Kerry, a.k.a. Bush, supports faith-based initiatives

[CarneVaca]

As if we needed more proof that Kerry is Bush, here's what he told the African Methodist Episcopalian convention in July:

"I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government," he said. "I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

In a fact sheet distributed after the speech, he called for a 'Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.'

Wow. How did the mainstream media, which jumped all over Bush when he launched the initiative, miss this?

In case you were wondering, yes, the AME supports "faith-based initiatives" as well as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[dissention]

Can't say I'm surprised, especially with his recent comments about Iraq. How sad.

[strandinthewind]

Interesting. But, what he said is not exactly W's position. W wants all faith based cahrities to get money. Kerry's language "in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws" suggests that financial aid would go only to organizations that did not try to covert. Such organizations exist. In any event, that is the way the US is headed. On the one hand, I think Fed. money is best spent elsewhere. But, on the other, the provate faith based groups on the whole do a great job administering to the poor, caring for the sick, etc. So, it is a condundrum for me.

This is a little bit like you saying that because Kerry thinks life begins at conception, he is like Bush and anti-abortion. Abortion is about pro-choice, not when life begins :shrug: SO, to say W and Kerry are the same on that issue is incorrect.

[CarneVaca]

I just don't get why liberals would vote for this guy. He's worse than Gore.

Meanwhile, Nader's numbers are growing, even though he may not be on the ballot in a lot of states. If he is, he might get more votes than even I would have expected a few months ago.

[CarneVaca]

On the one hand, I think Fed. money is best spent elsewhere. But, on the other, the provate faith based groups on the whole do a great job administering to the poor, caring for the sick, etc. So, it is a condundrum for me.

Extremely dangerous. Setting aside the issue of stave v. religion, the idea that that these organizations will start taking on the roles that belong in government agencies can only mean that poor people who need help the most will get screwed in the end. We are moving backwards by doing this.

James Madison warned about this kind of thing:

Madison founded Kerry's party and authored the Bill of Rights. In 1811, as President, he vetoed "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia." He gave several reasons for the veto, and closed with this still-applicable conclusion:

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

[strandinthewind]

Extremely dangerous. Setting aside the issue of stave v. religion, the idea that that these organizations will start taking on the roles that belong in government agencies can only mean that poor people who need help the most will get screwed in the end. We are moving backwards by doing this.

James Madison warned about this kind of thing:

Madison founded Kerry's party and authored the Bill of Rights. In 1811, as President, he vetoed "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia." He gave several reasons for the veto, and closed with this still-applicable conclusion:

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

I agree the govt. should provide assistance. It is just that the govt. essentially screws up everything it touches. So, if the govt. can give some of this resp. to a private charity that does it ten times more efficiently than the govt. (which would not be hard to do :laugh: ) and the govt. does not discrimminate between the religions when it provides financial aid. Interestingly, we then get into the Establishment Clause and why it was put in there, which was not to make the US establish an official religion a la The Church of England and all of the fighting and bloodshed associated with it. I mean if the govt. provides financial support to all religious charities (Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan, etc.) then how is that establishing one religion for the land :shrug: Thus, it probably is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I do, however, think it is a slippery slope and it scares me to think people like Pat Robertson will get tax dollars, even though they alreasy do because most Churches are taxed differently, etc., and I am SURE they claim all of those cash collections :eek: :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I agree the govt. should provide assistance. It is just that the govt. essentially screws up everything it touches. So, if the govt. can give some of this resp. to a private charity that does it ten times more efficiently than the govt. ...

The government also consistently screws up how it uses my tax money. Mind you, I'm not anti-tax. But, man, if we were to use this reasoning, we would end up even transferring defense to private hands, nyet? Come to think of it, on that last one... it sort of already did. ;)

[strandinthewind]

The government also consistently screws up how it uses my tax money. Mind you, I'm not anti-tax. But, man, if we were to use this reasoning, we would end up even transferring defense to private hands, nyet? Come to think of it, on that last one... it sort of already did. ;)

:laugh: :laugh:

YOu are preaching to the choir!!!!! :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Yeah, but let's not forget the real point here:

Kerry = Bush

Bush = Kerry

[dissention]

Yeah, but let's not forget the real point here:

Kerry = Bush

Bush = Kerry

Try posting that at the Democratic Underground. I did and I'm still reeling from the response I got. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

Try posting that at the Democratic Underground. I did and I'm still reeling from the response I got. :laugh:

I don't even know what that is. But what was the response?

And by the way, don't you owe me PM?

[strandinthewind]

Try posting that at the Democratic Underground. I did and I'm still reeling from the response I got. :laugh:
SEEEEEE - and you thought I was bad . . . :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

I don't even know what that is. But what was the response?

And by the way, don't you owe me PM?

I sent you one earlier :shrug: Didn't you get it?

It's http://www.democraticunderground.com The response was not kind, thankyouverymuch. The thread ended up being locked. :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I sent you one earlier :shrug: Didn't you get it?


I had asked you for a couple of examples. Didn't get them.

[dissention]

I had asked you for a couple of examples. Didn't get them.

I didn't get that PM. :shrug: Can you send it again?

[CarneVaca]

Dissention, I was looking at that. Very instructive reaction, though not surprising at all. As in 2000, the Democrats are in denial.

[dissention]

Dissention, I was looking at that. Very instructive reaction, though not surprising at all. As in 2000, the Democrats are in denial.

My favorite was when I was told to "Go f*ck myself." I told them, I thought the Democratic party was all inclusive? Their response? This board isn't. :lol:

[CarneVaca]

My favorite was when I was told to "Go f*ck myself." I told them, I thought the Democratic party was all inclusive? Their response? This board isn't. :lol:

I particularly enjoyed the dumbass who didn't know "dissention" and "dissension" are both acceptable spellings.

[dissention]

I particularly enjoyed the dumbass who didn't know "dissention" and "dissension" are both acceptable spellings.

:laugh: The irony of my screename was obviously lost on them. I think it's obvious why I used the rarely used t in favor of the s.

[Patti]

You really pissed 'em off, didn't ya? :laugh: :laugh: :nod:

[dissention]

You really pissed 'em off, didn't ya? :laugh: :laugh: :nod:

Oh, darling, you don't know the half of it. They wanted to spill my blood. ;)

[Patti]

There were an awful lot of deleted posts in that thread. And frankly, I thought your original post was pretty mild considering what I've read of you here. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

As if we needed more proof that Kerry is Bush, here's what he told the African Methodist Episcopalian convention in July:

"I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government," he said. "I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

In a fact sheet distributed after the speech, he called for a 'Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.'

Wow. How did the mainstream media, which jumped all over Bush when he launched the initiative, miss this?

In case you were wondering, yes, the AME supports "faith-based initiatives" as well as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Can I get a link?

[dissention]

There were an awful lot of deleted posts in that thread. And frankly, I thought your original post was pretty mild considering what I've read of you here. :wavey:

All the deleted posts were posts telling me to go f*ck myself, to perform oral sex on Bush, and calling me KKKarl Rove. :lol: I have the same politics as the people on that board, but I'm mild in my viciousness compared to them.

[dissention]

Can I get a link?

Here's one: www.thejewishweek.com/JWeekWireless/news/newscontent4.php3

I think there was something about in The Nation, too, but I can't remember.

Did you see the DU, darling? I really lit a fire under their asses. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Here's one: www.thejewishweek.com/JWeekWireless/news/newscontent4.php3

I think there was something about in The Nation, too, but I can't remember.

Did you see the DU, darling? I really lit a fire under their asses. :laugh:

Where's the link?

[Patti]

All the deleted posts were posts telling me to go f*ck myself, to perform oral sex on Bush, and calling me KKKarl Rove. :lol: I have the same politics as the people on that board, but I'm mild in my viciousness compared to them.

I guess so if that post of yours caused such a stir!!! :)

[gldstwmn]

Here's one: www.thejewishweek.com/JWeekWireless/news/newscontent4.php3


This isn't it. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

How you I find the flambaying of Dissention at the DU? I need more ammo for here :cool: :p :D :wavey:

[dissention]

This isn't it. :shrug:

That's what came up when I put it into Google. :sorry:

[strandinthewind]

How you I find the flambaying of Dissention at the DU? I need more ammo for here :cool: :p :D :wavey:

What is the name of the forum and thread?

[dissention]

How you I find the flambaying of Dissention at the DU? I need more ammo for here :cool: :p :D :wavey:

No ammo to be found, I simply said that Kerry is disappointing me a bit. Instead of a morale boost, I got called KKKarl. ;) Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x613764

[gldstwmn]

In this election, I'm not all too concerned about the minutae and expecially not concerned about this quote as there is no link and it smells of a Republican talking point.
George stole four years of our lives and turned them upside down. It's time for him to go. There's only one option to remove George W Bush from office and that is to vote for John Forbes Kerry. This election will be won in the middle and to that extent, Kerry is playing to it. He must. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'll discuss my response to the faith based initiatives when I see an actual credible link to what Kerry said about them.

[gldstwmn]

No ammo to be found, I simply said that Kerry is disappointing me a bit. Instead of a morale boost, I got called KKKarl. ;) Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x613764

You know though, that DU is infiltrated on a daily basis by people that are trying to lambaste Kerry or operatives working for the other side. The regulars get tired of having to debunk these kind of threads. If you use their search function, you can find the asnwers to a lot of these types of attacks on Kerry. The board also allows you to bookmark threads for fututre reference. I've done a lot of that with the Plame threads, which are fascinating, if you read them.
With respect to Kerry's IWR vote, I've posted his entire speech on this board, much to Carne's chagrin. I understand what he's saying and what was said the other day. Unfortunately, a lot of people might not.

[strandinthewind]

LOL - they are a testy little self righteous bunch aren't they. I think you complied with the rules because you gave "[c]onstructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate" in your initial post. They just, according to the other rules, do not want to have anything but a love fest for Kerry. So be it.

I will say I agree with the guy that rebutted your three points that Kerry said he still would have gone to war with Iraq, the gay marriage vs. civil unions thing, and the abortion thing.

I think Kerry's position of Iraq is too complex to reduce it the way you did. He has said and still says it was the timing that was wrong and the inspectors should have been allowed to finish. In my book, that is not the same thing as I would have gone to war too. I think "if the inspections were finished and the evidence then warranted it" has to be added to that conclusion/statement. Will the public pay attention long enough to get that - who knows. The gay marriage thing is so politicized Kerry cannot come out for it and win. Sad, but true. So, that is really a moot point IMO. Finally, if I have said it once, I have said it 1,000 times saying I may be personally opposed to abortion is not in any way the same thing I am not pro-choice. The difference between the two is the latter recognized the individual right of someone to do something I may consider wrong - it is respect for someone to have dominion over their bodies without me telling them they have to do it my way. I think that makes Kerry pro-choice, which is all that is required. Again, Kerry does not have to believe in abortion, he can try to talk people out of it, he can have the govt. print up literature on it, etc. But, as long as he respects the right to choose, that is all that is req. I know I know - the slippery slope argument of well that is just one more small chip of many at the right to choose. But, I do not see it that way. It is not and never has been pro-abortion and everybody support abortion. It has always been allowing people the chance to choose for themselves :shrug:

But, they were IMO jerks for attacking you like that.

[strandinthewind]

With respect to Kerry's IWR vote, I've posted his entire speech on this board, much to Carne's chagrin. I understand what he's saying and what was said the other day. Unfortunately, a lot of people might not.

My point exactly!!!! :cool: :wavey:

[dissention]

You know though, that DU is infiltrated on a daily basis by people that are trying to lambaste Kerry or operatives working for the other side. The regulars get tired of having to debunk these kind of threads. If you use their search function, you can find the asnwers to a lot of these types of attacks on Kerry. The board also allows you to bookmark threads for fututre reference. I've done a lot of that with the Plame threads, which are fascinating, if you read them.
With respect to Kerry's IWR vote, I've posted his entire speech on this board, much to Carne's chagrin. I understand what he's saying and what was said the other day. Unfortunately, a lot of people might not.

I understand that, but I had over a thousand posts there until I lost my log-in info and had to re-register. They knew I wasn't a right-winger. I know what Kerry said about the vote, but the thing is that I don't agree with his reasoning. He never should have voted for it. The rest of the stuff simply oculd not be debunked because it came from his own lips. And there is simply no excuse for the things said in that thread, regardless. The self-righteousness is a bit too much for my tastes, especially now that the DU has been infiltrated by a bunch of wise-ass kids who know nothing. That's all. :) :xoxo:

[CarneVaca]

Can I get a link?

What, you think I made it up?

[gldstwmn]

I understand that, but I had over a thousand posts there until I lost my log-in info and had to re-register. They knew I wasn't a right-winger. I know what Kerry said about the vote, but the thing is that I don't agree with his reasoning.

Didn't you ask him face to face about the IWR?
And I agree with you darling, some of the comments were reprehensible. :xoxo:
Don't let these people get in your head so much. You can think for yourself.

[gldstwmn]

What, you think I made it up?

I want to see the source and full context of the speech. I always link my quotes.
Is there some reason you don't want me to know where you got this?

[CarneVaca]

I'll discuss my response to the faith based initiatives when I see an actual credible link to what Kerry said about them.

Bull****, you'll just keep making excuses for your ****ty candidate. You can find every other report on the web, but you can't find this one?

Give me break! You're full of it.

[CarneVaca]

You know though, that DU is infiltrated on a daily basis by people that are trying to lambaste Kerry or operatives working for the other side. The regulars get tired of having to debunk these kind of threads.

Therefore, it was perfectly OK to diss dissention to the point of suggesting he perform fellatio on Dubya. It was OK to call him all manner of nasty names.

At least we know what kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

[dissention]

LOL - they are a testy little self righteous bunch aren't they. I think you complied with the rules because you gave "[c]onstructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate" in your initial post. They just, according to the other rules, do not want to have anything but a love fest for Kerry. So be it.

I will say I agree with the guy that rebutted your three points that Kerry said he still would have gone to war with Iraq, the gay marriage vs. civil unions thing, and the abortion thing.

I think Kerry's position of Iraq is too complex to reduce it the way you did. He has said and still says it was the timing that was wrong and the inspectors should have been allowed to finish. In my book, that is not the same thing as I would have gone to war too. .

They give liberals a bad name.

Now, this is what Kerry said three days ago:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

He's saying he would have voted regardless, but that he would have used the authority differently. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Here are some links

http://www.wecareamerica.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=WhatsHappening.NewsDetail&NA=221


http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_14/opinion_04.html

Do I have to do EVERYTHING :p :wavey: :cool"

[gldstwmn]

Bull****, you'll just keep making excuses for your ****ty candidate. You can find every other report on the web, but you can't find this one?

Give me break! You're full of it.

No sale. :distress:

[CarneVaca]

Here are some links

http://www.wecareamerica.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=WhatsHappening.NewsDetail&NA=221


http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_14/opinion_04.html

Do I have to do EVERYTHING :p :wavey: :cool"

Neither of which is where I got my information. I glad to see others picked it up. The mainstream media pretended it never happened. I guess Dubya is not the only one getting free passes.

[dissention]

Didn't you ask him face to face about the IWR?
And I agree with you darling, some of the comments were reprehensible. :xoxo:
Don't let these people get in your head so much. You can think for yourself.

Yup. Last year I walked right up to him and pretty much told him he was f*ck-up. Then I had a conversation with Teresa about her hair dye. :laugh: :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

Therefore, it was perfectly OK to diss dissention to the point of suggesting he perform fellatio on Dubya. It was OK to call him all manner of nasty names.

At least we know what kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

No sale. :distress: If you think you're going to turn dissention and I agaisnt each other, you can take your Jedi mind bull**** elsewhere.

[CarneVaca]

No sale. :distress:

Ain't selling you ****. Ain't trying to prove anything to you either.

I couldn't care less if you think I made it up.

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

[gldstwmn]

Ain't selling you ****. Ain't trying to prove anything to you either.

I couldn't care less if you think I made it up.

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

As I suspected, there's a hole in this argument somewhere. I'm going to find it. :)

[strandinthewind]

They give liberals a bad name.

Like that's hard to do - SSQQUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe :p :laugh: :laugh:

(meant in jest)




Now, this is what Kerry said three days ago:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

He's saying he would have voted regardless, but that he would have used the authority differently. :shrug:

THose are night and day to me. What he is saying is "we" gave W the power and he was not cautious with it. He essentially immediately used it. I, John Kerry, would not have done that as evidenced by that speech he gave around that time. His point is although I had the power, I would have waited until all ave. were explored until I used it, and if a better solution was found, I may not have had to use it, which would have saved the 900 American lives and countless Iraqi lives W essentially killed in his rush to war. I think that is a big difference. If you want Kerry to say the whole WMD was just a big lie to get at the oil. He is never going to say that because he does not believe it. Note: I am not saying you actually want Kerry to say that. :cool:

[dissention]

THose are night and day to me. What he is saying is "we" gave W the power and he was not cautious with it. He essentially immediately used it. I, John Kerry, would not have done that as evidenced by that speech he gave around that time. His point is although I had the power, I would have waited until all ave. were explored until I used it, and if a better solution was found, I may not have had to use it, which would have saved the 900 American lives and countless Iraqi lives W essentially killed in his rush to war. I think that is a big difference. If you want Kerry to say the whole WMD was just a big lie to get at the oil. He is never going to say that because he does not believe it. Note: I am not saying you actually want Kerry to say that. :cool:

But the thing is, he's saying that he still would have voted to authorize Dubya knowing what he now knows. That's fundamentally wrong in every way, shape, and form.

[strandinthewind]

As I suspected, there's a hole in this argument somewhere. I'm going to find it. :)

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier, there are many faith based charities out there that do a great job of helping people who cannot help themselves. As long as the govt. supports all faith based charities, there is no violation of the Est. Clause - that is what Kerry is saying when he talks about comporting with the Const. He also does not say the govt. agencies that help the poor like SSI are going to be aboloished. He is just, and rightly so IMO, recognizing the efforts of these organizations. Personally, I do not think this is that big of a story and I think Carne's equating of this statment to Kerry supports the same faith based charity scheme that W does has little merit.

But, Carne is most certainly entitled to his opinion as we all are :D

[strandinthewind]

But the thing is, he's saying that he still would have voted to authorize Dubya knowing what he now knows. That's fundamentally wrong in every way, shape, and form.

But his statement "I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively" clearly indicates he is talking about the Pres.' duty to defend and protect the U.S. and the power that takes. He is not saying I agree with W - at least that is not what I get out of it, esp. when that quote is considered with all of his other quotes on this. But, reasonable minds will differ. Just out of curiousity, would you be okay with Kerry saying I like everyone else thought there were WMD, SH failed to meet his burden, blah blah blah. So, that is why I voted to authorize the Pres. to use force. That statement is what he has said all along :shrug:

[dissention]

But his statement "I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively" clearly indicates he is talking about the Pres.' duty to defend and protect the U.S. and the power that takes. He is not saying I agree with W - at least that is not what I get out of it, esp. when that quote is considered with all of his other quotes on this. But, reasonable minds will differ. Just out of curiousity, would you be okay with Kerry saying I like everyone else thought there were WMD, SH failed to meet his burden, blah blah blah. So, that is why I voted to authorize the Pres. to use force. That statement is what he has said all along :shrug:

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by. He knew that once he gave Bush the authority, he could have taken us to war the very next day. Now, over a year later, he still stands by his vote, says it was not a mistake, and knwoing what he knows now, he STILL would have authorized Bush to invade Iraq. It's so ludicrous and mind-bogglingly stupid that even I, the great liberal, cannot defend it. :laugh: It's comments like those that are going to sink his candidacy. Not only does it piss off the anti-war Dems, but it tells the undecideds that he's no different than Bush on Iraq. Sure, he can say what he would have done differently had he been president, but the question was whether or not he would have authorized force knowing what he know nows. He said yes and that is wrong.

