actually on his boat, what does that tell you? is it possible, since they were not there with him, that they either don't know or have some other agenda? i think dismissal of this idea by certain other people on this board is irresponsible. we weren't there, we just don't know.

Also why wont Kerry release his military file? Bush did.

i agree. he should release the military file. that isn't right.

Isn't this the same as our argument before on the ex-appointees on Bush's Foreign Policy? on both sides if what is said is the truth then who backs it doesn't matter.

My question on another thread was Did or did not Kerry try to propose a bill pryor to 911 to cut the intelligence budget? Yes or No Jackhart

[QUOTE=spence007]Isn't this the same as our argument before on the ex-appointees on Bush's Foreign Policy? on both sides if what is said is the truth then who backs it doesn't matter.

this is kind of similar spence. i think on the appointees argument, they were stating their opinions about Bush, that they did not agree with his handling of foreign policy, right? here, these folks aren't really stating an opinion, at least how i read it, they are stating that kerry flat out lied. i guess that could be viewed as opinion, but i'm not sure.

My question on another thread was Did or did not Kerry try to propose a bill pryor to 911 to cut the intelligence budget? Yes or No Jackhart

i think i must have missed that thread spence. do i need to go to it to see the question in its entirety? without looking at it, i would ask, did that bill propose other things as well? was that something that was added at some point? for we have all seen legislation that in addition to containing, say, a proposal to do x, contains all kinds of pork that lead people to vote it down. this gives fodder for other people to say, "oh he voted against x" which is very misleading, when in fact that candidate actually supported x, just not the crap that went with it. so it's misleading to make it a yes or no question, agreed?

also, the world was a far different place pre-9/11 than it was post 9/11. hindsight is 20/20 after all. criticisms of Bush have been leveled (unfairly imo) that he did not do enough pre-9/11 to prevent the attacks either. so saying that someone voted to cut the intelligence budget pre-9/11, if true, is playing armchair quarterback to the extreme. no one knew what would happen on that fateful day.



QUOTE]
direct me to the thread, it would be helpful i think

[QUOTE=spence007]Isn't this the same as our argument before on the ex-appointees on Bush's Foreign Policy? on both sides if what is said is the truth then who backs it doesn't matter.

this is kind of similar spence. i think on the appointees argument, they were stating their opinions about Bush, that they did not agree with his handling of foreign policy, right? here, these folks aren't really stating an opinion, at least how i read it, they are stating that kerry flat out lied. i guess that could be viewed as opinion, but i'm not sure.

My question on another thread was Did or did not Kerry try to propose a bill pryor to 911 to cut the intelligence budget? Yes or No Jackhart

i think i must have missed that thread spence. do i need to go to it to see the question in its entirety? without looking at it, i would ask, did that bill propose other things as well? was that something that was added at some point? for we have all seen legislation that in addition to containing, say, a proposal to do x, contains all kinds of pork that lead people to vote it down. this gives fodder for other people to say, "oh he voted against x" which is very misleading, when in fact that candidate actually supported x, just not the crap that went with it. so it's misleading to make it a yes or no question, agreed?

also, the world was a far different place pre-9/11 than it was post 9/11. hindsight is 20/20 after all. criticisms of Bush have been leveled (unfairly imo) that he did not do enough pre-9/11 to prevent the attacks either. so saying that someone voted to cut the intelligence budget pre-9/11, if true, is playing armchair quarterback to the extreme. no one knew what would happen on that fateful day.



QUOTE]
direct me to the thread, it would be helpful i think
The question was for BADKarma on the other thread

Your points are well taken, the world was a diferent place pre 911 so if Gore would have been president the same thing would have happened.

Your points are well taken,

as are yours spence. :thumbup

now im stating my opinion here

If Gore would have been in office, the attacks wouldnt have stopped there, because we would not have been deployed for the war on terrorism.

If Gore was in office they probably wouldn't have attacked at alll....

no they would have, but with Gore just saying please dont do that to us again. They would have attacked again.

You cant say they wouldnt attack if Gore was in office most likely. If that was the case then why were there so many attacks during Clintons terms?

i'd have dropped a tactical nuke on afghanistan first and iraq second, followed maybe by syria and, oh, i don't know, maybe iran too. but wtf do i know, i'm just a commie leftist :chili:

I figured out why 11 Sept 01 happend.

