NY Times on Kerry: Liar!

[VJ]

BEEP BEEP BEEP!

Post your anti-Kerry rants to the anti-Kerry -thread, please?

That is all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
I charge Kerry with being anti-American because of what he did and said in 1970-71.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Plato, Bush is a rareity among politicians, a man of his word.

I can't believe you kept a straight face while writing that. Bush is a liar of enormous proportions. He lied about his tax cuts and who would be affected, he lied about his previous jobs (including gov of Texas), he lied about missile defense, he lied about 9/11, he lied about Iraq. His admintration has lied about Vicky Plame, the vandalism of the White House. They have acted to surpress the truth with the 9/11 commission, Iraq, government regulations, etc.

This administration is an enemy of the truth. Kerry seems to be also. The Dem's are making it real easy for me to vote Nader.

[GePap]

Only in so far as saying Bush present a singular vision 24/7 do I agree with Ned-certainly his admin. is single minded and policy consistent- but they are great demagoges and lie extensively to the public about their motivations, for if the people only knew what really motivated them, this admin. would have never come into power, and would most certainly not remain.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned

Plato, Bush is a rareity among politicians, a man of his word.
(...)
I can think of no major policy where Bush said he would do one thing and then did another

Ned, man, you are f*cking priceless!

[Ned]

Originally posted by monkspider


Ned,

You're too blinded by hatred to see past the tip of your nose. You are afraid to face your responsibilty to other people, so you have created your own universe to hide in and you lash out at anyone who values love and brotherhood. Just know that your universe is a lonely place, and the sooner you can join the rest of us, the better. You just need to learn to value love more than hatred, and you will have great potential in this life.

Perhaps we who have lived what you know as history think differently because we experienced the consequences of the policy choices now being debated once again.

I think ill of Kerry and good of Lieberman. The difference is their policy choices on foreign affairs. In fact, there are famous Democrat politicians even a little older than me who knows just how good president Bush has been on fighting the war on terror. They include Koch, former mayor of New York, and Zell Miller, ex govenor and senator from Alabama. Had Lieberman been the Democrat nominee, perhaps they would have back this patriot rather that arch enemy of American security, Kerry.

[Ned]

Originally posted by oedo
Ned, you were in Vietnam?

No, I was drafted, but was declared 4f. Bad eyesight.

But I was there in the US the entire war and saw the politics of it. Johnson's strategy was simple. He would prevent a communist victory and constantly call for peace talks. The communists strategy was simple as well -- play to the anti-war movement and anti-war Congressmen until the US pulled out unilaterally because even though they could not beat the US, they also could not lose given Johnson's strategy.

Nixon essentially had the same strategy, but he pulled out our ground troops.

The reason the war went on for such a long time was the anti-war movement. They gave NV hope and caused them to delay, delay and delay some more as the votes in Congress to pull out (cut and run) kept growing larger. Guys like Kerry are responsible for tens of thousands of Americian dead. They killed them just as surely had they pulled the trigger themselves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Monk
While I don't doubt that some politicians have a higher moral character than others, some of you guys are in need of a paradigm shift in your conception of politics. First of all, it should be about the issues much more than the candidates. Secondly, we need to accept that anybody who wants to hold a political office of great importance would have to have stabbed somebody in the back at some point or said one thing and done something else at another time. It's not pretty but it's inevitable because that's the way politics goes and the other side is doing it too.

I think it's tiring how people seemingly want to turn themselves into one-sided characters in every and all political debates around here. I can only imagine Ned's outrage if Bush had been a candidate for the Democrats. So Ned, do you even have a single viewpoint on politics that favours Democrats over Republicans? If yes, why we hear about that for a change? Vice versa, the same could be said for Sava and quite a couple others.

Monk, you, like many who live in the anti-Bush league, simple fail to listen. I supported Lieberman.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I can't believe you kept a straight face while writing that. Bush is a liar of enormous proportions. He lied about his tax cuts and who would be affected, he lied about his previous jobs (including gov of Texas), he lied about missile defense, he lied about 9/11, he lied about Iraq. His admintration has lied about Vicky Plame, the vandalism of the White House. They have acted to surpress the truth with the 9/11 commission, Iraq, government regulations, etc.