[Johnny Stew]

Your candidate is going to lose because of all this stuff. You'll see. I am going to laugh my ass off on Nov. 3.

And then crying about Bush on the day after. ;) :p

[GypsySorcerer]

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier, there are many faith based charities out there that do a great job of helping people who cannot help themselves. As long as the govt. supports all faith based charities, there is no violation of the Est. Clause - that is what Kerry is saying when he talks about comporting with the Const. He also does not say the govt. agencies that help the poor like SSI are going to be aboloished. He is just, and rightly so IMO, recognizing the efforts of these organizations. Personally, I do not think this is that big of a story and I think Carne's equating of this statment to Kerry supports the same faith based charity scheme that W does has little merit.



Yes, but isn't it a violation of the establishment clause to assume everyone belongs to a faith? Wouldn't the government then be endorsing all religion instead of just one? This reminds me of the Pledge of Allegiance argument. Some have proposed letting people say "Under God, Allah, Universe, or whomever," but the fact it is in there assumes all people are of a faith.

[gldstwmn]

As if we needed more proof that Kerry is Bush, here's what he told the African Methodist Episcopalian convention in July:

"I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government," he said. "I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

In a fact sheet distributed after the speech, he called for a 'Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.'

Wow. How did the mainstream media, which jumped all over Bush when he launched the initiative, miss this?

In case you were wondering, yes, the AME supports "faith-based initiatives" as well as a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Careful editing. Here's the full text.

In a “fact sheet” distributed to Jewish activists after the speech, he called for a “Presidential Advisory Group on Expanding Faith-Based Initiatives.”

But in the same document, his campaign wrote that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

See the difference? Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

[gldstwmn]

The hole is IMO and as I said earlier,

I've got my own hole, thank you. :)

Kerry's fact sheet distributed after the speech states:

that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

That's a 360 from the Bush policy.

[gldstwmn]

Neither of which is where I got my information. I glad to see others picked it up. The mainstream media pretended it never happened.

As they shouldn't when the 1000th soldier is about to die in Iraq, oil is $45 a barrel, the federal deficit sets a record daily, you've got a bunch of "Swift Boat Vets" who never served with Kerry smearing him, a California court is voiding same sex marriage licenses,people are being ethnically cleansed in the Sudan, Cheney is a crook, Cheney is a crook and oh, Cheney is a crook.

[gldstwmn]

Like that's hard to do -

THose are night and day to me. What he is saying is "we" gave W the power and he was not cautious with it. He essentially immediately used it. I, John Kerry, would not have done that as evidenced by that speech he gave around that time. His point is although I had the power, I would have waited until all ave. were explored until I used it, and if a better solution was found, I may not have had to use it, which would have saved the 900 American lives and countless Iraqi lives W essentially killed in his rush to war.

Yup. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by.

That's just the thing darling, this wasn't a war declaration they were voting on. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Yes, but isn't it a violation of the establishment clause to assume everyone belongs to a faith? Wouldn't the government then be endorsing all religion instead of just one? This reminds me of the Pledge of Allegiance argument. Some have proposed letting people say "Under God, Allah, Universe, or whomever," but the fact it is in there assumes all people are of a faith.

Yes it does. :woohoo: Kerry's position would prohibit discrimination and proselytization of religious principles on the recipients of the charities. :)

[dissention]

See the difference? Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I just spit out my water!

[dissention]

I've got my own hole, thank you. :)

Kerry's fact sheet distributed after the speech states:

that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

That's a 360 from the Bush policy.

:lol: You're on fire tonight.

Like I said, what bothers me more than his support for faith-based initiatives is that he said this at an organization that supports a same sex marriage ban. He chose the wrong forum to say this.

[gldstwmn]

:lol: You're on fire tonight.



Just gettin ready for Pickles and Bunnypants in 57 minutes on LKL. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Just gettin ready for Pickles and Bunnypants in 57 minutes on LKL. I can't wait. :rolleyes:

Tell me you're not tuning in. If so, bless you. I hope Pickles took her Exlax so that she doesn't look so constipated on national television, at least for your sake. :p

On another note, I was visually assaulted at the supermarket the other day when I saw Pickles and Bunnypants on the cover of Ladies Home Journal. Ladies, stay away from your journal this month.

[CarneVaca]

No sale. :distress: If you think you're going to turn dissention and I agaisnt each other, you can take your Jedi mind bull**** elsewhere.

I'm not trying to turn anyone against anyone. I was using your own words to point out you were trying to excuse inexcusable behavior.

[CarneVaca]

As I suspected, there's a hole in this argument somewhere. I'm going to find it. :)

It couldn't possibly be that he just said it and, once again, made a statement he shouldn't have?

Are you so blindly partisan that you find it to be out of the realm of possibility that your guy makes mistakes? Hell, he does more than make mistakes. Some of the statements he's made lately to ingratiate himself to the right-wing voters, I suspect, are lies.

Yet, if Bush lies, you'll be all over it.

Your robot-like automatic defense of the man has ruined your credibility. You're just a partisan who refuses to deal with the facts.

[CarneVaca]

If you want Kerry to say the whole WMD was just a big lie to get at the oil. He is never going to say that because he does not believe it. :cool:

So he still believes the WMD are there? He still believes Iraq was a big threat? So what differentiates him from Bush?

[CarneVaca]

He is just, and rightly so IMO, recognizing the efforts of these organizations. Personally, I do not think this is that big of a story and I think Carne's equating of this statment to Kerry supports the same faith based charity scheme that W does has little merit.

But, Carne is most certainly entitled to his opinion as we all are :D

Jason, just refer back to the Madison statement I quoted earlier. What it comes down to is the people who so vehemently opposed Bush's faith-based initiative now are bending over backwards to defend Kerry's vow to not only continue it but expand it.

Do you guys realize how silly you look? Do you realize this is costing your guy votes?

When we started these discussions last spring, if you'd told me that anyone who was convinced it was necessary to vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush would eventually become so disgusted with Kerry, enough to switch their vote to a third party, I would have said you're crazy. Yet, here we are. At this point, I count three people I know who've come to this crossroads. I talked about five people into voting for Nader in 2000. This time, I figured I wouldn't even try, considering the anti-Bush passions. I'll just state my position and leave it at that. The funny thing is Kerry has done it himself. He is worse than Gore, and I never thought I would say that, especially having voted for him in Massachusetts.

[CarneVaca]

When you vote to authorize a war, you have no say in the timetable the man with the authority is going to go by.

BINGO!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Yes, but isn't it a violation of the establishment clause to assume everyone belongs to a faith? Wouldn't the government then be endorsing all religion instead of just one? This reminds me of the Pledge of Allegiance argument. Some have proposed letting people say "Under God, Allah, Universe, or whomever," but the fact it is in there assumes all people are of a faith.

Perhaps, but I was talking about giving to non-faith based charities as well. So, I think that would make that possible point moot. But, I am not on the United States Sup. Ct. (YET!!!! :laugh: )

[CarneVaca]

But in the same document, his campaign wrote that government funding should not “support religious proselytizing or other religious activity and should not finance discrimination.”

And Kerry promised to “recraft” Bush’s Executive Order on Faith-Based Initiatives to “ensure that it encompasses all necessary constitutional and civil rights considerations and does not unnecessarily subject small faith-based organizations to litigation or other administrative difficulties.

See the difference? Silly rabbit. Trix are for kids.

OH, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where in Bush's initiative it says that it's OK to "support religious proselytizing" and that it isn't necessary to respect civil rights.

Civil rights have taken a shot all right, but not there as much as in the measure your boy Kerry voted for, The Patriot Act.

You ain't proved bupkus.

[CarneVaca]

As they shouldn't when the 1000th soldier is about to die in Iraq,

Which your candidate voted to facilitate.

oil is $45 a barrel,

He could always tell Teresa to give up the SUV.

[CarneVaca]

Yes it does. :woohoo: Kerry's position would prohibit discrimination and proselytization of religious principles on the recipients of the charities. :)

Hogwash. As if that's even enforceable. Hello, take a call from reality.

[strandinthewind]

That's just the thing darling, this wasn't a war declaration they were voting on. ;)

and Kerry made that VERY clear in his speech he gave around the time he voted. As for his statement about voting for it even knowing what we know know, I still think he was talking about voting for the authority, not the yard pass of responsibilty W took. I think from what I have read, the media is spinning it to mean Kerry agrees with Bush about the justification for rushing to war. That is not what he is saying. But, I think you all want Kerry to somehow come out and say Iraq never had WMD - I was wrong - I retract any prior comment to the contrary and Bush lied to get Iraq's oil. That is never going to happen - it would be political suicide. I actually admire his standing by his vote, even though though the outcome was not good.

[strandinthewind]

So he still believes the WMD are there? He still believes Iraq was a big threat? So what differentiates him from Bush?

Once again, Kerry says he would have waited for the inspections to finish and then determine whether war was warranted. That is the difference. Do you really think the inspections would have happened and if they did SH would have complied without the threat of war. I do not. I base that on his 11 years of not complying. Again, Kerry is talking abouyt voting on the authority to go to war. He is not justifying W's use of that power. In fact, he is outspoken against it.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, just refer back to the Madison statement I quoted earlier. What it comes down to is the people who so vehemently opposed Bush's faith-based initiative now are bending over backwards to defend Kerry's vow to not only continue it but expand it.

Do you guys realize how silly you look? Do you realize this is costing your guy votes?

When we started these discussions last spring, if you'd told me that anyone who was convinced it was necessary to vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush would eventually become so disgusted with Kerry, enough to switch their vote to a third party, I would have said you're crazy. Yet, here we are. At this point, I count three people I know who've come to this crossroads. I talked about five people into voting for Nader in 2000. This time, I figured I wouldn't even try, considering the anti-Bush passions. I'll just state my position and leave it at that. The funny thing is Kerry has done it himself. He is worse than Gore, and I never thought I would say that, especially having voted for him in Massachusetts.

I know, I know the quote. What I am talking about is funding all charities. I do not think like you do that the govt. is the only entity that can perform these functions. I think I am supported when I say most private entities operate far more efficiently than the govt. So . . . .

As for voting for Kerry, I am just a realist. I want Bush out. I agree with far more of Kerry's policies than I do with W's. AND - unlike you, I think there are differences between the two and the significant ones are:

Kerry is pro-choice, Bush is not (do not hand me that but he does not believe in abortion spin :p :D )

Kerry at least wants to recognize some form of gay rights, Bush does not and cannot ever due to his being beholden to the far far religious right

Bush wants cut taxes and spend like the worst liberal in history while performing corporate welfare, Kerry does not (and mind you I loathe the thought of a tax raise, but W has put us in that position)

W lied and rushed us into war we did not have to fight, certainly Kerry gave W the authority to do so, but Kerry says he would have excercised more caution and waited for the inspections to finish; I know this is specualtion because he was not the actual Pres. and did not have to make that decision ( :wavey: Dissention :laugh: ) but I believe him.

Kerry volunterred to serve his country with honor, W did not

There are more, but those are enough for me. So, I am actually looking forward to voting for Kerry. I believe in him I know no candidate will ever be perfect for me. So, I bet on the one that is the closest and that is Kerry That that will oust Bush is a boon.

For the record, I am not saying anyone has to think like I do. I am just saying that is why I am voting for Kerry and why Kerry is different than Bush to me. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

OH, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where in Bush's initiative it says that it's OK to "support religious proselytizing" and that it isn't necessary to respect civil rights.

Civil rights have taken a shot all right, but not there as much as in the measure your boy Kerry voted for, The Patriot Act.

You ain't proved bupkus.

Actually, all of these purported hateful and new police investigatory tactics the PA allegedly created were pretty much all (I do not know all of them :laugh: ) avaiolable under other Federal Acts. So, all of this "the PA created unprecedented police power" is just not true. One of those other acts was RICO and the expansion of RICO into the civil arena. RICO was the IMO single largest blow to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searchs and seizures and it has been on the books for years. Moreover, Congress and the courts have expanded the scope of RICO far beyond the original intent to capture the mob on intrastate racketerring charges. So, the PA, while still frightening to me, is really nothing new to me. Hopefully, it will expire.

[gldstwmn]

Tell me you're not tuning in. If so, bless you. I hope Pickles took her Exlax so that she doesn't look so constipated on national television, at least for your sake. :p

On another note, I was visually assaulted at the supermarket the other day when I saw Pickles and Bunnypants on the cover of Ladies Home Journal. Ladies, stay away from your journal this month.

I ended up taking a bsuiness call, so I only caught the last three minutes. I will take a Valium and tune in a 10. The last three minutes were him repeating the same thing over and over and her looking at him like "Are you ****ting me?" Priceless.

[gldstwmn]

I'm not trying to turn anyone against anyone. I was using your own words to point out you were trying to excuse inexcusable behavior.

I called it "reprehensible." Consult your Miriam Webster. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

It was not a bad interview. It was just the typical W speak :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Your robot-like automatic defense of the man has ruined your credibility. You're just a partisan who refuses to deal with the facts.

The only missing facts here belong to you.

[gldstwmn]

Hogwash. As if that's even enforceable. Hello, take a call from reality.

It was enforceable prior to 1996.

[strandinthewind]

Kerry on economy:

Kerry wraps up coast-to-coast tour
Heads toward Oregon to finish battleground campaign



CARSON, California (AP) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry criticized President Bush's tax cuts on Thursday, arguing that they failed to create the jobs and spur the economic growth that the Republican predicted.

"Over the last four years, again and again, we were promised that tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals would create millions of new jobs," Kerry said in a speech prepared for delivery at California State University Dominguez Hills. "Instead, we've lost jobs, and these unaffordable tax cuts have led America into deficits as far as the eye can see."

Since Bush took office, 1.1 million jobs have been lost, and last week, the government reported that just 32,000 net jobs were added in July, the smallest gain in hiring since December.

Kerry's coast-to-coast campaign tour comes to a close as it heads through California to Oregon and the Democratic presidential nominee begins a two-week drive to promote his economic and tax plans.

Oregon is closely contested territory, and recent polls show it might be starting to lean slightly toward Kerry.

President Bush lost the state in 2000 by less than half of 1 percentage point.

Bush plans his own swing into Oregon this week.

The Bush and Kerry campaigns have plotted similar courses across the American map recently as they vie for an edge in battleground states.

Kerry shifts his focus to taxes and jobs as the campaign's trek from the Atlantic to the Pacific comes to a close. (Kerry talks prescription drugs)

Kerry has been hammering Bush's economic record, criticizing slow job growth and large deficits occurring under Bush's watch.

"If you believe what they've been telling us, you'd think we've turned the corner," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at a Thursday speech.

"When we've had four years of disappearing jobs that have put millions out of work, I don't think we've turned the corner." (Bush speech drops 'turning the corner')

Bush has said the economy is steadily making a comeback from hits taken from a recession and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Kerry's economic plan includes increased tax breaks for health care and college tuition, as well as an increased child tax credit.

Kerry has also proposed helping companies create jobs with a tax credit that would cover the employer's payroll taxes for a short time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/12/kerry.thursday.ap/index.html

[strandinthewind]

It was enforceable prior to 1996.

I am confused - please explain :o

[gldstwmn]

and Kerry made that VERY clear in his speech he gave around the time he voted. As for his statement about voting for it even knowing what we know know, I still think he was talking about voting for the authority, not the yard pass of responsibilty W took. I think from what I have read, the media is spinning it to mean Kerry agrees with Bush about the justification for rushing to war. That is not what he is saying. But, I think you all want Kerry to somehow come out and say Iraq never had WMD - I was wrong - I retract any prior comment to the contrary and Bush lied to get Iraq's oil. That is never going to happen - it would be political suicide. I actually admire his standing by his vote, even though though the outcome was not good.

He can't do it, you're right. He cannot do it. I am confident, however that he will govern far better than what he is being credit for right now.

[gldstwmn]

He could always tell Teresa to give up the SUV.

There are people out there who would probably like to harm Theresa. She also travels with her staff. What would be your preferred method of transportation for her?
I don't see you bagging on Bush for Cadillac One or all of the SUV's they drive around in.

[Johnny Stew]

When we started these discussions last spring, if you'd told me that anyone who was convinced it was necessary to vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush would eventually become so disgusted with Kerry, enough to switch their vote to a third party, I would have said you're crazy. Yet, here we are. At this point, I count three people I know who've come to this crossroads.

Wow, that many? They're practically dropping like flies. ;) :laugh:

I don't know why we're even all still having these conversations. Bush is going to win in November. We're all fighting amongst ourselves about why this candidate isn't good enough and that candidate isn't good enough, who's too liberal and who's too conservative, and who did this and who voted for what, and Bush is just going to coast right back in.

The only ones that seem to not squabble are the conservatives. Even many of the ones who don't really care for Bush, are voting for him to keep a conservative in the White House.

I guess they figure that "too conservative" is better than nothing. But us liberals are all bent out of shape over who's not liberal enough, and can't come to any kind of agreement other than "my guy is better than yours."

Nose cut off.
Face spited.

Dubya might as well write his victory speech now. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Actually, all of these purported hateful and new police investigatory tactics the PA allegedly created were pretty much all (I do not know all of them :laugh: ) avaiolable under other Federal Acts. So, all of this "the PA created unprecedented police power" is just not true. One of those other acts was RICO and the expansion of RICO into the civil arena. RICO was the IMO single largest blow to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searchs and seizures and it has been on the books for years. Moreover, Congress and the courts have expanded the scope of RICO far beyond the original intent to capture the mob on intrastate racketerring charges. So, the PA, while still frightening to me, is really nothing new to me. Hopefully, it will expire.

Kerry is pushing to let it expire. W is not. :) :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

Wow, that many? They're practically dropping like flies. ;) :laugh:

I don't know why we're even all still having these conversations. Bush is going to win in November. We're all fighting amongst ourselves about why this candidate isn't good enough and that candidate isn't good enough, who's too liberal and who's too conservative, and who did this and who voted for what, and Bush is just going to coast right back in.

The only ones that seem to not squabble are the conservatives. Even many of the ones who don't really care for Bush, are voting for him to keep a conservative in the White House.

I guess they figure that "too conservative" is better than nothing. But us liberals are all bent out of shape over who's not liberal enough, and can't come to any kind of agreement other than "my guy is better than yours."

Nose cut off.
Face spited.

Dubya might as well write his victory speech now. :shrug:

That's right Johnny! My God, what was I thinking? You are right. We must give it up now. Just let W win. That way in 2008, the idealists can nominate...they can get...you know they'll ask...
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road


Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

[strandinthewind]

Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

BBWWWWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Actually, isn't Nader a Rupublican now - after all they are giving him financial support and helping him :shrug: Poor Nader - ego ego ego :laugh: Again, he has done some great things for the world, but he would be the worst Pres. in history because no one would work with him and he has come across as a little wild eyed and slightly insane in recent interviews :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

BBWWWWHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Actually, isn't Nader a Rupublican now - after all they are giving him financial support and helping him :shrug: Poor Nader - ego ego ego :laugh: Again, he has done some great things for the world, but he would be the worst Pres. in history because no one would work with him and he has come across as a little wild eyed and slightly insane in recent interviews :laugh:

Remember OJ? :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

That's right Johnny! My God, what was I thinking? You are right. We must give it up now. Just let W win. That way in 2008, the idealists can nominate...they can get...you know they'll ask...
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road

Then Glinda will wave her magic wand and everything will be just as it should be....

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I really think it's what people want. All or nothing.
Well, the idealists at least.
They'd rather ensure Bush has another 4 years in the White House (and that Republicans have God-only-knows how many years after that in the White House), rather than working together to cultivate some reasonable changes over a period of time.