It all started with the civil war that was raging in Somalia. Clinton sent in a force of 20,000 Marines. That put the uprisings at bay. When we withdrew, they started again. As a reaction we sent the Rangers and Delta boys in along with some AF Pararescue and the Army's 160th SOAR to capture Aidid. Well I am sure you have all seen the movie "Black Hawk Down" and no close to what happened over there. So I will not go into that. The media filled screens across the country and world with dead American soldiers. This caused Clinton to hastily withdraw our soldiers in fear of another death. Pulled out after 18 died in one day of fighting. That very thing is what hurt us. With our withdrawl from Somalia in Oct. 93 labeled us. We were labeled as scared and could not stand to see our soldiers killed. (no i dont like when my fellow brothers and sisters are killed, but it happens) This opened up to many terrorists. We were attacked bit by bit, each one getting bigger. And finally 11 Sept 01 happened. These things were happening right in front of our very own noses. People dont realize the scale of the attacks and plots on the US and its interests. Now we are in a war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now before the ones that say what does Iraq have to do with terrorism. Think about this. The man that was the WTC bomber of 93, Ramzi Yousef, came into the US using an Iraqi passport. This man was a highly skilled killer for the Muslim Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He is also believed to be an Iraqi intellegence agent. Now i know WTC 93 happened before Somalia but it is all still linked. And it is awfully funny how things got progressively worse after we pulled out now isnt it.


Just something to chew on


that is the theory of my supervisor, an AGE mechanic, E+E mechanic, and myself. Now if Gore was in office, would they have just layed down their weapons, plans, and feelings towards the west? All because Gore was in office.

If Gore was in office they probably wouldn't have attacked at alll....

Dude, thats the most moronic comment that could have been typed. Were the terrorists so scared during Clinton to attack NUMEROUS times abroad and here in the first WTC attack?

For 8 years the Clinton/Gore team could have doen SOMETHING, ANYTHING and did little more than send a few cruise missles into Sudan.

Quit getting your history lessons from Move.On and you MIGHT be taken seriously. Doubtful but just maybe.

95bxl, calling me a "dick" because i both disagree with your black and white view of bush and kerry is vulgar, juvenile and in poor taste.

Kinda like calling someone you disagree with, but are too ignorant to respond to, a “political hack,” right? So sue me.

it also leads me, and others reading this,

Just between us kids, I really believe that you speak for very few, your efforts notwithstanding.

to believe that we are dealing not with a rational adult, but with a prepubescent teen who cannot handle his emotions and accordingly is unable to refrain from personal attacks on someone who sees the world differently than you. calling me a "leftist"

More hypocrisy? Tell me, what do you call the lines you wrote above, if not a “personal attack?” How the hell can you snivel about what I call you, and then turn around and whip the same kind of bullshit on me, using somewhat bigger words with a little more polish?

Did I hurt your feelings? Tough. I repeat: don’t like my stuff? Don’t read it. But for Christ’s sake, stop sniveling.

i don't consider name calling,

Sure you don't. And “political hack” along with that little bullshit soap opera you wrote were just some sort of abberition? You’ll begin to make real progress when you can just begin to examine how pathological you’ve become.

btw, even though you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off on that comment.

Yeah? And?

in fact, i have voted Republican ever since Ronnie Reagan, my favorite prez, was in office.

But you see, it doesn’t matter if you voted for Abe Lincoln. You’re a Kerry supporter now, and no amount of spin or other bullshit can change that.

so no, i didn't vote for slick willy. so take your leftist characterizations of me and shove them.

Sure you didn’t. Of COURSE you didn’t. You ABSOLUTELY didn’t. In a pig’s ass.

your inflammatory comments about what you "think" i am make people lose interest in what you are saying,

Yet, oddly enough, no matter how much you lie about “taking me seriously” that doesn’t seem to be a problem YOU have, does it?

Here’s a clue… try not to tell me what or how to write, and I’ll try not to make you look any more like a blithering idiot then you make yourself look, OK?

no one's interested in a personal pissing contest between you and me, especially me.

Yet… all this “response” tends to show something completely opposite… doesn’t it?

all it tells me is that you haven't a clue where i stand on the issues and makes me laugh out loud at your thoughts about me. yeah, sure, i have an "agenda to fool people" about my political leanings on a bronco board!!

I have a perfect “clue.” You’ve provided it, as foaming at the mouth a leftist as any I’ve read on the Kerry board.

in fact, i don't give much of a rat's ass about politics at all, i just can't stand to see you try to brainwash folks with your one-sided arguments.

Here, let me rewrite that so that it reflects the truth: "I just can't stand to allow people to think for themselves."

There. Much better.