This administration is an enemy of the truth. Kerry seems to be also. The Dem's are making it real easy for me to vote Nader.

Che, yeah sure.

I checked that anti-Bush, lie site. The first four or five stories of lying were on Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like. You really had to dig deep to find anything on Bush. But the stuff they accused Bush of lying about are so inconsequential as to be laughable. However, because they are so inconsequential, it is very hard to verify based on publicly available resources. So all we have is bald-face assertions by extremely biased people.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mindseye

Ned, man, you are f*cking priceless!

He's actually right there, as GePap noted - they are very consistent on their policy

[Capt Dizle]

The Vietnam war ended a few years before I finished high school. But I was quite aware of the issues, having family and friends that fought in the war.

Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded.

Revisionists have dieified many of these people, or at least tried to. The strong conservative movement of the last twenty-five years has blunted that and you can rest assured that as the American public becomes more focused on this election there will be a great groundswell of hostility towards Kerry because of his protest background and legendary bias against the military.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Only in so far as saying Bush present a singular vision 24/7 do I agree with Ned-certainly his admin. is single minded and policy consistent- but they are great demagoges and lie extensively to the public about their motivations, for if the people only knew what really motivated them, this admin. would have never come into power, and would most certainly not remain.

GePap, dismissing the lying part, it is good to see that at least someone on the left agrees that Bush will fight and fight hard for what he believes in.

[Ned]

Originally posted by mindseye

Ned, man, you are f*cking priceless!

Mindseye, I normally find you a reasonable person. In a thread about Kerry's lying, you now have gone off on me about Bush where even the most biased of Bush haters have to agree that he approaches issues with single-minded determination. That is one of the complaints the left has about Bush.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, yeah sure.

I checked that anti-Bush, lie site.

Not my link, man. I seperated out the lies of Bush and the lies of his Administration. I think he's responsible for those who work for him and lie, however, and he has created a permissive environment for lying. This is certainly one of the most dishonest governments we've had. I hope that whatever subsequent Administration comes to be has the cajones to investigate this Adminstration fully, and send those who need to go to prison to prison.

Why hasn't Bush asked his staff to sign an affidavate that they didn't leak Valerie Plame's name, nor do they know who did? Why has this administration thrown roadblock after roadblock in front of the 9/11 commission? Why has this administration been firing scientists who disagee with the junk science the Bushies base their policy on?

Hell, I doubt Bush even knows what truth is anymore.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The Vietnam war ended a few years before I finished high school. But I was quite aware of the issues, having family and friends that fought in the war.

Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded.

Revisionists have dieified many of these people, or at least tried to. The strong conservative movement of the last twenty-five years has blunted that and you can rest assured that as the American public becomes more focused on this election there will be a great groundswell of hostility towards Kerry because of his protest background and legendary bias against the military.

Bravo! jimmytrick. The people who were there at the time know that the likes of Kerry destroyed Johnson's and Nixon's ability to end the war through negotiations. It was only after Nixon was reelected in a landslide and he began an overwhelming attack on the major cities of North Vietnam did they finally accept peace.

The people who somehow think the country did not support our effort in Vietnam and that the likes of Kerry were treated as heroes are indeed living in a post-revisionist view of the world. However, it is true that Kerry, almost single-handedly, is responsible for the hostile reception of many of returning troops. He called them war criminals, baby killers and the like.

Kerry is the lowest of the low.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned Che, yeah sure. I checked that anti-Bush, lie site.

Not my link, man. I seperated out the lies of Bush and the lies of his Administration. I think he's responsible for those who work for him and lie, however, and he has created a permissive environment for lying. This is certainly one of the most dishonest governments we've had. I hope that whatever subsequent Administration comes to be has the cajones to investigate this Adminstration fully, and send those who need to go to prison to prison.

Why hasn't Bush asked his staff to sign an affidavate that they didn't leak Valerie Plame's name, nor do they know who did? Why has this administration thrown roadblock after roadblock in front of the 9/11 commission? Why has this administration been firing scientists who disagee with the junk science the Bushies base their policy on?