As I've said before, I feel it's far more important to get the Democratic candidate in the White House right now... even if he isn't quite liberal enough for some tastes, and even if he's made some moves we disagree with... and then, having done that, start working to make positive changes within the party.

Some call it blind-partisanship... I call it realism, and our best chance to make the changes needed in ALL aspects.

But again, it seems that "all or nothing" is the preferred choice of many.

As far as this election is concerned, a candidate from an independent party is just not going to have enough votes to win. And it's unrealistic to think otherwise.
So all that this squabbling will get us, is a win for George W., and about 102 votes for an Independent candidate. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/IA-26/1/

What's your perspective on President Bush's faith‑based initiatives?
I thought they reached too far. I support faith‑based efforts to serve people. We've had faith‑based efforts to serve people for a long time in America. And different faiths do it in different ways. You have Catholic Charities that does certain kinds of work. You have Jewish Community Centers that do a certain kind of work. You have Methodist Centers and soup kitchens. And you have Latter Day Saints missionaries. I mean, there's all kinds of wonderful work going on, and I salute it and I applaud it and I embrace it. But the government shouldn't be funding it. It's very simple. And we need to draw that line. Excuse me ‑‑ that's wrong. The government shouldn't be supporting those things that are actually the proselytizing of the faith. But the services are important to us in many cases. And I am for supporting legitimate, separated faith‑based services that help communities to deal with problems like teenage pregnancy or soup kitchens for people who need to be fed or things like that. That's very legitimate work. And I think there is a way for us to be supportive of it.

[Johnny Stew]

What's your perspective on President Bush's faith‑based initiatives?
I thought they reached too far. I support faith‑based efforts to serve people. We've had faith‑based efforts to serve people for a long time in America. And different faiths do it in different ways. You have Catholic Charities that does certain kinds of work. You have Jewish Community Centers that do a certain kind of work. You have Methodist Centers and soup kitchens. And you have Latter Day Saints missionaries. I mean, there's all kinds of wonderful work going on, and I salute it and I applaud it and I embrace it. But the government shouldn't be funding it. It's very simple. And we need to draw that line. Excuse me ‑‑ that's wrong. The government shouldn't be supporting those things that are actually the proselytizing of the faith. But the services are important to us in many cases. And I am for supporting legitimate, separated faith‑based services that help communities to deal with problems like teenage pregnancy or soup kitchens for people who need to be fed or things like that. That's very legitimate work. And I think there is a way for us to be supportive of it.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But then, I'm not looking for every little excuse to lambaste the guy. ;) :)

[CarneVaca]

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[gldstwmn]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

[CarneVaca]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And there you have it. This is the same kind of behavior you were defending before on DU.

[gldstwmn]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But then, I'm not looking for every little excuse to lambaste the guy. ;) :)

That interview was from December 16, 2003. His position has not changed. And yes, it is reasonable.

[CarneVaca]

You guys who are defending this faith-based nonsense are full of crap. Did you support it when Bush launched it? Now that Kerry says it's OK, you're OK with it?

I am going to be rolling on the floor laughing on Nov. 3 when the Democrats once again lose because they managed to confuse the masses with their Republican Lite message. Then you'll all be bitching about how it's Nader's fault. Or the media's fault. But never because it's the party's fault for its cowardly take on the issues.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[gldstwmn]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

[CarneVaca]

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

F*ck Ralph Nader.

I know what I stand for, and it hasn't changed to suit the candidate. See, the candidate is supposed to represent you, not the other way around.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush. Hell, in Florida, a vote for Kerry is two votes for Bush!

[gldstwmn]

I know what I stand for, and it hasn't changed to suit the candidate.

Care to elaborate? Bet you don't. Keep in mind, it's two hours earlier here. :)

[strandinthewind]

You guys who are defending this faith-based nonsense are full of crap. Did you support it when Bush launched it? Now that Kerry says it's OK, you're OK with it?

I am going to be rolling on the floor laughing on Nov. 3 when the Democrats once again lose because they managed to confuse the masses with their Republican Lite message. Then you'll all be bitching about how it's Nader's fault. Or the media's fault. But never because it's the party's fault for its cowardly take on the issues.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Actually, I have never been totally against it as long as all faith based charities as well as non-faith based charities are eligible. Again, my only issue is that the private sector will find a way to abuse it and the thought of Pat Robertsongetting tax dollars rubs me the wrong way. So, no fence hopping here :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

I am going to be rolling on the floor laughing on Nov. 3 when the Democrats once again lose because they managed to confuse the masses with their Republican Lite message. Then you'll all be bitching about how it's Nader's fault. Or the media's fault. But never because it's the party's fault for its cowardly take on the issues.

Laugh all you want. Like I said, I'm not the one cutting off my nose to spite my face. :)

Plus, I'm still waiting for a good, reasonable solution from you, bud... and not "vote for anyone other than the Democrat, because the party is messed up."
But I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a good long time. :shrug:

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

A vote for an Independent is like no vote at all. :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

See, the candidate is supposed to represent you, not the other way around.

So, what you're saying is that you want a candidate with YOUR opinion, not his own. And compromise is a no-go. ;)

[gldstwmn]

Silencio? I thought so. You just stay up there in your ivory tower and snipe.

[CarneVaca]

Care to elaborate? Bet you don't. Keep in mind, it's two hours earlier here. :)

I don't care to waste my time. If you're that interested there's plenty of old threads you can dig up that expouse my views on just about everything.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[CarneVaca]

THE RAPE OF PHILOMENA

Silencing the Voice of the People
By WILLIAM A. COOK

Dissent disrupts democracies, yet without it there is no democratic discourse. That point struck home as I watched the Democratic National Convention unfold and realized that the voices of the delegates, the representatives of the common people, had been muffled by the preordained celebrants of the Kerry command. With rare exception, notably Jimmy Carter and Rev. Sharpton, no voice spoke against the appointed incumbent; no voice raised the rabble about the lies that led to slaughter; no voice questioned the silencing of the people behind the curtain of the Patriot Act; no voice damned the administration that dared to impose on Americans the impious "pre-emptive strike" policy that destroys the very concept of Democracy; no voice asked why America does nothing to respond to the silent genocide taking place in our name in Rafah and the refugee camps crammed together in Gaza; no voice lamented the incarceration of the Palestinians by the illegal wall made of hatred and racism erected by the notorious terrorist, Ariel Sharon; no voice blasted the erasure of western law by the acceptance of extra-judicial executions; no voices, not a sound. Why?

Recently I happened upon an apocryphal story told about the Nuremberg trials. Day after day an old man made his way to the front of the courtroom, slid quietly into his seat, and listened attentively to the proceedings. During the Adolf Eichmann hearings, he seemed engrossed in the man. His eyes never left Eichmann, as though he of all the prisoners might reveal some hidden truth that would give understanding to the horror of their acts. One day, with Eichmann on the stand, the old man uttered a strange, muffled cry and fell to the floor in a dead faint. Once roused back to consciousness, he was asked what caused him to faint. He said he had expected to see in Eichmann some visible monstrous flaw that would explain how the Nazis could inflict such pain and suffering on a defenseless people. He saw none. He saw only a common ordinary man like himself, like all in the courtroom.

Curiously enough, what this old man realized captures the reality of all human existence, "Custom is the principal magistrate of men's life," as Bacon put it. Eichmann went home after work, took off his uniform, ate dinner with his family, talked with the neighbors, and played with the children. He performed what he was told to perform assuming, as do we all, that our customary behavior as dictated by our society is correct. When that society controls the communication media, directs the employment opportunities, provides the resources for society's infrastructure, and provides the arguments that give motivation to its people, what is customary becomes the correct and acceptable order for living. A principled conscience does not exist in a void; it is framed by the narratives that shape a society. How else explain what is good for one is evil for another?

A Democracy must allow for the expression of multiple voices; it is the one form of government that can prevent the absolute control Eichmann represents in that story. That is what makes the muffling of voices at the DNC so abhorrent. But the question persists, what is gained by not raising the issues that divide the country? The answer resides, perhaps, in the hoped for possibility that a positive campaign will win voters' hearts, that a "smiling liberal" will beat a "compassionate conservative." Or the answer resides in the reality that Kerry and Edwards supported Bush's "invasion" and they would be contradicting themselves if they now ran against it, so the best they can do is waffle and claim it was badly planned. Indeed, they can't even raise the specter of lies because they either stupidly accepted what this administration said or they failed to research the details and failed to listen to the world's communities that argued against it. Or the answer resides in fear of retribution by the forces that control our media, the forces that capitalize on the billions that Bush is expending to prosecute his war, and the forces that support our ties to Sharon for whom we undertook the war as Phillip Zelikow, Director of the 9/11 Commission, has stated.

But muffling voices blunts exposure of truth. Varying perspectives become shrouded in ambiguous statements; conflicting views go unaddressed; the ordinary citizen hears nothing that demands serious response unless they happened by happenstance upon the remarks of Carter or Sharpton; they heard nothing that discloses the corruption resident in this administration as it conducts illicit business practices in Iraq using our tax dollars; nothing that exposes the fabricated news produced by FOX as it pretends to present fair and balanced reporting; nothing that decries the lies that seeped into American thought through the controlled media and brought this nation to invade another without provocation; nothing that questions the absolute control of American politics by corporate powers allowing starched collars to buy their way out of prison as the blue collars sit out their lives imprisoned for a felony; nothing that raises the alarm against the religious right that clamors for war while it damns the Islamic community for wanting it; and nothing that warns against the Neo-Con Cabal, infected with conflict of interest, for absconding with our Democracy by instituting illegal actions as policy in the National Strategic Security Report that upends the principles of our land by sanctifying behavior reserved heretofore for Dictators.

What a missed opportunity for the dissenting voice to be heard throughout the land! What a missed opportunity for the world to hear what the other half of the American people think! The sin of omission lies heavy on this opposition party. Ignorance of the issues can be condemned if the people refuse to reflect on evidence presented, but ignorance resulting from imposed silence concerning the issues cannot; rather, the condemnation must be addressed to those who disallowed discussion, open debate, and freedom of speech. The ancients understood the power of truth not told, of lies fabricated intentionally to deceive, to hide the true motive for actions, and they clothed this understanding in stories as dreadful as the perversity of those engaged in the deceit.

Ovid's tale of Philomela captures the consequence of personal desire fulfilled at the expense of another followed by the silencing of truth as it is masked by deceit. Tereus, Philomela's sister's husband, rapes her and rips out her tongue when she threatens to tell the world of his crime. That action he believes will silence her as he prepares a tale of lies about her death for her sister. But Philomela weaves the story of her shame on a tapestry depicting Tereus in his shameful act. That tapestry is brought to her sister, Procne, who reads the story of her husband's lechery and his lies in her sister's sorry tale of incest. What we learn from this story is simple enough: truth in time dissembles the most determined of liars, "Ye Gods! What thick involving darkness blinds/The stupid faculties of mortal minds!" Nothing can withstand the power of truth to surface: "My mournful voice the pitying rocks shall move,/ Hear me, O Heaven! And, if a God be there,/ Let him regard me, and accept my prayer," cries Philomela in the agony of her despair and deceit.

Consider the metaphorical reality couched in this ancient tale: those engaged and responsible for an insidious act of defilement silence all dissent that questions the truth of their hideous act. They fabricate a story that masks their rape of a people with a tale that places blame for the defilement on the people or on the weakness of the people to prevent the defilement. They present themselves as innocent bystanders suffering the consequence of the retaliation of the victim of the rape. They turn the victim into the perpetrator of the crime and the true perpetrator into the victim. So long as they can control the voice of the victim, so long can they deceive those who have not witnessed the crime. The DNC cut out the tongue of the dissenter. They silenced those who would contest the status quo, who would create a tapestry of truth that all might see.

William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, was just published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

http://www.counterpunch.com/cook08102004.html

[dissention]

and Kerry made that VERY clear in his speech he gave around the time he voted.

Ha. You should've read the email he whizzed off to us Massachusetts residents to let us know about his vote. One of the biggest pieces of drivel I've ever read, and if I still have it, I'll post it.

[dissention]

I ended up taking a bsuiness call, so I only caught the last three minutes. I will take a Valium and tune in a 10. The last three minutes were him repeating the same thing over and over and her looking at him like "Are you ****ting me?" Priceless.

I saw clips of it and Pickles, oh my word. No one has to wait until The Stepford Wives comes out on DVD, just tape the rerun of Larry King.

[dissention]

F*ck Ralph Nader. Maybe the house will fall on him.

:lol: BWAHAHA! Ralph sold his soul, unfortunately. He's already dead, my dear.

[CarneVaca]

:lol: BWAHAHA! Ralph sold his soul, unfortunately. He's already dead, my dear.

And Kerry didn't?

[dissention]

Actually, I have never been totally against it as long as all faith based charities as well as non-faith based charities are eligible. Again, my only issue is that the private sector will find a way to abuse it and the thought of Pat Robertsongetting tax dollars rubs me the wrong way. So, no fence hopping here :cool:

Sorry, I'm against all faith-based initiatives and don't believe that any government funds should go to any religious organization. Not in any way. I think Kerry's explanation on this issue is ridiculous and I certainly cannot be faulted for "looking for ways to lambaste him." Unfortunately, to hear him say these things is depressing to me. He's our only shot to defeat the anti-Christ and it really gets me down to hear him say these things. No faith-based initiatives now or ever, government dollars should not aid religious organizations period. I take separation of church and state to be just that, my dear. If Kerry wants to support religious organizations, let him break up his presidential salary and give it to those organziations. But don't tell me you're going to take my tax dollars and give them to organizations that promote the raping of young boys, promote a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, promote pro-life stances, and so on. Use my tax dollars to fight poverty and crime.

[dissention]

And Kerry didn't?

Of course he did, I'm not disputing that. He sold out the minute he voted for Iraq.

It's rather funny the conundrum I'm in now. I guess I could be considered one of those undecided voters. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I don't care to waste my time. If you're that interested there's plenty of old threads you can dig up that expouse my views on just about everything.



How's the weather up there?

[gldstwmn]

I saw clips of it and Pickles, oh my word. No one has to wait until The Stepford Wives comes out on DVD, just tape the rerun of Larry King.

I'd never really heard her speak at length before. Her diction is horrible. She sounds like west Texas trash.

[dissention]

I'd never really heard her speak at length before. Her diction is horrible. She sounds like west Texas trash.

She sounds more foreign than Teresa, for cripes sake. And the sly grin she has plastered across her face just like her husband drives me to drink.

[CarneVaca]

How's the weather up there?

If deep down I knew my positions are inconsistent and therefore really indefensible, I would be trying to shout down those who point it out, as you are. Fortunately they aren't and you can't shout me down, try as you might.

Kerry = Bush

[CarneVaca]

She sounds more foreign than Teresa, for cripes sake. And the sly grin she has plastered across her face just like her husband drives me to drink.

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying an American who is occupying Iraq and then moves to Canada is an Iraqi Canadian.

Sheer nonsense.

[dissention]

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying the Americans who are occupying Iraq are American Iraqi.

Sheer nonsense.

I looooooooooooooooooooooove Teresa. Her quirkiness is a major draw for me. She rarely censors herself and says whatever pops into her head, it's very refreshing and comes across as very human. Much better than the Stepford-ish Pickles Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry, I'm against all faith-based initiatives and don't believe that any government funds should go to any religious organization. Not in any way. I think Kerry's explanation on this issue is ridiculous and I certainly cannot be faulted for "looking for ways to lambaste him." Unfortunately, to hear him say these things is depressing to me. He's our only shot to defeat the anti-Christ and it really gets me down to hear him say these things. No faith-based initiatives now or ever, government dollars should not aid religious organizations period. I take separation of church and state to be just that, my dear. If Kerry wants to support religious organizations, let him break up his presidential salary and give it to those organziations. But don't tell me you're going to take my tax dollars and give them to organizations that promote the raping of young boys, promote a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, promote pro-life stances, and so on. Use my tax dollars to fight poverty and crime.

But they already effectivley are. Churches are exempt from some taxes :shrug:

Also, there technically is no "separation of church ande state" - all the Const. prohibits is the establishment of a religion a la the Church of England and it exspressly authorizes the freedom to practice religion, which again is realted to the idea of prohibiting ONE religion from being THE only religion allowed a la England under the Tudors. The govt. is in no way "establishing" a state sponsored one church if it funds all such charities whether they are faith based or not. So, while I object to it to some degree on the grounds you set forth, I am at a loss to see how the Const.'s Establishment Clause prohibits it :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying an American who is occupying Iraq and then moves to Canada is an Iraqi Canadian.

Sheer nonsense.

No, she is from there isn't she (I do not remember - but I think she is)? I mean most AA here have never even been to Africa and cliam this based on their relatives coming over about 200 years ago. So, while I get your objection to the occupation, I think she technically was correct :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I'd never really heard her speak at length before. Her diction is horrible. She sounds like west Texas trash.

See I think she sounds nice. I think she sounds intelligent and she made intelligent contributions last night even though I may not have agreed with them. But, I do not automatically want to hate her like some I know (I mention no names :laugh: ) :cool:

[dissention]

But they already effectivley are. Churches are exempt from some taxes :shrug:

I know they're exempt from taxes, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that I don't want my tax money going to religious organizations. If they want to give a dollar to the Catholic Church, give a dollar to Atheists International, too. Otherwise, don't use our money to further promote religious institutions. End of story.

Also, there technically is no "separation of church ande state" - all the Const. prohibits is the establishment of a religion a la the Church of England and it exspressly authorizes the freedom to practice religion, which again is realted to the idea of prohibiting ONE religion from being THE only religion allowed a la England under the Tudors. The govt. is in no way "establishing" a state sponsored one church if it funds all such charities whether they are faith based or not. So, while I object to it to some degree on the grounds you set forth, I am at a loss to see how the Const.'s Establishment Clause prohibits it :shrug:

Obvously not if they're legally giving money to these, in some cases, evil institutions. If the US governemnt wants to give money to Catholic, Christian, and Jewish institutions and call that fair, I'm going to call it bull****.

[sodascouts]

As I've said before, I feel it's far more important to get the Democratic candidate in the White House right now... even if he isn't quite liberal enough for some tastes, and even if he's made some moves we disagree with... and then, having done that, start working to make positive changes within the party.

Some call it blind-partisanship... I call it realism, and our best chance to make the changes needed in ALL aspects.



This is why Kerry's new conservative appeal is such a brilliant political move. He knows he can take people like you for granted, no matter what he says. So he works on the undecided, less liberal vote. Disingenuous but smart, because I do think most Democrats are like you: absolutely desperate and willing to justify anything Kerry does as long as the end result is ejecting Bush from the White House. This strategy makes perfect sense, if his assumption that he can take the Democratic vote for granted is accurate. If this assumption is inaccurate he's shot himself in the foot - but obviously he is confident enough in his base that he's not worried about that.

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

[dissention]

See I think she sounds nice. I think she sounds intelligent and she made intelligent contributions last night even though I may not have agreed with them. But, I do not automatically want to hate her like some I know (I mention no names :laugh: ) :cool:

I thought she sounded like a ditto-head.

[strandinthewind]

I thought she sounded like a ditto-head.

With all due respect, she could rarely sound anything but bad to you and Goldie just because of the sheer fact that she is who she is - so I think there might be just a little prejudgement and some possible prejudice there :shrug: :laugh: But, if you say you have none - who am I to tell you what you feel :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I know they're exempt from taxes, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm saying that I don't want my tax money going to religious organizations. If they want to give a dollar to the Catholic Church, give a dollar to Atheists International, too. Otherwise, don't use our money to further promote religious institutions. End of story.

. . .