Much like I can’t stand to see you lie about your position on being a leftist Kerry-supporter, you mean?

i however, have a very clear understanding of where you stand,

Are you SURE?

and all i see is that it is impossible for you to accept ANY criticism of your guy at ALL. tell me, do you have one thing that bothers you or you disagree with Bush on, even just ONE thing?

I have REPEATEDLY asked you to provide links to YOUR posts doing the same with Kerry. ANY posts from you doing the same thing you ask me… and what has been your response?

Not a gawddamned thing.

What a fricken hypocrite.

i doubt it. kerry is not MY candidate btw, so please stop the banter to that effect.

SSSSuuuurrreeee he isn’t. You’ve posted nothing, outside of your more than questionable say-so, to prove it.

i have been to TWO republican national conventions,

What? YOU? Mr. “i don't give much of a rat's ass about politics at all?” What were you, a janitor?

have YOU?

Nah… the one I made in Philadelphia in 2000 was enough for me. But then, I don’t go around lying to people by telling them “i don't give much of a rat's ass about politics at all.”

still think i am a leftist?

You could give Jane Fonda lessons.

i have said in NUMEROUS other posts i wish that there was an alternative candidate to these two.

And I have asked in NUMEROUS other posts for you to post links questioning the history of Kerry as much as you attack Bush. And you have yet to do so, an omission that speaks for itself. WHERE ARE YOUR CRITICAL EXAMINATIONS OF KERRY?

There aren’t any. Now… why is that?

in fact i have even PRAISED Bush in other posts (ask Franklin if you didn't read them) for the war in Iraq, which i was in favor of, and performing his presidential duties with rigid resolve, among other things, things I don't think Kerry would demonstrate if elected.

Swell. Now, where are your posts detailing your concerns over Kerry? Where are your spirited defenses of Bush when he’s attacked here?

See, it’s really not my fault that you’re in denial. And I don’t give a damn what you claim, or what your, on one hand “i don't give much of a rat's ass about politics at all” position while on the other hand, we have the CLAIM “i have been to TWO republican national conventions,” position to contend with, certainly the act of one not giving a “rat’s ass” about political positions.

What’s clear here is that all of your writings attack Bush. Nothing Kerry has done in his history is worthy of your attention or critique. But, noooooo…. You’re “not a Kerry supporter.”

still think i am up there with Lenin?

Absolutely. Nothing you’ve attempted to deflect with here changes anything. It’s just kind of bizarre that you lack the guts to admit it.

your comments to that effect are as far into outer space as your right wing radical views.

Not nearly as bizarre as what you’ve just written here. And what, prey tell, ARE my “right wing radical views?”

See, this is yet another trait of your neocommunists. This “name calling” that you claim you don’t do. It’s kinda like the default setting for the ultra-leftist. The kinda setting you’re on.

Look… I understand the efforts of you underground leftist types to portray yourselves as something you’re not. I actually do understand how embarrassing it is for you to support political positions that Khrushchev would like.

But you’re money ahead if you just come out of the closet, so to speak, and admit what you are…a left wing extremist Kerry butt-boy.

i am disappointed in your attempts to characterize me in the manner that you have.

While I, on the other hand, stay awake nights over your level of disappointment. And all this from someone who doesn’t “take me seriously?” You can’t even tell the truth about THAT.

See, this is one of the more intriguing issues about your politics. You can’t even post truthfully on this board. Now… why is that?

I have “attempted” nothing. Your own words provide the “characterization.” And contrary to what you might like, the conclusions are self-evident.

not only are you wrong about me,

On the contrary. I am dead on target, your denials notwithstanding.

but your decision to use personal attacks has, as Franklin would say, stooped to a new low.

Please. MORE hypocrisy reek? I repeat: I have only risen to the occasion. You don’t want to play? Then don’t. You personally attack me, which you hypocritically and inarguably have done, and you can expect to get the same in return.

in addition, i note i am not the only target of your personal attacks, either, you perform them with reckless abandon all over the board and you are earning quite the reputation, and it ain't a good one.

I’m touched by your concern. It’s bullshit of course, but that is typical of the outted leftist. I’m surprised at such an observation from one who “can’t take me seriously.” Oh yeah, I forgot. THAT was ANOTHER lie…. Right?

“When the facts are on your side, argue then facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When you have neither (which describes you to a “t,”) attack the other lawyer.”

You have YET to rebut my observations. You have YET to provide the posts I’ve asked for, posts backing your non-existent even-keel that you would like everyone to actually believe you have.

again, juvenile and immature.

Of course your efforts are. But again, that’s not my problem. If only you’d just admit it…

perhaps you need to attend some type of therapy to address these unresolved feeling of hostility that emerge when someone disagrees with your point of view and/or cuts your radical right wing arguments into swiss cheese.