Hell, I doubt Bush even knows what truth is anymore.

In the now famous words of Martha Stewart on being asked about her conviction, "Whatever."

[AnnC]

Originally posted by jimmytrick: Many who speak of this time in America's history are speaking academically, which is fine. But this is a less emotional viewpoint. From my perspective, anti-war protestors like Kerry were regarded as filth by almost everyone I knew. My perspective is a southern suburban perspective. I am sure that in more urban, liberalized places those closely identified with the anti-war movement were highly regarded.

In my part of South Carolina, people had low regard for anti-war protesters until 1969 when news of the My Lai massacre became public. After those grisley photos appeared in Life magazine, adults in my family (hyper-conservative Goldwater Republicans) turned against the war and quietly admitted that the protesters were right.

Originally posted by Ned: GePap, dismissing the lying part, it is good to see that at least someone on the left agrees that Bush will fight and fight hard for what he believes in.

I'm on the left and I agree that Bush will fight for what he believes in... but that's the problem. Among other things, he will fight for:

1. Increased federal control of things like education and marriage law (which ought to be left to the states).

2. Increased federal funding for religion and the arts (!!) and for other programs that he and his wife personally endorse.

3. Big business. He already forced a change in labor law which denies overtime pay to 8 million workers, and propsed an immigration policy that will drive down wages for working people. What will he fight for next?

My Republican relatives in the Carolinas have turned against Bush and they're pretty typical, I think. They represent a growing trend throughout the US.

It doesn't really matter who the Democratic candidate is. Bush will win 13 states this November, at most, and Democrats will re-take the White House.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, dismissing the lying part, it is good to see that at least someone on the left agrees that Bush will fight and fight hard for what he believes in.

The lying part is what matters to me-that and the fact I disagree with most things bush and his admin. stand for, so I want them out ASAP.

[Jon Miller]

Kerry is crap

unfortunately the other man running is Bush

reason why I am voting third party

(Well, and I agree with them more)

JM

[Ned]

Ann Coulter, it is very true is that George Bush has pissed off a lot of his conservative base for for one reason or another. Funding the arts while not funding road construction is one of them. No respectable Republican has ever not wanted to increase infrastructure. But to sacrifice road construction in favor of the arts? One begins to wonder who this man really is.

Actually, providing work permits for illegal aliens is pro-business and is typically Republican. It pisses off the so-called "social conservatives" who are more concerned about "culture," which is a code word that masks racism.

Reforming extremist labor legislation is also typically Republican. Such reform is good for business and is good for jobs in United States. Why do you think jobs are disappearing to foreign lands? It has to do in great part with crazy labor legislation in United States. If one is really in favor of keeping jobs here, one must be willing to reform stupid and unnecessary labor rules and regulations. (The Democrats recognize the problem. However their solution is to impose American labor rules on the rest of the world, which when you think about it, is literally impossible in the short term.)

[Ned]

GePap, you would never seriously consider voting Republican in the first place.

Right?

[Ned]

Ann Coulter, if your parents were Goldwater Republicans, they were probably Goldwater Republicans because of the his speeches asking Lyndon Johnson what was his strategy for victory in Vietnam. At that time, Lyndon Johnson refused even to acknowledge that the war in Vietnam was a war. Most Americans knew otherwise, but were otherwise willing to let Johnson lead the nation especially after the Kennedy assassination. Goldwater Republicans however, were seriously concerned about the lack of clarity in strategy.

When you say that your parents turned against the Vietnam war in 1969, what they really turned against was the Johnson strategy that provided no clear and certain way of achieving victory even while putting American troops into a seemingly endless meat grinder. This is very consistent with the serious questions Goldwater raised in the ' 64 campaign.

[Ned]

Marriage law ought to be left to the states: Yes.

Civil rights ought to be left to the Federal government.

What is the gay marriage issue? Is it an issue on the nuances of marriage law, or is it a Civil Rights issue?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, you would never seriously consider voting Republican in the first place.

Right?