Obvously not if they're legally giving money to these, in some cases, evil institutions. If the US governemnt wants to give money to Catholic, Christian, and Jewish institutions and call that fair, I'm going to call it bull****.

But, my point is while you can certainly have your opinion, no legal grounds clearly exist in the Const. to base it on if they give to all charities. That is not "establishing" one religion - which is what is prohibited. I do not see how it could be. Without a legal ground to prohibit this (and there very well may be one I do not know about because :eek: I do not know everything :laugh: ) , it can go into effect.

[strandinthewind]

This is why Kerry's new conservative appeal is such a brilliant political move. He knows he can take people like you for granted, no matter what he says. So he works on the undecided, less liberal vote. Disingenuous but smart, because I do think most Democrats are like you: absolutely desperate and willing to justify anything Kerry does as long as the end result is ejecting Bush from the White House. This strategy makes perfect sense, if his assumption that he can take the Democratic vote for granted is accurate. If this assumption is inaccurate he's shot himself in the foot - but obviously he is confident enough in his base that he's not worried about that.

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

You are correct. AND - while W shored up his base earlier this year, in his own way, he is playing to the middle and the middle in like 10 states as he knows that will determine the election. AH - POLITICS :laugh:

P.S. You are far too lovely and talented to vote for Bush :cool: ;) :wavey:

[dissention]

With all due respect, she could rarely sound anything but bad to you and Goldie just because of the sheer fact that she is who she is - so I think there might be just a little prejudgement and some possible prejudice there :shrug: :laugh: But, if you say you have none - who am I to tell you what you feel :xoxo:

I have none. To be honest, after the monster she shares a bed with was selected president in 2000, she was on TV a few days after the inauguration tlaking about education. And I agreed completely with what she said. Then her husband screwed it all up with his ridiculous No Child Left Behind trash and it became apparrent what she truly was: a ditto-head. I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but when she talks politics, she looks like a back asswards ditto-head.

[dissention]

But, my point is while you can certainly have your opinion, there is no legal grounds in the COnst. to base it on if they give to all charities. That is not "establish" one religion. i do not see how it could be. Without a legal ground to prohibit this (and there very well may be one I do not know about because :eek: I do not know everything :laugh: ) , it can go into effect.

Then tell me why they are allowed to selectively choose which religious organizations to give funds to? How can they fund one over another?

[strandinthewind]

I have none. To be honest, after the monster she shares a bed with was selected president in 2000, she was on TV a few days after the inauguration tlaking about education. And I agreed completely with what she said. Then her husband screwed it all up with his ridiculous No Child Left Behind trash and it became apparrent what she truly was: a ditto-head. I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but when she talks politics, she looks like a back asswards ditto-head.

Touche' - I have my hat in hand, my head is bowed, I am contrite :cool:

[dissention]

You are correct. AND - while W shored up his base earlier this year, in his own way, he is playing to the middle and the middle in like 10 states as he knows that will determine the election. AH - POLITICS :laugh:

P.S. You are far too lovely and talented to vote for Bush :cool: ;) :wavey:

Darling, his run to the middle is going to backfire. While his poll numbers are rising slwoly, so are Nader's, at an even faster rate. ;) It wouldn't surprise me that the reason for this is his ridiculous Iraq remarks over the last few days.

[strandinthewind]

Then tell me why they are allowed to selectively choose which religious organizations to give funds to? How can they fund one over another?

I keep saying they have to give to ALL - from the Son's of Satan goat's head soup line to Pat Robertson. All they have to prove is they are a charity because all charities (faith based or not) must be eligible for funds.

[sodascouts]

You are correct. AND - while W shored up his base earlier this year, in his own way, he is playing to the middle and the middle in like 10 states as he knows that will determine the election. AH - POLITICS :laugh:

P.S. You are far too lovely and talented to vote for Bush :cool: ;) :wavey:

Yes, and the extremists are very agitated by this. I think moderate Republicans are more open to changing their vote to Kerry, though, despite the common belief that the opposite is true. Hatred unifies, and most Republicans don't hate Kerry.

P.S. I like your persuasive techniques. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Darling, his run to the middle is going to backfire. While his poll numbers are rising slwoly, so are Nader's, at an even faster rate. ;) It wouldn't surprise me that the reason for this is his ridiculous Iraq remarks over the last few days.

Election day will be the surest way to tell that!!!! I hope you are correct!!!! :D

[dissention]

I keep saying they have to give to ALL - from the Son's of Satan goat's head soup line to Pat Robertson. All they have to prove is they are a charity because all charities (faith based or not) must be eligible for funds.

But they do not give to all at the present moment. And I am not optimistic that even Kerry's administration would give to all. Faith-based initiatives need to get the heave-ho, my tax dollars should not fund institutions that condone molestation.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and the extremists are very agitated by this. I think moderate Republicans are more open to changing their vote to Kerry, though, despite the common belief that the opposite is true. Hatred unifies, and most Republicans don't hate Kerry.

P.S. I like your persuasive techniques. ;)

I am going to offer to buy you an ice cream cone next!!! :cool:

[dissention]

Election day will be the surest way to tell that!!!! I hope you are correct!!!! :D

I hope I'm not correct! :laugh: I hope Kerry whips Bush into submission! But that still doesn't make me ecstatic over everything the man says and wants to do. ;)

[strandinthewind]

But they do not give to all at the present moment. And I am not optimistic that even Kerry's administration would give to all. Faith-based initiatives need to get the heave-ho, my tax dollars should not fund institutions that condone molestation.

True, but there is no Const. block to it that I can see unless they do not give to all.

[dissention]

True, but there is no Const. block to it that I can see.

Again, that's what makes me even angrier. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I hope I'm not correct! :laugh: I hope Kerry whips Bush into submission! But that still doesn't make me ecstatic over everything the man says and wants to do. ;)

Kerry will be hard pressed to do that - although I will agree anything is possible.

[CarneVaca]

No, she is from there isn't she (I do not remember - but I think she is)? I mean most AA here have never even been to Africa and cliam this based on their relatives coming over about 200 years ago. So, while I get your objection to the occupation, I think she technically was correct :shrug:

Methinks you missed my point, Jason.

[strandinthewind]

Again, that's what makes me even angrier. :cool:

Touche' :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Methinks you missed my point, Jason.

I though your point was that because her parents were part of a force that was not indigenous to Moz., she has no right to call herself an AA even though she was, I think, born there. If that was not your point, what was it :cool:

[dissention]

Kerry will be hard pressed to do that - although I will agree anything is possible.

I think it's going to be a landslide. Kerry's going to get at least 60% of the vote, mark my words. The economy is back in the toilet, economists are predicting it will get even worse by November, Shrub's sales tax mumbo-jumbo is backfiring, Najaf is pure chaos and spells doom for him, the Plame case is going to be blown wide open pretty soon; there's no more room for Shrub in Oval office, my friend! ;) :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I think it's going to be a landslide. Kerry's going to get at least 60% of the vote, mark my words. The economy is back in the toilet, economists are predicting it will get even worse by November, Shrub's sales tax mumbo-jumbo is backfiring, Najaf is pure chaos and spells doom for him, the Plame case is going to be blown wide open pretty soon; there's no more room for Shrub in Oval office, my friend! ;) :laugh:

I hope you are right - but then again, you pretty much said the same thing about HC being the VP :shrug: :wavey: :wavey: :p

[dissention]

I hope you are right - but then again, you pretty much said the same thing about HC being the VP :shrug: :wavey: :wavey: :p

:lol: Don't blame me, Dick Morris said the same thing. :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

Interesting point, Nancy. It would seem conservatives have something to gain from Kerry's election.

To wit:

The right wing's deep, dark secret

By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

One of the secrets of conservative America is how often it has welcomed Republican defeats.
In 1976, many conservatives saw the trouncing of the moderate Gerald Ford as a way of clearing the path for the ideologically pure Ronald Reagan in 1980. George H.W. Bush's 1992 defeat provoked celebration not just in Clintonite Little Rock but also in some corners of conservative America. "Oh,yeah, man, it was fabulous," recalled Tom DeLay, the hard-line Texas congressman, who'd feared another "four years of misery" fighting the urge to cross his party's too-liberal leader. At the Heritage Foundation, a group of right-wingers called the Third Generation conducted a bizarre rite involving a plastic head of the deposed Bush on a platter.

There is no chance that Republicans would welcome the son's defeat in the same way they rejoiced at the father's. George W. is much more conservative than George H.W., and he has gone out of his way to throw red meat to each faction of the right: tax cuts for the antigovernment conservatives, opposition to gay marriage and general abortion rights for the social conservatives, and the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives. Still, there are good reasons that, in a few years, some on the right might look on a John Kerry victory as a blessing in disguise.

First, President Bush hasn't been as conservative as some would like. Small-government types fume that he has increased discretionary government spending faster than Bill Clinton. Buchananite paleoconservatives, libertarians, and Nelson Rockefeller-style internationalists are all furious - for very different reasons - about Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. Even some neocons are irritated by his conduct of that war - particularly his failure to supply enough troops to make the enterprise work.

A second reason conservatives might cheer a Bush defeat is to achieve a foreign-policy victory. The Bush foreign-policy team hardly lacks experience, but its reputation has been tainted - by infighting, bungling in Iraq, and the rows with Europe. For better or worse, many conservatives may conclude that Senator Kerry, who has accepted most of the tenets of Bush's policy of preemption, stands a better chance than Bush of increasing international involvement in Iraq, winning support for Washington's general war on terror, and even forcing UN reform. After all, could Jacques, Gerhard, and the rest of those wimpy Continentals say no to a man who speaks fluent French and German and has just rid the world of the Toxic Texan?

The third reason for the right to celebrate a Bush loss comes in one simple word: gridlock. Gridlock is a godsend to some conservatives - a proven way to stop government spending. A Kerry administration is much more likely to be gridlocked than a second Bush administration because the Republicans look sure to hang on to the House and have a better-than-even chance of keeping control of the Senate.

A fourth reason has to do with regeneration. Some conservatives think the Republican Party - and the wider conservative movement - needs to rediscover its identity. Is it a "small government" party, or does "big government conservatism" make sense? Is it the party of big business or of free markets? Under Bush, Western antigovernment conservatives have generally lost ground to Southern social conservatives, and pragmatic internationalists have been outmaneuvered by neoconservative idealists. A period of bloodletting might help, returning a stronger party to the fray.

And that is the fifth reason a few conservatives might welcome a November Bush-bashing: the certain belief that they will be back, better than ever, in 2008. The conservative movement has an impressive record of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Ford's demise indeed helped to power the Reagan landslide; "Poppy" Bush's defeat set up the Gingrich revolution. In four years, many conservatives believe, President Kerry could limp to destruction at the hands of somebody like Colorado Gov. Bill Owens.

When the British electorate buried President Bush's hero, Winston Churchill, and his Conservative Party, Lady Churchill stoically suggested the "blessing in disguise" idea to her husband. He replied that the disguise seemed pretty effective. Yet the next few years vindicated Lady Churchill's judgment. The Labour Party, working with President Harry Truman, put into practice the anticommunist containment policies that Churchill had championed. So in 1951, the Conservative Party could return to office with an important piece of its agenda already in place and in a far fitter state than it had been six years earlier. It held office for the next 13 years.

• John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, writers for The Economist, are coauthors of 'The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America.' © Los Angeles Times.

[strandinthewind]

:lol: Don't blame me, Dick Morris said the same thing. :eek: :laugh: :wavey:

Yep, AND the right wing I suspect via Rove threatened the US with it for three years to raise money for the GOP :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I though your point was that because her parents were part of a force that was not indigenous to Moz., she has no right to call herself an AA even though she was, I think, born there. If that was not your point, what was it :cool:

That's about half of it. And an important half, considering the Portuguese were there exploiting and repressing.

The other half: Does she really expect us to buy her attempt to identify herself with real African Americans in this country? Isn't it silly?

[strandinthewind]

That's about half of it. And an important half, considering the Portuguese were there exploiting and repressing.

The other half: Does she really expect us to buy her attempt to identify herself with real African Americans in this country? Isn't it silly?

Regarding the latter, no it does not, but that does not obviate the fact that she is an AA - it just goes to her motive :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Regarding the latter, no it does not, but that does not obviate the fact that she is an AA - it just goes to her motive :shrug:

It does not!!!???? Jason, you either don't know enough about the history of the European colonization of Africa, or you're just plain silly now.

To equate a woman who grew up in a household of privilege in a family that was an occupier and treating the indigenous folk essentially as slaves, to equate that with African Americans in this country is positively astounding in its temerity. Surely you can see a huge difference there, no?

[sodascouts]

Interesting point, Nancy. It would seem conservatives have something to gain from Kerry's election.

To every cloud, there is a silver lining, eh? Not sure I buy into all of this reasoning, and that head on a platter thing frightened me, but I try to keep positive no matter who wins the election. And I happen to think a middle-of-the-road candidate is good for this divided nation.

[strandinthewind]

It does not!!!???? Jason, you either don't know enough about the history of the European colonization of Africa, or you're just plain silly now.

To equate a woman who grew up in a household of privilege in a family that was an occupier and treating the indigenous folk essentially as slaves, to equate that with African Americans in this country is positively astounding in its temerity. Surely you can see a huge difference there, no?

I suggest you are equating politics into the def. of the word. The word means a peson from Africa that has patriated to Amercia in way or the other. I mean I think anyone born or whose relatives came from Africa that is now an American can claim that regardless of their race. I think we ar arguing about two diff. things. I think you object to what you see as a blatant attempt of Mamma T to associate herself with negro AA. I am saying she was born there and thus can be called AA regardless of her race. I do not thnk she is trying to say she is a negro, etc. But, even if she is, that does not obviate the fact that she is an AA regardless of her play on words. Interestingly, her father, I believe and although I could be wrong, was a doctor who helped the poor.

In any event, I get that AA is almost exclusively aligned with negro americans. But, I think that was her point and she was using the paly on words to saw - I know where you come from. I think it was smart and clever. I do not think she meant to imply she was a desc. of a slave. BTW - aren't there AA here in America that were not desc. of slaves? Is someone who came over to the US in the 90's from Kenya not an AA :shrug:

[sparky]

This is absolutely sickening to me. It's just a refllection of where our society is and what many people want. I am completely against government money(some of it MINE) being funneled to any religious organization. Constitutional or not. I also don't think churches should be tax exempt. That is a joke.

But then again, it's a position that will probably get him more votes, or at least give some on the fence conservatives a little pause. It is a sign of desperation. He is kissing any butt he can stomach. I don't think he really believes in it for a minute. Of course he is selling his soul. Almost every politican has to. It is inherent in the system, IMO, and it is a consequence of wanting to WIN more than wanting to be right. This country is very conservative and religious. Other than the coasts, it's a pretty homogenous, cliched, by the numbers society. By and large.
Kerry is doing whatever he has to. I also think Bush is. I don't buy for a minute that he believes everything he espouses either. One of the reasons he is in power is that power MANY voting people actually agree with what he and his spokesholes are spouting. That is frightening to me, but there it is.

I am horrified enough by Bush that I would vote for almost anyone else. His policies are so offensive to me and everything I stand for that I truly don't think it could get worse. Not among the candidates available, that is. Am I settling ? Of course I am settling. I am dealing with reality. I think Kerry is too.

[CarneVaca]

Interestingly, her father, I believe and although I could be wrong, was a doctor who helped the poor.

And I'm sure he didn't have at least a half-dozen indigenous folk "working" for him. :rolleyes:

Whatever, Jason, you like to split hairs and dig in your heels no matter how outlandish and silly the position.

Teresa Heinz Kerry's attempt to identify herself with African Americans, which is what she was trying to do, is bogus. But then again, she probably can't help herself, considering her husband is a running bogus campaign.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[Johnny Stew]

This is why Kerry's new conservative appeal is such a brilliant political move. He knows he can take people like you for granted, no matter what he says. So he works on the undecided, less liberal vote. Disingenuous but smart, because I do think most Democrats are like you: absolutely desperate and willing to justify anything Kerry does as long as the end result is ejecting Bush from the White House. This strategy makes perfect sense, if his assumption that he can take the Democratic vote for granted is accurate. If this assumption is inaccurate he's shot himself in the foot - but obviously he is confident enough in his base that he's not worried about that.

And it's working on conservatives to some extent. I no longer think Kerry would be a bad president, if he follows through on these conservative statements. Despite the fact that I'm voting for Bush, Kerry's only trying to make himself more electable. If that means abandoning his liberal ideology, well... so be it. At this point, ideology is expendable in light of the greater goal: win. So, your point is well made.

Why is it that voting for Kerry can only be out of desperation and a willingness to justify anything in order to get a Democrat in the White House?
I don't think he's the greatest thing since sliced-bread, and I've said that on many occasions. However, I do most strongly believe that he'll be a better president than the one we have now.

I could ask why you're voting for Bush. If there are reasons beyond party loyalty, etc.
What has Bush done for you? Given where you work, does it not bother you that he has cut funding for college tuitions? Does it not bother you that he's cut funding that erodes the pensions of teachers?

Are you only voting for him because you're a conservative and so is he?

Truth be known, the Green Party stands for my ideals more than the Democratic Party, but I have no faith in David Kobb. What has he done? What experience does he have as a leader? He has never held a public office from everything I've ever read on him, and his biggest political claim-to-fame, is having done volunteer work for Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown's presidential campaigns.

And Ralph Nader... well, I've already expressed my opinion of him, and I will not vote for him now or ever.

So who does that leave me with?
Kerry or Bush.

I'm sure as hell not going to vote for Bush after all of the things he's done. As I've said, Bush has more than proven to me that he doesn't deserve another four years in office.

So the only candidate left that I feel confident would be a good leader AND carry at least some of my ideals, is John Kerry.

Someone once told me to vote out of hope, not out of fear. And that's what I am doing.
I am voting out of the hope that John Kerry, while flawed, is the best man for the job. And I am voting out of the hope that John Kerry, while not quite as progressive as I'd like, will be a vast improvement over George W. Bush.

I'm not compromising ideals, and I'm not engaging in blind-partisanship. I have weighed the pros and cons of the various candidates, I have weighed their experience (or lack thereof), I have weighed their positions, and I have given it all a great deal of thought.

Do I think Kerry is the absolute greatest possible president we could have? No.
But I certainly feel far more confident in him, than I do in the other candidates. And yes, admittedly, I also feel he has the best potential to unseat Bush... which, in my opinion, is a very important thing, when I look at MY ideals and when I see what Bush has done and is doing to this country.

[CarneVaca]

Truth be known, the Green Party stands for my ideals more than the Democratic Party, but I have no faith in David Kobb. What has he done? What experience does he have as a leader? He has never held a public office from everything I've ever read on him

Weren't you the one who not long ago argued that Kerry should be elected president since he hasn't held the office yet so we can see how he'd do? What makes Cobb different?

And Ralph Nader... well, I've already expressed my opinion of him, and I will not vote for him now or ever.

Ralph Nader has done more for you than Kerry ever did. You'll never admit it though.

So who does that leave me with?
Kerry or Bush.

Bush = Kerry
Kerry = Bush

[sparky]

Why is it that voting for Kerry can only be out of desperation and a willingness to justify anything in order to get a Democrat in the White House?
I don't think he's the greatest thing since sliced-bread, and I've said that on many occasions. However, I do most strongly believe that he'll be a better president than the one we have now.

I could ask why you're voting for Bush. If there are reasons beyond party loyalty, etc.
What has Bush done for you? Given where you work, does it not bother you that he has cut funding for college tuitions? Does it not bother you that he's cut funding that erodes the pensions of teachers?

Are you only voting for him because you're a conservative and so is he?