When it comes to therapy, who better to know than you? But then, it’s clear that therapy has yet to help you get over your delusional state, or to enable you to back up what you say, has it?

Your neocommunist positions have been repeatedly and utterly destroyed. Your lie concerning your political positions, completely exposed. But your delusions? Completely intact.

with that, care to comment on McCain's statements below? or is that a left wing conspiracy that has infiltrated the Republican party also?

McCain has his positions, and I have mine. Like I pointed out to you before, these people are not gods… and McCain, like you, can be wrong. And McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to eyewitness testimony, testimony that Kerry has at least partially admitted to does HIM discredit.

if you consider the term "political hack" a personal attack, well, that's too farking funny. i seriously think you suffer from delusions. here, try this - "i fart in your general direction needledick." how's that? now you have something to work with. btw, you gotta admit, right wing jeopardy was pretty funny, no?

you are so far behind in this thread i am now laughing even harder at you. it seems that it took you what, two weeks to respond to that last one? have you even found the later threads about you? i picture you staying up all night trying to come up with somewhat intelligent-sounding responses to the above, why so late? nice try, but you won't persuade me to make your case for bush for you by needling kerry here. i've done that in other threads - others have found and recognized it, even asked me questions about it - if you are too lazy or stupid to do so, well, sucks for you. maybe you should have pm'd me back like marv, franklin and other non-zealots did to learn a little bit more about me before shooting off your mouth like a crazed heroin junkie. it is even more comical listening to you insist that kerry is my boy. :histerica :histerica :histerica sure me and 'ol jk are probably goin fishin this weekend, as a matter of fact, wanna come? hell, i bet you probably even think i've got a cabinet position waiting for me i'm so close, right dumbass?

no, the truth is, your fanatacism with bush - that he is perfect - is what originally drove me to toy with you. people who are fanatics - as you are - cannot handle any criticism of their cause whatsoever, whatever cause it may be and as you have amply demonstrated here. it is even more fun to throw knuckleballs into your path and watch you struggle with them, hence the prior references to kerry and anything positive which could be said about him. i can see the veins bulge out on your forehead as you read bush criticism or anything positive said about kerry. i'll keep posting them as long as it drives you berserk, because fanatics are simply fun to make fun of, notwithstanding the dangling participle.

i think jackhart's main goal when he first took you on weeks ago was to provide another side to this arguement. cause without him, all we would have is this "i love bush so much i would suck his cock" bullshit. if you are against him providing both sides of the argument, then thats just down right unamerican. now whos the communist? just because he was the only one with the time and patience to put up with your nonsensical bullshit, doesnt mean he is the antichrist (cant have 2, and rumsfeld is already one).

yes, for the pool for the democratic candidate was large yet thin this year. we ended up with kerry. the point is we have made a choice to vote for kerry, cause lets face it, W is about as dumb as a sack of bricks. i can admit kerry's faults. but for some reason you cannot stand to allow one negative point to be layed onto bush. and for someone who is asking for our kerry information, you do alot of kerry bashing, and while giving very few reasons to vote for bush that arent just anti-kerry rhetoric.

and its freakin funny it took you this long to reply. did your history teacher or militia leader help you write it?

Damn, you guys are worse than 8th grade girls arguing over who the hottest guy in math class is.

i was the hottest guy in 8th grade math, no arguement there.

i was the hottest guy in 8th grade math, no arguement there.

I slept through 8th grade math. it was a transportation error repeat course.

~Critter

As usual, jack, you're self-serving spin fails to address the issues.

And that is the hallmark of the intellectually bankrupt left.

Your positions are worthless... you continue to ignore requests for links to threads where you've proven how even handed in your critiques you are. Of course, as a dyed in the wool Kerry supporter, you cannot provide any.

The rest of your cowardice is to be expected... but you dissemble so very badly. You're not holding up the side very well, jack. Better be careful or the boys and girls over at Kerry.com might kick you out.