Wrong. I vote based on issues. Now, many northeast republicans don't share the socially conservative views of their fellow party members out west and south or their lover of guns. if I could have voted at the time, I would have voted for Gulliani over the dem. candidate in 1997. I did not like Mark Green in 2001 and would have likely voted for Bloomberg, though not now.

I would vote for Olympia Snow, or Chaffee. I wouold not vote for Zell Miller unless his opponent was even more right wing than him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Wrong. I vote based on issues. Now, many northeast republicans don't share the socially conservative views of their fellow party members out west and south or their lover of guns. if I could have voted at the time, I would have voted for Gulliani over the dem. candidate in 1997. I did not like Mark Green in 2001 and would have likely voted for Bloomberg, though not now.

I would vote for Olympia Snow, or Chaffee. I wouold not vote for Zell Miller unless his opponent was even more right wing than him.

Well, GePap, you and I have common ground here. I suspect, then, that you would consider voting for the Governator?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by AnnC
Bush will win 13 states this November, at most, ...

Care to place a wager on that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, you and I have common ground here. I suspect, then, that you would consider voting for the Governator?

Yes, I would consider it- it depends on the opponents views as well. I will vote for the person's whose actions and views best match what I want to see from my rep. no matter the party.

[Capt Dizle]

**Exclusive**

Sen. John Kerry's official election website is riddled with obscenities, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

The Democrat nominee-in-waiting recently said radio stations are within their right to pull Howard Stern off the air if they object to the shock jock's racy show.

But an investigation reveals Kerry's own website is filled expletives, setting the standard for a new wave of 21st Century campaigning!

MORE

A sampling of web pages featured on Kerry's official site reveal:

"Bush f**ked up Afghanistan... Did I expect George Bush to f**k it up as badly as he did... cutting all your f**king legs off at the knees... Where the f**k is he?... scare the living s**t out of me... He has a pig-in-s**t grin on his face, he wanted to get into the s**t... doesn’t play s**t in my book..."

In fact, typing in the terms "F**k" or "S**t" in the search box of the official Kerry For President site directly links the reader to the action!

A campaign source tells the DRUDGE REPORT that "John Kerry For President" online simply contains published material, and the senator was simply unaware on Sunday that the expletives were being carried on his own Internet server. [A search on the official Bush/Cheney re-election revealed no such curse words.]

"I think you'll see the offensive words removed," the top campaign source said.

Unlike over the air broadcast, there are no known foul language rules for official campaign websites.

[GePap]

[Ned]

This is more of a question rather than a statement. Recently Kerry criticized Bush for not intervening soon enough in Haiti so as to prevent a rebel victory and an Aristide debacle. He said he would have led a "international force" into the Haiti, without specifying the composition of that international force.

It is my understanding that several weeks ago: Powell was calling for just such an international force. However, when he consulted the French, they insisted that Aristide must go. The French made it clear that they would veto any UN resolution calling for international force in Haiti without some political resolution first. That is when Powell shifted course and began to try to get both the rebels and the Aristide forces on the same page in terms of a coalition government. In the end, that did not work, so Aristide had to flee. When he did, the French and United States a had resolution passed at the Security Council authorizing an international force composed of French, American and Canadian forces.

In essence therefore, what Kerry was arguing for was unilateral intervention in a civil war in Haiti, without French support, without a UN resolution and with no vital American interests involved.

When reporters asked Kerry about why he criticized Bush for preceding without French support and a UN resolution in a case of Iraq, but would be willing to do exactly the same thing in the case of Haiti, Kerry merely replied that his position on unilateral intervention was different from Bush, but would provide no further details:

""People will know I'm tough and I'm prepared to do what is necessary to defend the United States of America, and that includes the unilateral deployment of troops if necessary," said Mr. Kerry, who has rarely used the word "unilateral" in the campaign except to describe how Mr. Bush has alienated allies. "But my standard is very different from George Bush's."

But so far, Mr. Kerry has not described that standard in detail. In the interview on his plane, Mr. Kerry said he was reluctant to define how he would act in specific situations...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/po...07KERR.html?th