Truth be known, the Green Party stands for my ideals more than the Democratic Party, but I have no faith in David Kobb. What has he done? What experience does he have as a leader? He has never held a public office from everything I've ever read on him, and his biggest political claim-to-fame, is having done volunteer work for Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown's presidential campaigns.

And Ralph Nader... well, I've already expressed my opinion of him, and I will not vote for him now or ever.

So who does that leave me with?
Kerry or Bush.

I'm sure as hell not going to vote for Bush after all of the things he's done. As I've said, Bush has more than proven to me that he doesn't deserve another four years in office.

So the only candidate left that I feel confident would be a good leader AND carry at least some of my ideals, is John Kerry.

Someone once told me to vote out of hope, not out of fear. And that's what I am doing.
I am voting out of the hope that John Kerry, while flawed, is the best man for the job. And I am voting out of the hope that John Kerry, while not quite as progressive as I'd like, will be a vast improvement over George W. Bush.

I'm not compromising ideals, and I'm not engaging in blind-partisanship. I have weighed the pros and cons of the various candidates, I have weighed their experience (or lack thereof), I have weighed their positions, and I have given it all a great deal of thought.

Do I think Kerry is the absolute greatest possible president we could have? No.
But I certainly feel far more confident in him, than I do in the other candidates. And yes, admittedly, I also feel he has the best potential to unseat Bush... which, in my opinion, is a very important thing, when I look at MY ideals and when I see what Bush has done and is doing to this country.

I pretty much agree with all of this. Ultimately, I am a pretty Green guy, and much of the Libertarian ideals apply to me as well. However, until the two party system implodes, I am going to go with the best one left standing.

Actually, there are some Republican ideas that are similar to mine as well :eek:

But, they are old Republican values. I am certainly a fiscal conservative in my own life ( I like to make money and hold onto it. And make some more. And hold on to it). I don't think states should be messed with by the Feds so much. I think government should be scaled back.

Alas, the Republican Party was highjacked and it's soul was bought by religious extremists. It has become a real and present threat to the country, and frankly, the damage will take a long time to undo.

The country is SO polarized, and that is exactly the way the Dem and Rep leaders want it. Divide and conquer. This country will not toss the two party system or rebel against it until things get so completely screwed up that their daily lives are unmanagable. Don't suspect it will happen in my lifetime. But, keeping Bush will speed the disaster up. I think there's too much to lose. Too much has been lost already.

[Johnny Stew]

Weren't you the one who not long ago argued that Kerry should be elected president since he hasn't held the office yet so we can see how he'd do? What makes Cobb different?

My point... which was entirely lost in the back-slapping going on between you and Joe... was that you're convinced that Kerry would be a bad president, end of story. With no room for doubt.

I didn't say the fact that he hasn't been president yet, is WHY you should vote for him... just that, when compared with George W., there are reasons to believe Kerry would be a better president.

I also didn't say Cobb would be a bad president... I simply said that I have absolutely no knowledge of any political experience he has, despite all of the research I've done. And that concerns me. That involves just a little too much blind-faith for me, in an area where I prefer to be practical.
He has no more political experience than my Grandmother.

Does that mean he'd a bad president? Not necessarily. But it does mean that I have no reason to have any confidence that he would be a good one.

I have as much experience as Cobb, and you and I share a lot of political opinions.... would you vote for me, Carne? Simply because I SAY that I'm going to do this, that, or the other thing?
It would be as much of a gamble to vote for me, as it would be to vote for Cobb. And, admittedly, as it is to vote for ANYONE.
They all talk a good game, when they want your vote. What they do once they have the office is a different story.

And I am willing to give Kerry the chance to prove himself.
If, in four years he has not done that, then I won't vote for him again.

But, if he does prove himself, will you be big enough to admit you were wrong? Or will you simply continue pointing out any faults you find with him?


Ralph Nader has done more for you than Kerry ever did. You'll never admit it though.

Nader is a self-serving opportunist, who hasn't done anything good in the last 20 years.

Not to mention the fact that he owns up to $250,000 worth of shares of Fidelity Magellan Fund, which has investments in Halliburton and Occidental Petroleum. Two companies that Nader has claimed to be against, and has spoken out about.
If Ralphie-boy feels is so strongly against these companies, why does he own shares in a company that sends money their way?

He also makes investment profits from Enron, Ford, Boeing, Pfizer, Phillip-Morris, and others.
Talk about two-faced! Does he think that it makes it all right to make money from these companies, so long as he maintains his contempt for them the entire while?

So who do I vote for? The attorney with no political/leadership experience whatsoever, the two-faced self-appointed people's advocate with the immoral business dealings, or the conservative-liberal who has "more waffles than a House of Pancakes"? :shrug:

[Johnny Stew]

Bush = Kerry
Kerry = Bush

Vote For Cobb = Vote For Bush
Vote For Nader = Vote For Bush

[Johnny Stew]

I pretty much agree with all of this. Ultimately, I am a pretty Green guy, and much of the Libertarian ideals apply to me as well. However, until the two party system implodes, I am going to go with the best one left standing.

Alas, the Republican Party was highjacked and it's soul was bought by religious extremists. It has become a real and present threat to the country, and frankly, the damage will take a long time to undo.

The country is SO polarized, and that is exactly the way the Dem and Rep leaders want it. Divide and conquer. This country will not toss the two party system or rebel against it until things get so completely screwed up that their daily lives are unmanagable. Don't suspect it will happen in my lifetime. But, keeping Bush will speed the disaster up. I think there's too much to lose. Too much has been lost already.

I completely agree. I definitely feel big changes need to be made within the Democratic Party, and with the two-party system in general.

But I think it will be disastrous to allow the Republican Party another four years in the White House... most especially at the rate they're going.

Now is not the time to be sending little ineffectual messages. Now is the time to rally and tell the Republican Party that we've had enough. They've gone too far in their religious extremes.

The Democratic Party needs fixed, but that CAN be done. And it doesn't have to be done while we allow the Republican Party, as it stands, to remain in power.

I'm willing to do the work it takes, and invest the time it takes, to make gradual changes.
I am not willing to allow all hell to break loose, in order for change to come about.

[gldstwmn]

She sounds more foreign than Teresa, for cripes sake. And the sly grin she has plastered across her face just like her husband drives me to drink.

Teresa's accent is lovely. She speaks softly and eloquently, with a cultured diction.
Laura sounds as though she may have some kind of sinus problems. Uh oh. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

If deep down I knew my positions are inconsistent

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

[gldstwmn]

I like Teresa. But I gotta say, I had a good laugh when she claimed she's African American. That's like saying an American who is occupying Iraq and then moves to Canada is an Iraqi Canadian.

Sheer nonsense.

She was born in Mozambique. What do you call that?

[gldstwmn]

Darling, his run to the middle is going to backfire. While his poll numbers are rising slwoly, so are Nader's, at an even faster rate. ;) It wouldn't surprise me that the reason for this is his ridiculous Iraq remarks over the last few days.

Nader's poll numbers don't mean a thang if he ain't on the ballot.

[gldstwmn]

, Shrub's sales tax mumbo-jumbo is backfiring,

He flip flopped on that one yesterday. He no longer thinks it's a good idea.

[sodascouts]

I could ask why you're voting for Bush. If there are reasons beyond party loyalty, etc.
What has Bush done for you? Given where you work, does it not bother you that he has cut funding for college tuitions? Does it not bother you that he's cut funding that erodes the pensions of teachers?

Are you only voting for him because you're a conservative and so is he?




Did you know that Bush proposed additional funding for Pell Grants? $33 million. These are for low-income students who take advanced classes. This encourages excellence and, unlike Kerry’s proposal, does not stipulate whether one uses the grant for public or private colleges.

I’m glad you asked how this affects me, because as a teacher and a graduate student, these issues are very relevant to me. I’ve been careful to read up on the education bill that Bush passed. It was supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, you know.

We all want more money, sure. But throwing money at a problem doesn’t make it go away. Structuring the receipt of funds around the success of schools rewards people who try hard and motivates those who don’t. The same goes for individual students, as shown by the Pell Grant funding. I think these are good ideas - and they represent the mentality of the "real world" once these students get out of college. Once you've graduated and landed a job, you're going to be expected to produce, or you're not going to advance. Why don't we hold educators to the same standards, when they're so vital to our future?

So there you go. :)

[gldstwmn]

Did you know that Bush proposed additional funding for Pell Grants? $33 million. These are for low-income students who take advanced classes. This encourages excellence and, unlike Kerry’s proposal, does not stipulate whether one uses the grant for public or private colleges.



I'd be interested in reading more about that. However, I can't seem to find anything. I did find this:

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel4704.html

Bush's New Pell Grant Proposal Denies Aid to More
Than 5 Million Low and Middle-Income Students


Wednesday, April 7, 2004
WASHINGTON -- President Bush proposed changes to the federal Pell Grant program while visiting Arkansas yesterday. Representative George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House education committee, issued the following statement in response to the proposal:

“Yesterday, President Bush proposed awarding additional $5,000 grants to a select group of Pell Grant recipients to study math or science in college. Bush’s plan would benefit only 20,000 students, or less than 1 percent of all students who receive Pell Grants. But for the millions of other college freshmen struggling with the high cost of a higher education, President Bush has yet to make good on his promise to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. In fact, in each of the last three years, Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell award. As a result, the purchasing power of the Pell is now the weakest it has been in 30 years.

“The President is trying to get to his promised $5,100 award on the cheap, hoping that the millions of college students to whom he has broken his promise won't notice. President Bush needs to make college more affordable for all students and their families, not just a select few.

“Even worse, the President proposes to pay for the new awards by cutting Pell grants to other low- and middle-income students by imposing a new cap on the number of years that non-traditional students - many of whom work full-time and are raising families - can take to earn an Associates’ degree. Under current law, students must already meet academic progress goals defined by each institution (referred to as “satisfactory progress”) in order to receive a Pell grant, a requirement that keeps students from receiving more aid than reasonably necessary to complete a degree.

“President Bush’s proposal denies more than 5 million low and middle-income students, or 99 percent of all Pell Grant recipients, the opportunity to earn an affordable college degree. His proposal punishes students working towards a degree, while raising a family and holding down a job.”

[gldstwmn]

http://www.badgerherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/08/4074cb2d26e8c

Bush puts time limit on Pell-grant collection

by Stacy Waite, College Editor
April 08, 2004

President George W. Bush proposed placing a time limit on students' access to their Pell grants Tuesday. Under the plan, President Bush will use the newly available money to fund a new program that promotes mathematic and science education in low-income students.
The plan allocates an additional $5,000 in Pell-grant funding to 20,000 low-income students who already receive Pell-grant funding to study mathematics or the sciences in higher-education institutions.

President Bush proposed an eight-year time limit on the Pell-grant funding for a student who is enrolled at a four-year university, such as the University of Wisconsin, and a four-year cap on Pell-grant funding for students enrolled at community colleges.

In addition to partly funding the new $100 million plan to increase mathematics and science education for low-income students, President Bush said the time cap on Pell grants will encourage students to finish college sooner and eliminate the abuse of the program "where students extend their studies excessively" in a White House statement.

Jane Glickman, a public information specialist for the U.S. Department of Education, said the proposed program is an example of organizations working together to create the most cost-efficient and working budget. "[The Bush Administration] is always trying to find ways to maximize money's worth to help most students," Glickman said.

Although the president's program provides funding for low-income students to learn mathematics and sciences, not all students who will be affected by the Pell-grant cap will be able to enroll in the program. Because the majority of Pell-grant recipients are not exclusively low-income students, the small window between low- and lower-middle-income families will be affected by the Pell-grant time limit but will not be eligible for the additional grants to study college mathematics or science.

Families that qualify as lower-middle income earn $40,000 to $60,000 annually, while families that earn $61,000 are classified as middle-income. Low-income families earn less than $40,000 a year.

Glickman said exactly how far the plan's benefits extend "depends on how you define low-income." Glickman said the majority of Pell-grant recipients earn around $50,000 annually, or lower-middle-income families.

Glickman also said even families that make between $40,000 and $50,000 do not receive the full Pell grant, and the only families who receive the maximum allowed Pell grants are those who "really need the money to go to college," very-low-income or select low-income families.
Professor of Educational Administration Jacob O. Stampen said although the time limits on Pell-grant funding are reasonable, the new program will not drastically change financial-aid benefits.

"It's just minor tinkering with [the financial-aid program] that's sort of typical of the administration policies lately," Stampen said. "A token here and a token there won't amount to anything or have any measurable effects (on student aid)."

Stampen noted the $3.7 billion shortfall of Pell-grant funding, which varies on a yearly basis because the budget is formulated only on speculation of how many students will qualify for Pell grants for the fiscal year.

"The amount of money isn't kept up with the costs, and that's a big problem with student aid in general," Stampen said. "I think the Pell [grant] hasn't been fully funded, or close to it, ever. [Funding levels for the Pell grant] are now farther away than they were, and tuition keeps going up; there are some big problems there."

Although Pell-grant levels have not increased from $4,050 for two years, Stampen said it is not likely the government will augment the grants anytime soon. "I don't think it's in the cards to raise it -- [the government] doesn't have the funding."

Stampen said "tinkering" with the nation's financial-aid funding with such programs as Bush's recent plan is not enough to make higher education more accessible to low-income students.

"The key is to look for things [in the budget] that have leverage, to look for actions that do change things and get us closer to achieving [the goal of college accessibility to low-income students]," Stampen said. "We're not doing that now."

[sodascouts]

I'd be interested in reading more about that. However, I can't seem to find anything.


Here's a fair site that sums up candidate's positions and even offers some counterpoints. I'll link to the page on George W. Bush's education policies: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Education.htm

[chiffon head]

a vote for bush is a vote for kerry...yes but what else would you like to see Carne?

Renee

[Johnny Stew]

Here's a fair site that sums up candidate's positions and even offers some counterpoints. I'll link to the page on George W. Bush's education policies: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Education.htm

His policies and his promises are one thing. Whether or not he delivers is something completely different.

His No Child Left Behind program sounded pretty terrific on paper, too. Until he all but abandoned it.

As I recall, he also made some pretty nice promises to our country's library system, and nothing came from that either.

From everything I've read, I have no confidence that the same fate won't befall the money he's promised to direct towards the Pell Grants program. Beyond that, his proposal is already shaping up to be another situation where those who need it the most, will benefit the least.

I'm still curious about any other reasons you plan to vote for Bush. ;)

[Johnny Stew]

a vote for bush is a vote for kerry...yes but what else would you like to see Carne?

He'd like us to vote for anyone other than the Democrats, so we can really stick it to 'em, and teach 'em a lesson. ;)

[The Tower]

I think it's going to be a landslide. Kerry's going to get at least 60% of the vote, mark my words. The economy is back in the toilet, economists are predicting it will get even worse by November, Shrub's sales tax mumbo-jumbo is backfiring, Najaf is pure chaos and spells doom for him, the Plame case is going to be blown wide open pretty soon; there's no more room for Shrub in Oval office, my friend! ;) :laugh:


Absolutely. No way will Bush win this year. No way. I'm betting every single person who voted for Gore will vote for Kerry. Then add all the people with a Nader hangover and those who are sickened to death of Bush/Cheney et. al. and the whole thing is in the bag!

[CarneVaca]

This is getting boring. One point, though, Johnny Stew: The goverment just conducted the first-ever rollover tests on cars and SUVs. You should ask yourself if that would have ever happened if Ralph Nader hadn't pushed for auto safety all those years ago.

What's Kerry done for you? You can't answer the question.

Kerry = Bush
Bush = Kerry

[Vianna]

Interesting discussion.

I don't want Kerry or Bush but who else is there who has any chance of beating Bush?

Bush must be removed from the White House. We have to think how best to do that. If it has to be Kerry then it has to be Kerry. I am afraid he can't budge Bush either. But I will do my best by voting for him :laugh:

Re: religion: I don't care what the issue is, if it involves religion of any kind the government should stay away from it. We DO NOT want religion mixed up with government. Period. Bush's far right born again Christian friends are to me one of the the most offensive things about him.

[gldstwmn]

He'd like us to vote for anyone other than the Democrats, so we can really stick it to 'em, and teach 'em a lesson. ;)

'Cause that worked so well for us last time. :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

What's Kerry done for you? You can't answer the question.

John Kerry has a distinguished legislative record. He and John McCain negotiated an agreement with Vietnam to provide a full accounting for POW-MIAs. He wrote the first bill reducing acid rain. He has repeatedly led the charge in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. He has passed legislation that shut down money laundering activities of terrorists and drug traffickers.

President Clinton Praised Kerry for Putting 100,000 COPS on the Street - "When we tried to get past six years of talking tough on crime but nothing happening, rhetoric and rhetoric and rhetoric and no action, to put 100,000 police on the street, to ban deadly assault weapons to pass the Brady bill, the other side, (the Republicans) led the fight against it. But John Kerry helped us pass the toughest, smartest, best crime bill this country has seen in many a day, and the crime rate has gone down for four years in a row. John Kerry was on the right side of history." (Public Papers of the President: Fall River, MA; 8/28/96)

Democratic Leader Tom Daschle Says Kerry Knows How to Get the Legislative Job Done in the Senate - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had kind words for John Kerry's work on Campaign Finance Reform when he asked Kerry to chair the Democratic Steering Committee: "From our teen-smoking bill to HMO reform and Campaign Finance Reform, John Kerry has demonstrated that he clearly knows how to get the job done. He is a valued and trusted member of our leadership team, and I am pleased he has accepted another term as Chairman of the Steering and Coordination Committee." (Daschle Press Release, 11/19/98)

Even Dr. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader Says Kerry's Global AIDS Legislation is a "Huge Step Forward": "'The Kerry- Frist bill is a huge step forward," said (current Majority Leader Bill) Frist. "It further validates U.S. leadership in the global effort to end devastation many countries face in the fight against HIV/AIDS'." (Office of Senator Frist, press release 7/12/02)

58 bills and resolutions John Kerry has sponsored over the years have passed the U.S. Senate. Countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the COPS program.

John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich's anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform. He has fought to raise the minimum wage. He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.

The number of bills that bear your name is a poor measure of legislative accomplishment. For example, Ted Kennedy, who most would acknowledge as the most accomplished Democratic Senator in a generation, has had just 9 bills signed into law in 10 years. Of the more than 400 bills Kennedy sponsored in 108th, 105th and 104th Congresses none were signed into law. And Bill Frist, the Republican Majority Leader, has sponsored 88 bills in the 108th Congress and zero have become law. In the 107th Congress, Frist sponsored 52 bills and 1 became law. It was a bill to authorize and urge the President to promote democracy in Zimbabwe.

---

[Johnny Stew]

What's Kerry done for you? You can't answer the question.

Here are some things Kerry has done for me. Hope you don't mind that I'm going to cheat and just copy & paste:

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)

I'd ask if you're satisfied now, but I know what the answer would be.

This is getting boring. One point, though, Johnny Stew: The goverment just conducted the first-ever rollover tests on cars and SUVs. You should ask yourself if that would have ever happened if Ralph Nader hadn't pushed for auto safety all those years ago.

I'm getting a kick out of the way you dodge any discussion of the dark-side of the guys you praise, but expect the rest of us to go out of our way in proving our points.
What's the matter... didn't have a response to what I posted about Nader making money off of the very companies he claims to be against? Or was the truth just too boring? ;)

Kerry = Bush
Bush = Kerry


Record scratched. Needle skipping.

[gldstwmn]

I'm getting a kick out of the way you dodge any discussion of the dark-side of the guys you praise, but expect the rest of us to go out of our way in proving our points.
What's the matter... didn't have a response to what I posted about Nader making money off of the very companies he claims to be against? Or was the truth just too boring? ;)
Record scratched. Needle skipping.