Busting your chops is a diversion from the pressure-packed political world. The ease in accomplishing the feat is, however, disappointing. Perhaps if you could lie just a LITTLE more creatively then you have so far, you could make kicking you ass in just a bit more fun.

if you consider the term "political hack" a personal attack, well, that's too farking funny. i seriously think you suffer from delusions. here, try this - "i fart in your general direction needledick." how's that? now you have something to work with. btw, you gotta admit, right wing jeopardy was pretty funny, no?

you are so far behind in this thread i am now laughing even harder at you. it seems that it took you what, two weeks to respond to that last one? have you even found the later threads about you? i picture you staying up all night trying to come up with somewhat intelligent-sounding responses to the above, why so late? nice try, but you won't persuade me to make your case for bush for you by needling kerry here. i've done that in other threads - others have found and recognized it, even asked me questions about it - if you are too lazy or stupid to do so, well, sucks for you. maybe you should have pm'd me back like marv, franklin and other non-zealots did to learn a little bit more about me before shooting off your mouth like a crazed heroin junkie. it is even more comical listening to you insist that kerry is my boy. :histerica :histerica :histerica sure me and 'ol jk are probably goin fishin this weekend, as a matter of fact, wanna come? hell, i bet you probably even think i've got a cabinet position waiting for me i'm so close, right dumbass?

no, the truth is, your fanatacism with bush - that he is perfect - is what originally drove me to toy with you. people who are fanatics - as you are - cannot handle any criticism of their cause whatsoever, whatever cause it may be and as you have amply demonstrated here. it is even more fun to throw knuckleballs into your path and watch you struggle with them, hence the prior references to kerry and anything positive which could be said about him. i can see the veins bulge out on your forehead as you read bush criticism or anything positive said about kerry. i'll keep posting them as long as it drives you berserk, because fanatics are simply fun to make fun of, notwithstanding the dangling participle.

i think jackhart's main goal when he first took you on weeks ago was to provide another side to this arguement. cause without him, all we would have is this "i love bush so much i would suck his cock" bullshit. if you are against him providing both sides of the argument, then thats just down right unamerican. now whos the communist? just because he was the only one with the time and patience to put up with your nonsensical bullshit, doesnt mean he is the antichrist (cant have 2, and rumsfeld is already one).

Actually, his main goal has been to ignore the issues and attack me, which is odd, since he's also told us that he "doesn't give a rat's ass about politics" and that he can no longer "take me seriously."

He has made various claims which I have asked him to back up and which he is unable to do. I call bullshit, and he responds with crap like above.

If that's what he's about... that's cool... I'm up for it.

yes, for the pool for the democratic candidate was large yet thin this year. we ended up with kerry. the point is we have made a choice to vote for kerry, cause lets face it, W is about as dumb as a sack of bricks. i can admit kerry's faults. but for some reason you cannot stand to allow one negative point to be layed onto bush. and for someone who is asking for our kerry information, you do alot of kerry bashing, and while giving very few reasons to vote for bush that arent just anti-kerry rhetoric.

On the contrary... I freely admit that Bush has faults. But I have yet to see those on your side admit to negative issues about Kerry. To that end, I would hope that you would apply the same brush to those on your side of the issue that you do on this side.

I have no problem with people who criticize Bush... that's their privilege. I do tend to speak up when they try to come across as some kind of even-handed centrist, who flatly lie about their party affiliation; who, on one hand, claim they "don't give a rat's ass about politics" and that they're "not a Kerry supporter" while defending him and attacking Bush as if Kerry were paying them for every word.

Jack's pissed because he's lied, and I'm calling him on it. No biggie... that's life... let's move on.


and its freakin funny it took you this long to reply. did your history teacher or militia leader help you write it?

If you two girls think a late reply to a post I hadn't seen before today is somehow "funny,", then you're both very easily amused. Perhaps, if you could explain? I mean, is there some sort of time limit on responding? Respond a day late and it's a grin, a week late and it's a chuckle? You know... that kind of crap?

See, squatty... even you have to rely on bullshit comments like this when you've got nothing to add to the issues at hand. And then people like you and jack whine about personal attacks.

Shhhheeeeeet.

damn 95 take a fawkin chill pill, you still think dave is a fawkin left-winged tree huger. You know i am a strong Bush supporter you can trust me, he isnt. im looking but dave posts a lot and it is a lot to go through

Good Lord what a clusterfawk. And people wonder why the majority of Americans want NOTHING to do w/ politics. Instead they let the ones who yell, bitch, whine, attack, ect the loudest obtain the power of government.

Respect for ideas and opinions is a two-way street here and in life. When you lose focus on the issues and resort to debating "loose term here" w/ emotions rather than facts WHY IN THE FAWK WOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO YOU?

Quit the lil bitch shit and stick to the facts surronding politics for this forum. Healthy debate WORKS, and guys this aint it.

http://www.fullsizebronco.com/forum/vbgarage.php?do=getimage&id=824

:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead

:goodfinge

Wow. Cool pic dumbass. You should learn that people who have relatives that are mentally retarted dont take to kindly to the stupidity of others actions such as yourself.