It's especially defeating to only be able to repeat the one great thing someone did 30-40 years ago. Even OJ won the Heisman trophy.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh, yeah... I almost forgot one of the important things John Kerry did for me: He served in the military to help protect the freedoms we all enjoy. :)

[Johnny Stew]

'Cause that worked so well for us last time. :rolleyes:

Yep, that really made them stop and re-think everything, didn't it? ;)

[Johnny Stew]

It's especially defeating to only be able to repeat the one great thing someone did 30-40 years ago. Even OJ won the Heisman trophy.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.theunitycampaign.org/

Pollwatch 04

Continuing Proof that Nader Helps Bush
Ralph Nader continues to assert he’ll help beat George
Bush. Nader’s communications director Kevin Zeese specifically cites a CNN poll in which John Kerry’s lead improves by 1% when Nader is included. What Mr. Zeese fails to mention is that the poll he cited is contradicted by 117 other polls – as is documented in the latest Poll Watch 04 study released August 2, 2004.

The Poll Watch 04 study covers every Bush/Kerry—Bush/Kerry/Nader poll conducted, nationally or in battleground states, from Nader’s announcement of his candidacy through July 26. It is based on data from the authoritative, non-partisan PollingReport.com, and sponsored by The Unity Campaign.

Of 121 polls in the study, 117 contradict Nader’s persistent claim that he’ll take more votes from Republicans than from Democrats. Of these, 93 show Nader takes more votes from Kerry, while 24 show no impact. 4 polls show Nader taking more votes from Bush, in each case by a percentage far within each poll’s margin of error.

Across all polls in the study, Nader gets an average of 4.3%, with more than 2.5% coming from Senator Kerry, and 0.9% from President Bush. That 1.6% average impact on the Bush/Kerry margin exceeds the winning margin from the 2000 presidential election in six states. Those six states had 59 electoral votes (Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, and New Hampshire).

The study spreadsheet provides all raw data in the study, including polls results, sponsors, dates and sources.

[gldstwmn]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5411492/site/newsweek/

By Holly Bailey
NewsweekJuly 19 issue - In his run for the White House, Ralph Nader is getting help from an unexpected source: Republicans. Of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors—individuals who've written checks of $1,000 or more—are longtime GOP donors.

Among the notable: Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland. Egan raised more than $100,000 as a Bush Pioneer in 2000 and at least $200,000 this cycle as one of the Rangers, the Bush campaign's most elite fund-raising circle. In 2001 Egan contributed $100,000 of his own money to help pay for Bush's Inauguration, while he and his family rank among the biggest contributors to the Republican Party in general, giving nearly $1 million to the GOP since 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And according to Nader's campaign-finance reports, Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort. Egan declined to comment to NEWSWEEK.

Another $2,000 contributor to Nader was Houston businessman and longtime Bush-family pal Nijad Fares, the son of Lebanese Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares. In 2000 Fares gave $200,000 to the Bush Inaugural fund. "Republicans are giving money to Nader because they want to prop up his candidacy," says Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Republicans and conservative groups in battleground states including Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan are also working to get Nader on the ballot this November. Democrats have sued to keep him off the ticket in Arizona, where, according to the state's Democratic Party, half of the 10,000 registered voters who signed petitions last month to get Nader on the ballot were Republicans. The state GOP committees in Michigan and Florida have announced efforts to collect signatures to get Nader on the ballot in those states. Meanwhile, in Oregon, two conservative groups—the Oregon Family Council and Citizens for a Sound Economy—financed phone calls to GOP voters encouraging them to attend a recent Nader nominating convention. CSE, which is headed by former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey, plans to take its campaign to other states. Nader last week rejected calls to disavow Republican efforts on his part, telling reporters that GOPers aren't doing much to help his insurgent campaign. Yet he seems to find some inspiration in his new supporters, telling the crowd at a recent rally, "I think I'll end up taking more votes away from Republicans than Democrats."

[dissention]

And I'm sure he didn't have at least a half-dozen indigenous folk "working" for him. :rolleyes:

That's pure assumption. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But surely you wouldn't look down on Teresa for her fathers behavior and who he chose to employ.

[dissention]

Teresa's accent is lovely. She speaks softly and eloquently, with a cultured diction.
Laura sounds as though she may have some kind of sinus problems. Uh oh. :laugh:

:laugh:

"Pass the straw, George."

[dissention]

Nader's poll numbers don't mean a thang if he ain't on the ballot.

Good point. ;)

[dissention]

John Kerry has a distinguished legislative record. He and John McCain negotiated an agreement with Vietnam to provide a full accounting for POW-MIAs. He wrote the first bill reducing acid rain. He has repeatedly led the charge in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. He has passed legislation that shut down money laundering activities of terrorists and drug traffickers.

President Clinton Praised Kerry for Putting 100,000 COPS on the Street - "When we tried to get past six years of talking tough on crime but nothing happening, rhetoric and rhetoric and rhetoric and no action, to put 100,000 police on the street, to ban deadly assault weapons to pass the Brady bill, the other side, (the Republicans) led the fight against it. But John Kerry helped us pass the toughest, smartest, best crime bill this country has seen in many a day, and the crime rate has gone down for four years in a row. John Kerry was on the right side of history." (Public Papers of the President: Fall River, MA; 8/28/96)

Democratic Leader Tom Daschle Says Kerry Knows How to Get the Legislative Job Done in the Senate - Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle had kind words for John Kerry's work on Campaign Finance Reform when he asked Kerry to chair the Democratic Steering Committee: "From our teen-smoking bill to HMO reform and Campaign Finance Reform, John Kerry has demonstrated that he clearly knows how to get the job done. He is a valued and trusted member of our leadership team, and I am pleased he has accepted another term as Chairman of the Steering and Coordination Committee." (Daschle Press Release, 11/19/98)

Even Dr. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader Says Kerry's Global AIDS Legislation is a "Huge Step Forward": "'The Kerry- Frist bill is a huge step forward," said (current Majority Leader Bill) Frist. "It further validates U.S. leadership in the global effort to end devastation many countries face in the fight against HIV/AIDS'." (Office of Senator Frist, press release 7/12/02)

58 bills and resolutions John Kerry has sponsored over the years have passed the U.S. Senate. Countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the COPS program.

John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich's anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform. He has fought to raise the minimum wage. He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.

The number of bills that bear your name is a poor measure of legislative accomplishment. For example, Ted Kennedy, who most would acknowledge as the most accomplished Democratic Senator in a generation, has had just 9 bills signed into law in 10 years. Of the more than 400 bills Kennedy sponsored in 108th, 105th and 104th Congresses none were signed into law. And Bill Frist, the Republican Majority Leader, has sponsored 88 bills in the 108th Congress and zero have become law. In the 107th Congress, Frist sponsored 52 bills and 1 became law. It was a bill to authorize and urge the President to promote democracy in Zimbabwe.

---

He also led the pack on the Iran-Contra issue. ;)

[strandinthewind]

He also led the pack on the Iran-Contra issue. ;)


That Democratic with hunt :eek: :eek: :eek:

JOKING :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

She was born in Mozambique. What do you call that?

I have relatives who were born in Angola and Mozambique. They were there as a result of their parents' being there as nothing more than exploiters.

They are about as African as Teresa Heinz is, which is to say not at all.

Interestingly, I have friends who were born in Cape Verde and they come from mixed families. Surely they have a greater claim on being African than Teresa, but just you dare suggest it and they'll bit your head off.

[CarneVaca]

What's the matter... didn't have a response to what I posted about Nader making money off of the very companies he claims to be against? Or was the truth just too boring? ;)

Don't flatter yourself. You have yet to make a decent argument as to why Kerry should be elected, save for his opposition to the amendment on marriage. Even then, he can't bring himself to say he outright supports gay marriage. But so it goes with John Kerry. Last week he had a perfect opportunity to distance himself from the disastrous Iraq war, but instead, he said without mincing words that he still would have voted for it knowing then what he knows today (a crock in itself because he should have known if I did) and admitted in the end he would have done what Bush did.

Kerry = Bush.

As for you trying to taint Nader, keep trying. But Kerry would probably have to serve four terms as president before he accomplished half of what Nader has to help the American public. If anything, Kerry has worked to chip away at some of what Nader has done. Nader gave us FOIA. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Another perfect illustration of how Nader has done far more for you and me than Kerry. You'll never admit it, I know

Kerry = Bush.

[CarneVaca]

That's pure assumption. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But surely you wouldn't look down on Teresa for her fathers behavior and who he chose to employ.

It's educated assumption. The shock would be if they hadn't had at least a half-dozen servants. Believe me, I know what I speak of here. Members of my own family were there.

This is a losing argument for anyone who wants to defend Teresa's pathetic attempt to call herself African.

[CarneVaca]

It's especially defeating to only be able to repeat the one great thing someone did 30-40 years ago. Even OJ won the Heisman trophy.

You mean like Kerry's Vietnam heroism? Or how somehow he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 when Nixon was telling Americans we weren't in Cambodia? This from the man's own diary. Problem is, Nixon wasn't even in office in 1968.

Funny how more and more of his Vietnam service story is looking more and more like Swiss cheese. And he brought it on himself by making the 2004 election about Vietnam. What a dumbass!

[gldstwmn]

You mean like Kerry's Vietnam heroism? Or how somehow he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 when Nixon was telling Americans we weren't in Cambodia? This from the man's own diary. Problem is, Nixon wasn't even in office in 1968.



The US most certainly was in Cambodia and Nixon was elected in 1968. What's your problem?

[gldstwmn]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004505.php

KERRY IN CAMBODIA....Instapundit links today to a piece in the Telegraph that quotes John Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley about the "Christmas in Cambodia" kerfuffle:

"On Christmas Eve he was near Cambodia; he was around 50 miles from the Cambodian border. There's no indictment of Kerry to be made, but he was mistaken about Christmas in Cambodia," said Douglas Brinkley, who has unique access to the candidate's wartime journals.

....He said: "Kerry went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off US Navy Seals, Green Berets and CIA guys." The missions were not armed attacks on Cambodia, said Mr Brinkley, who did not include the clandestine missions in his wartime biography of Mr Kerry, Tour of Duty.

"He was a ferry master, a drop-off guy, but it was dangerous as hell. Kerry carries a hat he was given by one CIA operative. In a part of his journals which I didn't use he writes about discussions with CIA guys he was dropping off."

So let me get this straight. Kerry did go to Cambodia — even though that was supposedly impossible, he did take CIA guys in — even though that was supposedly absurd, and he did get a hat from one of them — even though that was supposedly a sign of mental instability. The extent of Kerry's malfeasance is that instead of doing it in December, he actually did it in January and February.

Considering that he's mentioned this story only twice, most recently 18 years ago, and it turns out that his only crime is to have tarted it up with a bit of holiday pathos, I think I'll pass on following it any further down the Swift Vets rabbit hole. But thanks to everyone who displayed their deep unseriousness about this election by participating in this smear. It will be remembered.

[Johnny Stew]

You have yet to make a decent argument as to why Kerry should be elected, save for his opposition to the amendment on marriage.

As for you trying to taint Nader, keep trying.

You still have not said ONE thing in regards to the what I've posted about Nader. You conveniently overlook it time and time again. You haven't discussed it, you haven't debated it, you haven't even bothered to try and rationalize it... you just plain ignore it.
You sure won't ignore anything when it's in regards to John Kerry. You have your sticking points, and you don't want to see any other side of it.

I guess it's because it doesn't support your argument.

Ralph Nader has spoken out against General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, and their involvement in the arms race. Meanwhile, Mr. Nader owns 2,041,800 shares of General Dynamics.

Nader has vociferously spoken against Bristol-Myers Squibb, for marking up their wholesale prices twenty-times their manufacturing costs, making the cost for patients too prohibitive.
Mr. Nader owns 15,266,900 shares of Bristol-Mayers Squibb.

Nader has bashed Boeing on issues of antitrust.
Nader owns 2,908,600 shares of Boeing.

Nader blasted the mergers of British Petroleum with Amoco, and Exxon with Mobil, stating that the combining of giant oil companies allows them too much power to control the prices of gasoline for the consumer.
Nader has 24,753,870 shares of BP-Amoco, and 28,751,268 shares of Exxon-Mobil.

Nader also owns shares in Enron, Royal Dutch Petroleum, Chevron, Shell, Sunoco, Texaco, The Coastal Corp. (Gulf of Mexico drilling, coal mining), Raytheon (missle guidance systems), General Dynamics (warships), Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Monsanto (they make the pesticide, Roundup), Caterpillar, McDonalds, Proctor & Gamble, Phillip-Morris, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Circuit City, Bed, Bath & Beyond, Staples, and several others I didn't even bother to list.

Ralph Nader makes money off of companies that supply weapons for war, cut down rainforests, endanger wildlife and the environment, over-charge consumers, outsource jobs, and drive away small, "Mom & Pop" owned businesses.
The very same companies he denigrates and claims to fight against.

How do you justify that?

[gldstwmn]

Someone on a blog was kind enough to post this and okay it for use elsewhere. Since I think what these Swift Boat Vets are doing is despicable, I'm going to post in it's entirety since Canre is acting as though what they are saying is true. I'm happy to donate extra $ for the bandwidth. Thanks to Balta for this. Here we go:

On Cambodia
Ok, given the people in the comments who seem to be anxious about seeing my response to the Swift Boat people's allegation that Kerry was not in Cambodia as he claimed for Christmas in 1968.

This is going to be a fairly detailed look at the question, so hold onto your butts.

Having read this excerpt of the book by the Swift Boat people who might have known Kerry, here is a brief summary of the group's argument. First, Kerry has said repeatedly that he was in Cambodia for Christmas, 1968, and that this was an example of a war crime on the part of the U.S. - violation of the territory of a soverign country. He attacked Reagan with that memory in the 80's. It was also discussed in a Kerry Documentary book that came out earlier this year. Supposedly, Kerry even has a souvenir from his trip there.

However, according to the book, there are several reasons to question this story. First and foremost, the Swift boat people's suggest that there were obstacles in the way to prevent border crossings. Secondly, at the time, Kerry's boat was supposedly stationned/on patrol up to a city called Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian Border. And Third; the records of many of the officers that commanded the Swift Boats say that there weren't troops heading across the Cambodian border at the time, and Mr. Kerry would in fact have been punished for going there. These elements combine to suggest that Kerry has been lying about his voyage into Cambodia for Christmas, 1968. If you want more details, read the excerpt cited above.

Now that you have been educated on that side of the question, let's look at the other side, to see if it's at all possible that Mr. Kerry is actually correct. If its totally impossible that Kerry was in the area, that answers the question. Let's see what we can come up with on those matters.

First, I am going to deal with the easiest question in this; is it possible that Mr. Kerry could have been in Cambodia given his other whereabouts around that time. The answer to that is simply yes; it is possible. The only way it would have been impossible is if a.) he had put in for supplies or fuel at a location so far away from Cambodia where he could not have reached it given the fuel or the time or b.) his location could firmly be documented to be somewhere else on that day.

The first question is answered simply yes; these swift boats carried supplies and fuel to run about 400 miles, and could travel at speeds up to 20-25 knots. If Kerry had been at the location they suggest he was based at, he could have reached Cambodia in a roughly short trip, operated there for quite some time, and returned, without having to worry about fuel or food status in the least. Secondly, and this is the first time we are going to hit upon this problem which will come up repeatedly; there are no documents that say exactly where Mr. Kerry's boat was at the time. If there were, the Swift Boat vets would have had them; they have basically as much access as Kerry does (even more if you assume Bush support). If those documents existed that proved conclusively that Kerry refueled in Saigon at 3:00 a.m. on Christmas morning, we'd have seen them by now.

Therefore, it is not totally impossible that Kerry's boat was in Cambodia that night. Next, we will go 1 step further, and start to look at the military circumstances of the time. The Swift group alleges that there were significant obstacles to a boat crossing into Cambodia. Specifically, they allege that there were signs, boats, and even a landing craft in the way that would have stopped any boat from crossing the border.

But wait 1 second, let's think about the nature of the Mekong River in this area. If the Mekong were like the Mississippi around St. Louis, it would be easy to block off in this manner - there would be 1 channel and you'd just have to block it with 1 boat and a few signs. However, the Mekong is not like the Mississippi, in fact its actually far worse than even the Mississippi delta. The last map I linked to showed an area that was blue representing the river that was at least 5 miles wide. Here is a much better map, with more details. The Purple line in the map is the SV - Cambodia border.

On this map, you can see clearly, the Mekong is nothing close to 1 solid river in the area of the border. In fact, there are a large number of channels, with marshes, swampland, oxbow lakes, islands, and almost every other marine feature you could imagine inbetween them. If you zoom out to the full Cambodia map, you can clearly see that these channels are all part of the Mekong complex that runs down from the Himalayas.

Now, this does suggest a major problem with the Swift boat people's story; they say that there was an LCU (Landing Craft Utility) in the way that blocked the border. But wait just a second, given the large number of variable channels, islands, marshes, and different paths one could take across the Cambodian Border, how exactly would a single LCU be able to actually block the border? Short answer - it couldn't. You would need dozens of them. The swift Boats were small, floated light, and could go in shallow water - they could go through a huge number of channels without trouble. This passage in the book is designed to appeal to people who think of rivers like the Mississippi - 1 giant stream easy to block, when in reality this area would have more water-based paths through it than I can count. The maps prove that.

More likely, either there wasn't really an LCU there, or the U.S. really wasn't interested in blocking off the border completely - by having a single LCU there the U.S. could say that they had boats to block the border and it wasn't the U.S. boats journeying into Cambodia any time a foreign minister asked (even if the U.S. really was going in). Besides, given the sheer number of VC troops in the area of the delta at this time, an LCU sitting there would probably have been committing suicide. It'd be vulnerable to snipers, mortars, and everything else in the arsenal (will back that up more in a moment)

Now, this does point to a pretty big hole in their argument - they suggest that it was impossible for Kerry's boat to cross the border. But they cite at least this 1 barrier which is totally illogical. A few signs and a single LCU would have been basically worthless. You would need hundreds of signs and dozens of boats. And its not like Mr. Kerry would have had a GPS receiver to tell him where the border was. This does not bear well for their argument as a whole. But for now, lets move on.

The Swifty people also say that at the time there were other boats, PBR's which were assigned the area near Cambodia. This part I can confirm - the U.S. operated dozens of PBR's in the Mekong. However, given the fairly limited supply of PBR's, it is hard for me to say that their list of duties would have consisted of sitting next to the border to make sure no Americans crossed it. They may have been there to make sure no enemy troops crossed, but tactically for a boat, sitting still doesn't strike me as a wonderful maneuver. In fact, it seems like patrolling back and forth over wide areas would be a far better use of the equipment in question. Therefore, I feel It is more likely that they spent their time like many of the other boats; going back and forth on patrols and engaging the enemy.

Does that mean that there were never boats that sat on the border waiting for the enemy? Of course not. But I really have trouble believing that it was standard U.S. policy to leave these boats sitting ducks on the border without having them moving around a lot. In particular, I can cite this report from the U.S. navy, which I believe calls this suggestion into question.
Game Warden operations in the central delta registered only modest success from 1966 to 1968. Only 140 PBRs were on station to patrol many miles of river and canal. As a result, they could canvass only the larger waterways. Still, the Task Force 116 patrol forced the Viet Cong to divert troops and other resources to defense and to resort to less efficient transportation on smaller rivers and canals. During 1966 the task force refined its tactics, evaluated the performance of its boats and weapons in combat, and regularized its operational procedures. At the same time naval leaders repositioned the LSD and LST support ships inland because heavy seas at the river mouths made operations from there difficult. The year 1967 opened with the accidental loss of a PBR during launching operations from Jennings County and the first combat loss of a river patrol boat. These events foreshadowed a busy and dangerous year for the Game Warden sailors who boarded over 400,000 vessels and inspected them for enemy personnel and contraband. In the process, the River Patrol Force destroyed, damaged, or captured over 2,000 Viet Cong craft and killed, wounded, or captured over 1,400 of the enemy. However, the U.S. Navy suffered the loss of 39 officers and men killed, 366 wounded, and 9 missing in battle.
Reading that, it seems as though PBR units were often overstretched - for all the canals and miles of waterways in the Mekong, there were simply not enough of them to monitor every canal. So even this suggests that there were plenty of ways through if a boat was ordered to get around them, and on top of that, it is even harder to believe that there were ever PBR's permanently stationned on or even near the border. It is far more likely that they were used as patrol craft, moving back and forth in the waters and conducting raids on targets, which is how their usage is traditionally described (and how it is described in that piece). All of this suggests that their suggestion about boats stationned at the border on the Mekong simply doesn't hold water.

Unfortunately I cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, as I do not have the duty records for every single boat at my disposal. But at the same time, the only source they cite for it is the commanding officers at the time - they do not cite documents either. They cite 1 person, the commander of the smaller boats alleged to be assigned the area closer to the border. However, as with another point which I will discuss more in a moment, many of the operations dealing with Cambodia actually were operations where people had reason and even orders to lie. Is this man telling the truth? I cannot say, I am not him. But I can tell you that others dealing with Cambodia did not tell the truth about these matters.

Thus far, we have eliminated, or at least weakened several of the arguments which say that it was impossible for Kerry to be in Cambodia at the time in question. He could have made it there and back (even in the space of 1 day if he really tried), and it is highly doubtful that there was a real effort to stop people from crossing the border. This leaves 1 remaining point - the people interviewed who say that there were standing orders not to go into Cambodia. If they cannot be questionned, then Kerry would be the one lying.

Fortunately for Mr. Kerry, there is good reason to question the statements by many of the people who said the U.S. was not involved in Cambodia. Specifically, there is a huge track record during the Vietnam conflict of the U.S. putting troops into bordering nations where they were not supposed to be, and then denying it up and down the ranks.

Examples of this behavior abound. In Laos, the U.S. took air force soldiers, decommissioned them, registered them as civilians, and then used them to set up a radar station to monitor North Vietnamese activity. This base was attacked and destroyed, with several American civilians captured or killed. As far as the Military was concerned, for years afterwards it never happened. It was only questions by the families that forced those events out into the open.

In terms of Cambodia, the U.S. has a pretty darn poor track record also. For my first example, I will cite this quote by General Westmoreland, commander at the time in S.V.
"Over the years Cambodia, the border area of Cambodia, and, er ... and Laos, were used freely by the enemy, but, er, our ... by ... by virtue of the policy of my government, we could not fight the overt war or deploy troops overtly, military troops, into those countries."
That language is about as vague as the "Weapons of Mass-Destruction-related-program-activities" line muttered earlier this year. He stumbled through the line, and covered everything with the word "Overtly". Now if you can't read between the lines there, given that you already know about our adventure in Laos, then you're putting on some really big blinders. That's exactly what a person would say if they knew U.S. troops had orders to casually cross the border for short raids but then come back.

Secondly, another quote from that same show:
The trail wove through theoretically neutral Laos and Cambodia. Both suffered heavy American bombing.
Some of you will note that bombing Cambodia falls exactly within the realm of things which should have been prohibited. But we did it anyways. Having taken a Vietnam war class as an Undergrad, I can also tell you that there were times when American pilots were given orders to drop bombs at a specific location, after flying x distance in y direction, but were simply not told what the target was, because that target happened to be across the Cambodian border.

In terms of Cambodia, there were many of these sorts of deliberate deception operations undertaken by the U.S. to make it seem as though we were not engaging in military operations there when in fact we actually were. Those bombing missions were ordered but not recorded, and so on. Now, keep 1 thing in mind; in WWII, when we talked about deception operations, they were designed to make the enemy think that we were moving troops to a place we really weren't. But in Vietnam, we weren't trying to deceive the enemy in Cambodia - it's hard for people not to notice bombs falling around them - but in fact we were trying to deceive the U.S. population.

With regards to Cambodia, the Presidents felt that if the truth about our actions there came out, it would decrease support for the already unpopular war. Are you beginning to see now why there might not be records of Cambodian border crossings and why people might not know about them? If you wanted to cover up operations into Cambodia, you'd want people exaclty like the ones cited by the Swift Boat people who either were willing to lie about the operations or were simply kept out of the loop.

In fact, there is 1 more perfect example of something which was supposed to remain a secret from the American public with regards to Cambodia. In 1970, the U.S. and the ARVN launched a full-out offensive across the Cambodian border, supposedly aimed at VC strongholds. They attempted to do this in complete secrecy. But this time, the secrecy failed, and a short time after the invasion was launched the story got out. You might have heard of what happened in the U.S. when that story broke. Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young did a classic song about the results among the people. And Congress got so pissed that they rescinded the Gulf of Tonkin resolution over the invasion.

So overall, we have strong suggestions that there are good reasons to think that if operations were conducted in Cambodia, people would either deny them or not know about them. That leaves 1 remaining hole to plug - do we have a good reason to think that in late 1968, the U.S. was already conducting operations into Cambodia? The answer to that again is yes.

For your first example of this fact, I present to you this PBS documentary on Vietnam.
United States involvement increased, peaking in 1968 with more than half a million troops fighting in Vietnam. By 1969, the fighting had secretly expanded into Laos and Cambodia.
So just from that quote, it is clear that there were U.S. forces openly fighting in both Laos and Cambodia in 1969. Christmas 1968 is in fact very close to 1969. This suggests that its at least possible that the U.S. was operating in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968.

Equally valuable is this report of Cambodian leader Sihanouk from 1967, who in at least 1 press conference criticized the fact that U.S. forces were crossing the Cambodian Border. He does not spell out whether or not these were planes, boats, or ground troops.
PRESS CONFERENCE, November 1967
SIHANOUK: There is a contradiction between the declaration of friendship and respect from Mr. Dean Rusk on one hand and on the other hand your forces in South Vietnam continue to come into Cambodia and to kill..

INTERVIEWER: ...what is necessary...

SIHANOUK: ...our peasants and innocent peasants, innocent civilian servants
This statement also suggests strongly that the U.S. was launching incursions into South Vietnam at the time. If there were bombings in 1967, then given the events of the Tet offensive (which received significant supplies through the Mekong delta) it is virtually impossible to believe that the U.S. would not have escalated its efforts by late 68. With troops and men pouring across that border, the U.S. military was loathe to sit there and do nothing.

There is yet 1 more PBS piece which confirms U.S. cross-border operations as of 1967, which can be read here.

So now, to look at the big picture again, the overall picture we have is one where we know its possible Kerry's boat went to Cambodia. We know that the reasons for why it is said to be impossible for Kerry's boat to have crossed the border are lackluster. And we know we have reason to suspect that the U.S. was involved in Cambodia as early as 1967, and certainly by the early part of 1969.

So in the end, where have I built myself back to? Given every piece of information I have seen, it is entirely possible that Mr. Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968. However, there is simply nothing which can prove whether or not he was actually there other than Mr. Kerry and his ship-mates.

If they were in Cambodia, then there would be no record of it, given the fact that the U.S. made a huge habit of denying that we did anything in Cambodia, or Laos for that matter. On top of that, given the border situation, it is entirely possible that Mr. Kerry moved farther up the river and simply ended up in Cambodia - in most places the border wasn't going to be marked at all, there was no GPS, and the boat could easily have stumbled into that country if it were patrolling nearby. But none of this proves that Mr. Kerry was in Cambodia, nor does it prove that he was not.

Right now, the Swift Boat vets do have 1 member of the Swift boat crew who actually served alongside Mr. Kerry during the time in question as part of their group. If i have said otherwise before, I apologize and retract - Kerry has all but 1 of his actual crewmates on his side. The one missing is Stephen Gardner, a member of the Swift Boat group and the man described in the book with the words
At least three of the five crewmen on Kerry’s PCF 44 boat—Bill Zaldonis, Steven Hatch, and Steve Gardner—deny that they or their boat were ever in Cambodia. The remaining two crewmen declined to be interviewed for this book. Gardner, in particular, will never forget those days in late December when he was wounded on PCF 44, not in Cambodia, but many miles away in Vietnam.
Gardner's testimony is in direct contradiction to Kerry's, and at this point may be the only thing we can trust on the side saying Kerry wasn't there. However, his testimony is weakend by the fact that the authors of the Swift Boat book decide to confuse the truth by naming other people who served on that boat, but who did not actually serve with Kerry. Gardner is in fact the only one who actually served with Kerry who is not supporting Kerry - the remainder of his men were up on the stage with him at the convention. The fact that the authors decide it is necessary to lump together these three men, two of whom did not actually serve with Kerry, does a great disservice to their credibility. If they presented Gardner's accusation alone, it would be far stronger, since the other two men weren't acutally with Kerry on the time in question!

So in the end, right now I find it hard to say that we are looking at anything other than a classic he said/he said between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gardner. Every piece of evidence they give can be questionned without having to stretch too far. In terms of the Swift Boat allegation, things don't add up, there is a long sad history of lies, and even their story contains misrepresentations.

What we do see is Mr. Kerry saying many times that he was in Cambodia on or about Christmas 1968. And on the other hand, we have Mr. Gardner saying that the were no where near Cambodia. There are reasons to believe both of them. Therefore, it is hard to say that either one of them is totally right. There is 1 remaining thing which can correct this discrepancy though; the rest of Mr. Kerry's shipmates.

At this point, the men who actually served with Kerry have responded to the Swift Boat group by attacking it - for example, the man (Yes Mr. Novak, from another boat) who Mr. Kerry pulled from the water wrote this WSJ piece saying that the Swift Boat group should hang their heads in shame.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell we don't have anyone else from the Swift Boat on record either way on the Cambodia matter specifically. We have people expressing very strong support for Mr. Kerry, and we have Mr. Kerry's & Mr. Gardner's statements.

So overall, at least the Cambodia allegation doens't hold together upon close inspection, aside from the statement of Mr. Gardner. Given the evidence at my disposal, I cannot say firmly either way on the Cambodia issue. It is impossible to rule out Mr. Kerry's presence in Cambodia at the time, but it is also impossible to confirm that he was there.

This is how many things in the U.S. military with regards to Vietnam are - denials, lost records, things simply ignored, and things deliberately covered up. Therefore, it is highly possible that many of the people interviewed by the book simply don't have reliable information. In the end the best thing to say on the Cambodia question is this; if Mr. Kerry's shipmates continue to stand with him, with the exception of Mr. Gardner, then it will be the word of about 10 men versus the word of 1 man. And in that case, the word of the majority will rule the day.

In conclusion, upon deep inspection, the Swift boat veterans allegations do not hold together on a number of levels. Things they describe defy logic, it is certianly possible that the people they spoke to have reason to lie or be ill-informed, it is virtually certain that the U.S. was in fact operating in Cambodia at the time, and the Swift boat people have significantly weakened their argument by doing things such as adding extra names to their list of people who "Served" with Kerry, a move which significantly damages their credibility (especially considering the actions of the 2 main authors of the book).

In the end, it is the word of Kerry & his shipmates versus the word of 1 shipmate, whom for all we know is disgruntled over Kerry's condemnation of the war after it was over. Barring other members of Kerry's boat supporting Mr. Gardner on this question, I see no reason to take the Swift Boat allegation on Cambodia as fact at this point.

http://balta.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_balta_archive.html#109226370781753734

[strandinthewind]

Johnny - While I agree Nader is a schmo and a hyypocrit for owning shares on those companies if he is opposed to them, but I cannot believe he personally own that many shares. If he did, he would be a billionaire many times over :cool:

I think the most improtant question to ask about the integrity of Nader is why is he taking Rupublican assistance in this election. He allegedly despises both parties :shrug:

[dissention]

It's educated assumption. The shock would be if they hadn't had at least a half-dozen servants. Believe me, I know what I speak of here. Members of my own family were there.

This is a losing argument for anyone who wants to defend Teresa's pathetic attempt to call herself African.

Nice spin. You haven't addressed the issue I raised. You wouldn't hold the behavior of Teresa's parents and who they chose to exploit/employ against Teresa, would you?

[dissention]

You mean like Kerry's Vietnam heroism? Or how somehow he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 when Nixon was telling Americans we weren't in Cambodia? This from the man's own diary. Problem is, Nixon wasn't even in office in 1968.

Funny how more and more of his Vietnam service story is looking more and more like Swiss cheese. And he brought it on himself by making the 2004 election about Vietnam. What a dumbass!

I am shocked that you would put any stock in what those lying, treasonous swift boat vets are saying. I am shocked. I know you don't care much for Kerry, but taking stock in anything they say is more despicable than the fact that they're saying it.

[Johnny Stew]

Johnny - While I agree Nader is a schmo and a hyypocrit for owning shares on those companies if he is opposed to them, but I cannot believe he personally own that many shares. If he did, he would be a billionaire many times over :cool:

It's impossible to know how much Nader is worth, since he refuses to disclose that information
I wonder why.

I think the most improtant question to ask about the integrity of Nader is why is he taking Rupublican assistance in this election. He allegedly despises both parties :shrug:

I think the word you're looking for is "hypocrite." :nod: :)

[dissention]

I think the word you're looking for is "hypocrite." :nod: :)

"Whore" would work, too. Or "sell-out." Or even "part of the problem." :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

It's impossible to know how much Nader is worth, since he refuses to disclose that information
I wonder why.

Well, considering only about 100 people in the entire world are that rich and Nader's campaign is so broke that he is on the take from the R's, I highly doubt he is that rich. I suspect the numbers you quoted are the fund's total number of shares of which Ralph Bader owns a small portion. If the numbers were accurate, Nader who have a significant ownership stake in all those companies and be worth billions. There is just no way that is true.

[gldstwmn]

the Swift Boat Vet bull****:

1. You have to believe the Navy was wrong about a bronze star, a silver star, and two of three purple hearts.
2. You have to believe it's sheer coincidence that the Swift Boat vets against Kerry have records of supporting and contributing to Republicans.
3. You have to believe Bob Perry, a major Bush contributor who's financed the group, is just interested in the truth.
4. You have to believe George Elliott changed his mind and his memory from what he said in 1969 and 1996.
5. You have to believe Admiral Zumwalt, Admiral Hyland, James Rassmann, David Alston, and all the other crewmates of PCF-44 and PCF-94 are either liars, amnesiacs, brainwashed victims or partisan hacks (even though several, including Rassmann, are Republicans).
6. You have to believe Louis Letson treated Kerry's injury for the first purple heart, and suddenly remembered this one man's injury decades later, even though there's no documentation to support this assertion, he didn't sign the sick call sheet, and he wasn't a crewmate of Kerry's.
7. You have to believe the Navy's after action reports and medal citations are false, indicating it's very easy to get medals by making up stories.
8. You have to believe Roy Hoffman was lying when he said just last year that he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's record; and that he actually saw his boss, Admiral Zumwalt, award Kerry undeservedly, but didn't bother to tell Hoffman at the time.
9. You have to believe Larry Thurlow, cited in Navy after action reports as having returned fire on the day Kerry saved Rassmann, actually either didn't return fire, or fired at nothing, since the new claim is that there was no enemy fire; and that PCF-3, the boat he reportedly assisted, fell apart by itself, and was towed away by some other boat besides Kerry's, as reported, since Kerry supposedly left, making the Navy liars here again even in their reports on Thurlow himself.
10. You have to believe Shelton White, who says Kerry "betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam," considers saving lives "betrayal" or doesn't believe Rassmann could have died when he fell overboard.
11. You have to believe that when John O'Neill debated John Kerry on the Dick Cavett show in June 1971, he decided to keep Kerry's supposed cowardice, lies, and undeserved medals out of the discussion, despite hurling a range of other personal attacks and accusations far less serious.
12. You have to believe Jerome Corsi is a man of nonpartisan credibility.

[Johnny Stew]

I suspect the numbers you quoted are the fund's total number of shares of which Ralph Bader owns a small portion. If the numbers were accurate, Nader who have a significant ownership stake in all those companies and be worth billions. There is just no way that is true.

I believe you're right... Nader has $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund, and the amount of shares that I found being attributed to Nader, are most likely those that Fidelity owns in total.

Yet, that doesn't change the fact that Ralph still profits from these shares.

The shares that Fidelity Magellan owns, are a matter of public record, so surely Ralph isn't in the dark. Apparently he's not morally opposed to making money off of the very same companies that he rails against.

And for the record, I found out that, as of 2000, Nader was apparently worth 3.8 million dollars.
Not too bad for a consumer advocate, who boasts with every chance he gets that his needs are simple, and that he leads a very modest existence.

[dissention]

The shares that Fidelity Magellan owns, are a matter of public record, so surely Ralph isn't in the dark. Apparently he's not morally opposed to making money off of the very same companies that he rails against.

:nod:

However, Nader supporters turn a blind eye to all of that. But if it was a Clinton who said those things and still profitted, they'd scream bloody murder.

[Johnny Stew]

However, Nader supporters turn a blind eye to all of that. But if it was a Clinton who said those things and still profitted, they'd scream bloody murder.

Or if it were John Kerry. :nod:

[dissention]

Or if it were John Kerry. :nod:

Any Democrat would do, Johnny. ;) I love how some people accuse Democrats these days of turning a blind eye to reality, yet they're essentially doing the same when supporting Nader.

[CarneVaca]

The US most certainly was in Cambodia and Nixon was elected in 1968. What's your problem?

He was elected in 1968. I can't believe you missed that.

[CarneVaca]

You still have not said ONE thing in regards to the what I've posted about Nader. You conveniently overlook it time and time again. You haven't discussed it, you haven't debated it, you haven't even bothered to try and rationalize it... you just plain ignore it.

Not worth debating, Johnny. Go look up your candidates' campaign contributions before throwing stones. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans.

Kerry = Bush.

[CarneVaca]

Nice spin. You haven't addressed the issue I raised. You wouldn't hold the behavior of Teresa's parents and who they chose to exploit/employ against Teresa, would you?

This isn't about holding anyone's behavior against her. Technically she was Portuguese. Plain and simple. She was never African then, and she isn't now.

Look, I lived with this stuff. African-born Portuguese people wouldn't be caught dead saying they were African, rightly or wrongly. The point is she said it, and rather disingenuously so, to score political points. And it's silly because she'll never be able to identify with true African Americans. Give me a break.

[CarneVaca]

I am shocked that you would put any stock in what those lying, treasonous swift boat vets are saying. I am shocked. I know you don't care much for Kerry, but taking stock in anything they say is more despicable than the fact that they're saying it.

"Treasonous?" Hardly. Check the definition of the word. And I don't take stock in what these guys are saying. I even mentioned recently that I wouldn't take Kerry's reputed heroism from him. It's quite obvious these guys are agents for the scoundrel Republican machine.

The example I mentioned is simple. Kerry said he was in Cambodia in violation of U.S. law, pointing out that Nixon was lying about Cambodia while he, Kerry, was sailing up the Mekong. Kerry said this happened during Christmas 1968. Nixon was not in office then. Plain and simple.

He fibbed a little. And he also fibbed about throwing the medals out.

My point: I don't care a wit about his Vietnam experience and whether he was a hero or a pants-soiling coward. Doesn't make a difference to me. I wouldn't presume to pass judgment on anyone under those circumstances since I haven't experienced it.

But he made his campaign about Vietnam. Gldstwmn went to great pains to document the guy's Senate career. Yet, Kerry himself acts like he was never in the Senate. Never brought it up during the convention speech, instead giving us some "report for duty" bull****. He has provoked the attacks on him about Vietnam. And if it turns out he fibbed a little about a couple of things, which it seems he did, everything else gets questioned. You know how it works. I am merely pointing out that even in bringing up Vietnam he f*cked up royally. He can't seem to do anything right.

[CarneVaca]

It's impossible to know how much Nader is worth, since he refuses to disclose that information
I wonder why.

That's pretty simple, Johnny. Because it's none of your business.

[CarneVaca]

Any Democrat would do, Johnny. ;) I love how some people accuse Democrats these days of turning a blind eye to reality, yet they're essentially doing the same when supporting Nader.

You guys crack me up. So Nader owns a few shares.

Have you looked in your 401Ks, mutual funds, IRAs or whatever you have?

Give it up. You and I are all supporting the big corporations to that extent. It's virtually impossible not to.

Besides, Nader owning a few shares hardly compares to Kerry sucking the teat of the huge corporation he married into.

Get real, people, you crack me up.

[dissention]

This isn't about holding anyone's behavior against her. Technically she was Portuguese. Plain and simple. She was never African then, and she isn't now.

Look, I lived with this stuff. African-born Portuguese people wouldn't be caught dead saying they were African, rightly or wrongly. The point is she said it, and rather disingenuously so, to score political points. And it's silly because she'll never be able to identify with true African Americans. Give me a break.

I agree with you that she's Portugese and not African American, I do find her statement that she is laughable. But what I don't understand is why you even brought up that her father may or may have not exploited Africans. It had no bearing in the discussion and I don't see the purpose in bringing it up.

[dissention]

You guys crack me up. So Nader owns a few shares.

Have you looked in your 401Ks, mutual funds, IRAs or whatever you have?

Give it up. You and I are all supporting the big corporations to that extent. It's virtually impossible not to.

Besides, Nader owning a few shares hardly compares to Kerry sucking the teat of the huge corporation he married into.

Get real, people, you crack me up.

I wasn't speaking about just his stock in those companies, I was speaking in general about his questionable political decisions and affiliations, of which there are many. The only things fueling his campaign are his ego and Republicans who know that by helping him, they'll take votes away from Kerry and ensure Bush a second term. For Ralph to say that he'll take away votes from Bush and not Kerry is ridiculous. It would be a laughable statement if it wasn't so embarassingly stupid. What Ralph needs to do is give up the ghost and go back to what he did so much good for, because he's simply making himself out to be a fool and a laughing stock.

But, who knows, maybe the Newmanites brainwashed him. ;)

[CarneVaca]

I agree with you that she's Portugese and not African American, I do find her statement that she is laughable. But what I don't understand is why you even brought up that her father may or may have not exploited Africans. It had no bearing in the discussion and I don't see the purpose in bringing it up.

Dissention, I have given you more credit for being astute then your quote above appears to warrant. You're either deliberatly missing the point, or you're just being reluctant to entirely concede. I won this little side battle, so just admit it.

I brought up the fact that she was part of the European exploiting class. My point has no bearing on what her father did or didn't do. Doesn't matter. The point is he most likely had a half-dozen servants doing everything from spit-shining his shoes to washing his body crevices. As I said before, it would be shocking if he didn't, and for the purpose of this argument, it doesn't matter if he beat them daily or whether he was the most benign master to ever grace African soil.

The point, which I will make one more time, is that someone who was born into and grew up in the exploiting class trying to identify herself with the exploited class is disingenuous and cynical. All you have to do is agree with this point, and we're done.

[dissention]

The point, which I will make one more time, is that someone who was born into and grew up in the exploiting class trying to identify herself with the exploited class is disingenuous and cynical. All you have to do is agree with this point, and we're done.

My apologies, my dear, because I failed to pick up that message in your previous posts. ;)

When you put it that way, I agree with you.

[CarneVaca]

The only things fueling his campaign are his ego and Republicans who know that by helping him, they'll take votes away from Kerry and ensure Bush a second term.

I believe you're misdirecting your disgust. If Republicans are helping him unsolicited, how is he to blame? Furthermore, this kind of thing is at least as old as you and I are. The Democrats did the same with Goldwater. It's silly to harp on this.

For Ralph to say that he'll take away votes from Bush and not Kerry is ridiculous.

If you believe that he can actually "take away" or "steal" votes from another candidate, then I will grant you that he may be talking crap there. But if a candidate's objective is to get votes, then there is no such thing as "taking away" or "stealing" votes. The Democrats need to get over this loser argument and start focusing on providing palatable candidates that stand for something.

It would be a laughable statement if it wasn't so embarassingly stupid.

It's only stupid when you bring the sense of entitlement into the discussion. If Republicans and Democrats are the only ones entitled to getting votes, you may have a small point. But the fact that the two parties have colluded to corrupt the electoral process doesn't, contrary to what you or anyone else may believe, entitle them to all the votes.

What Ralph needs to do is give up the ghost and go back to what he did so much good for, because he's simply making himself out to be a fool and a laughing stock.

Why are you so willing to blast this guy, who has done so much for the American people, whom you yourself voted for? Why are you siding with the Democrats on demonizing the guy? The Democrats need only one little speck of sand to amplify and make him out to be some kind of devil, when their own candidate cannot seem to articulate a good enough reason to get himself elected. You yourself last week even lashed out at the faith-based initiative stuff. Why is it that John Kerry can screw up on a weekly basis but Ralph cannot have a small flaw?

[strandinthewind]

That's pretty simple, Johnny. Because it's none of your business.

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings. Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument. So, Cheney, Bush, Kerry, etc. all shoul;d not disclose their holdings because it is none of our business - they could be controlled by who knows whom and its none of our business :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You guys crack me up. So Nader owns a few shares.

Have you looked in your 401Ks, mutual funds, IRAs or whatever you have?

Give it up. You and I are all supporting the big corporations to that extent. It's virtually impossible not to.

Besides, Nader owning a few shares hardly compares to Kerry sucking the teat of the huge corporation he married into.

Get real, people, you crack me up.

I am real. I readily admit I invest in the company that will return the greatest profit. I readily admit I would shop at Wal Mart if I thought they had anything I wanted. I readily admit I do not care that much that these companies are horrible in some areas because I know that all companies do things I hate, but I have to shop somewhere :shrug:

Nader on the other hand came out publicly against corps. and said he would fight them if elected. It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak. That is just wrong. Moreover, no one makes him choose those investments. He can always choose lower yielding govt. securities. But, he does not. Why? Because he wants the money and apparently does not care that it is given to him by the same evil he protests. Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

[dissention]

I believe you're misdirecting your disgust. If Republicans are helping him unsolicited, how is he to blame? Furthermore, this kind of thing is at least as old as you and I are. The Democrats did the same with Goldwater. It's silly to harp on this.

Ole Ralphie has no qualms about accepting that unsolicited help. He's accepting help from the very people he claims to despise. Nothing will ever erase what Nader has done for the people of this country, but one has to question his motives at this point and time. I'm all for change and getting rid of the two-party system, but Ralph will not even be able to make a valiant effort to do so this time because of the rampant Bush hate. If it was another time with a different incumbent president, I'd probably be supporting Nader. But with this race, I think he's shown his true colors. Of course he has the right to run, but what needs to be questioned is why he's running now. I don't see the point because the only change people are dreaming of at this moment is getting rid of Bush, not changing the two-party system.

If you believe that he can actually "take away" or "steal" votes from another candidate, then I will grant you that he may be talking crap there. But if a candidate's objective is to get votes, then there is no such thing as "taking away" or "stealing" votes. The Democrats need to get over this loser argument and start focusing on providing palatable candidates that stand for something.

He said it, not me. ;) We can spin it in either direction, but he's stated on numerous occasions that his candidacy will take votes away from Bush. Like I said, it's ridiculous.

It's only stupid when you bring the sense of entitlement into the discussion. If Republicans and Democrats are the only ones entitled to getting votes, you may have a small point. But the fact that the two parties have colluded to corrupt the electoral process doesn't, contrary to what you or anyone else may believe, entitle them to all the votes.

They aren't the only ones entitled to get votes. What I'm trying to say, eloquently or not, is that his run is futile at this point and time. There's no purpose for it. I'd love to see the party system shaken up and have Greens and Indepependents made to feel welcome. But no matter how much the two of us want that to happen, it won't be happening this year and I suspect that Ralph's candidacy will only invite more scorn and a longer battle for ridding the country of a two-party system.

Why are you so willing to blast this guy, who has done so much for the American people, whom you yourself voted for? Why are you siding with the Democrats on demonizing the guy? The Democrats need only one little speck of sand to amplify and make him out to be some kind of devil, when their own candidate cannot seem to articulate a good enough reason to get himself elected. You yourself last week even lashed out at the faith-based initiative stuff. Why is it that John Kerry can screw up on a weekly basis but Ralph cannot have a small flaw?

Simply put, his political affiliations and actions over the past year have become questionable. I'm not looking to blast the guy, I'm calling it as I see it, whether you or anyone else likes it. Bush is the embodiment of the anti-Christ, Kerry is a coward who's more dull than wet crackers, and Nader is an egomaniac with questionable judgement. It can't get any simpler. I don't see his actions as "one small flaw," I see them as affecting his judgement. To say that it's only the Dems who demonize Nader is to forget reality. This is the same Nader who refused to attend the Green's convention in June, then had the balls to call them "crazy" and "stupid" after they wouldn't endorse him. Nice way to get votes, eh?

[dissention]

I readily admit I would shop at Wal Mart if I thought they had anything I wanted.

You would? I'm all for getting stuff cheap, but I wouldn't give a single nickel to that corporation.

[dissention]

Nader on the other hand came out publicly against corps. and said he would fight them if elected. It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak. That is just wrong. Moreover, no one makes him choose those investments. He can always choose lower yielding govt. securities. But, he does not. Why? Because he wants the money and apparently does not care that it is given to him by the same evil he protests. Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

:nod:

On the first day of Air America, Randi called him out on that and that's why he hung up. She made a crack about him speaking to her on the phone from his "comfortable" home and he hung up on her. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Dissention, I have given you more credit for being astute then your quote above appears to warrant. You're either deliberatly missing the point, or you're just being reluctant to entirely concede. I won this little side battle, so just admit it.

Nope, never will. Your argument is flawed because it rests on the premise that only people from Africa that were hauled over here on slave ships or similar acts can call themselves African Americans. I submit that is not so. In reality, non-enslaved African immigrants call themselves African Americans, some with non-pure African blood. I see this all of the time. So, I think your def. of the word is too restrictive. I mean can Egyptians immigrating to America call themsleves AA? I think they can. YOu call it splitting hairs. I call it a flaw in your argument. I think you are just angry because T H-K used this truth (she was born in Africa period - there is no getting around that) as a kind of charm in her speech. I seriously doubt she meant to say her people were enslaved, which is what they apparently would have to be under your def. of AA. I think she was trying to be charming and sweet. I think you are blowing this way out of proportion because you think T H-K is saying she is a descendant of slaves when she says she is an AA - I am arguing the term AA is not that restricitive beacause many people use it who do not fit that def. In any event, I know you will never admit your argument if flawed. So, I think this ought to be the end of this :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You would? I'm all for getting stuff cheap, but I wouldn't give a single nickel to that corporation.

We already had this argument awhile back. Again, I think all companies are flawed and all do horrible things. So, you gotta shop somewhere :shrug: Again, this is academic for me because there is no Wal Mart anywhere in like a 20 mile radius of me and I have never really shop there. I am more of a boutique store person and I LOVE Mall air, esp. in Neimans!!!! :cool: :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I thought all nominees for President had to disclose theirholdings.

Says who?

Plus, I cannot believe you actually made this argument.

Why not?

So, Cheney, Bush, Kerry, etc. all shoul;d not disclose their holdings because it is none of our business - they could be controlled by who knows whom and its none of our business :shrug:

You're saying it, not I. I said Ralph Nader's finances are none of our business. Think about it, Jason. I know you know the difference.

[strandinthewind]

If they do not have to disclose, then why do they do it. I think you are being purposefully antagonistic because if you are not, then you agree that Bush, Chaney, Kerry, and Edwards do not have to disclose. Do you believe that - note this is a yes no question :)

BTW - the Fedeal Elections Act requires such disclosure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Federal-Election-Campaign-Act

But, I think you still should anser my question because I want to see if you hold the R and D candidates to the same standard :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

It is impossible to believe that if he is profiting from their malfeasance as we speak.

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Then again, this hero of American truth and justice also has no problem with taking assistence from the R's in this election. If that is not a hippocrite, then I do not know what one is.

It's "hypocrite." But that's beside the point. A hypocrite is a candidate who lambasts a sitting president of waging a war and then turns around and declares he would have done the same thing. That's a hypocrite.

Second, this campaign assistance crap is a non-issue. The Democrats have done the same thing when it benefits them. They did it with Goldwater. Was it OK then?

[CarneVaca]

Ole Ralphie has no qualms about accepting that unsolicited help. He's accepting help from the very people he claims to despise.

And how, pray tell, should he "refuse" this unsolicited help? I'm all ears on this one.

I don't see the point because the only change people are dreaming of at this moment is getting rid of Bush, not changing the two-party system.

If that's the case, why do you keep wavering on Kerry?

He said it, not me. ;) We can spin it in either direction, but he's stated on numerous occasions that his candidacy will take votes away from Bush.

I know he said it, but that's not the point. I've already explained why.

They aren't the only ones entitled to get votes. What I'm trying to say, eloquently or not, is that his run is futile at this point and time. There's no purpose for it. I'd love to see the party system shaken up and have Greens and Indepependents made to feel welcome. But no matter how much the two of us want that to happen, it won't be happening this year and I suspect that Ralph's candidacy will only invite more scorn and a longer battle for ridding the country of a two-party system.

You're being inconsistent. Sorry, at some point, you're going to have to come to terms with what you want to do. Either you believe building a third-party movement is a worthy cause or you believe nothing supersedes the vote-out-Bush cause. You're wavering, and you're beginning to look like Kerry. ;)

[strandinthewind]

You're going to have to explain that one to me.


Nader asserts these companies make money via bad acts and corporate corruption - hence the term malfeasance. When these companies make money, their stock value rises and some pay dividends. Nader profits from these. Any questions?


It's "hypocrite." But that's beside the point. A hypocrite is a candidate who lambasts a sitting president of waging a war and then turns around and declares he would have done the same thing. That's a hypocrite.

Second, this campaign assistance crap is a non-issue. The Democrats have done the same thing when it benefits them. They did it with Goldwater. Was it OK then?

First of all I think all of us should watch it when correcting someone else's typos lest they do it to us :laugh: Plus, I cannot spell, so sue me.

Ah the hypocrite to a varying degree of evil agument. WHen it sinks to this level it usually means the one asserting it is losing as you are in this argument. Yes, W is a hypocrite. But, that does not in any way negate Nader's hypocrisy does it.

As for the campaign assistance, I think it is wrong of Nader to say he is the champion of the people wanting to get rid of the status quo in Wash. and then play their game. At the least, he should at least have the sand to say it is going on and he see and recognizes that, which I have not heard the great orator and exposure of lies say :shrug: If you can't see that (which I think you can but your heels are dug in :cool: ) - then this debate is pointless.

[CarneVaca]

Nope, never will. Your argument is flawed because it rests on the premise that only people from Africa that were hauled over here on slave ships or similar acts can call themselves African Americans. I submit that is not so.

Never said it. That's your assumption. I suggest you re-read my very last post on this. I suspect you're misreading my posts again.

I mean can Egyptians immigrating to America call themsleves AA? I think they can. YOu call it splitting hairs. I call it a flaw in your argument.

You're the one going down the path of definition of who is and isn't. It is besides the point. Saying my argument is flawed betrays sheer ignorance of the cold reality of how European colonizers saw themselves and those they were exploiting. You can talk around it all you want, come up with millions of flawed analogies, but the fact remains the following is technically inaccurate:

I think you are just angry because T H-K used this truth (she was born in Africa period - there is no getting around that) as a kind of charm in her speech.

It is not a "truth." Portuguese people born in African from Portuguese parents during colonial times cannot truly be called Africans. You just don't know enough about the situation, which is why you're making this silly argument. Not everything around the world can be viewed through the lens of the North American experience. You would do well to understand that.

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion because you think T H-K is saying she is a descendant of slaves when she says she is an AA - I am arguing the term AA is not that restricitive beacause many people use it who do not fit that def. In any event, I know you will never admit your argument if flawed. So, I think this ought to be the end of this :shrug:

And yet again. You think by repeating yourself your point gets clearer? No, you repeat yourself because you're on rhetorical thin ice and the repetition serves as self-reassurance that you have a point. But you don't. You're plain wrong here. I never said she was claiming she descended from slaves. For you to draw that conclusion is pretty goofy.

[strandinthewind]

So, only people actually from Africa who were not an accupying force can call themsleves AA? I submit that is not the way the term AA is used in practice. But, if you want to believe that, great.

BTW - it is a truth - I simply said T H-K was born there. That is the truth :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

If they do not have to disclose, then why do they do it. I think you are being purposefully antagonistic because if you are not, then you agree that Bush, Chaney, Kerry, and Edwards do not have to disclose. Do you believe that - note this is a yes no question :)

BTW - the Fedeal Elections Act requires such disclosure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Federal-Election-Campaign-Act

But, I think you still should anser my question because I want to see if you hold the R and D candidates to the same standard :shrug:

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

[strandinthewind]

If Nader is to play by the same rules, shouldn't the Republicrats allow him to participate in the debates?

Yes they should. But, they never will. This is a sep. issue from Nader being a hypocrite - but nice try :woohoo:

[CarneVaca]

Yes, W is a hypocrite. But, that does not in any way negate Nader's hypocrisy does it.

You're letting your emotions cloud your understanding of the facts and your arguments, Jason. I meant Kerry is a hypocrite.

[CarneVaca]

Yes they should. But, they never will. This is a sep. issue from Nader being a hypocrite - but nice try :woohoo:

Is it really? Why should he play by your rules when it's convenient to you? So he should follow whatever rules they deem proper right up to the debates when they tell him he can't play?

Surely you jest. I thought you had a greater sense of fairness than that.

[strandinthewind]

You're letting your emotions cloud your arguments, Jason. I meant Kerry is a hypocrite.

No I am not. I think they all are. BTW - you never answered my question about whether you think Pres. candidates ought to have to provide full financial disclosure?

[strandinthewind]

Is it really? Why should he play by your rules when it's convenient to you? So he should follow whatever rules they deem proper right up to the debates when they tell him he can't play?

Surely you jest. I thought you had a greater sense of fairness than that.

I am not the issue - Nader is. AND - I think it is unfair he will not particitpate in the debates. Next :angel:

BTW - who sets the rules for the debates. I think the parties just agree on them. But, I could be wrong.

[CarneVaca]

No I am not. I think they all are. BTW - you never answered my question about whether you think Pres. candidates ought to have to provide full financial disclosure?

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

[CarneVaca]

BTW - who sets the rules for the debates. I think the parties just agree on them. But, I could be wrong.

Yes you are.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, any third-party candidate that doesn't get matching funds should run however he/she sees fit as long as he/she does not go astray of the law.

I would bet you Dubya and Kerry have broken more campaign-financing laws in the past week than Ralph ever has.

No, he should not play by the same rules.

I think they should all play by the same rules :shrug: (Edit - by rules, I mean laws, etc.)

BTW - all of this spin does not negate Nader investing in and profiting from companies that he preaches against. Therein is hypocrisy unrealted to the R and D fell deeds you are asserting in an attempt to justify Nader's acceptance of R aid in the election.

[strandinthewind]

Yes you are.

well, elighten me silly :angel:

Or are you too angry with me for saying T H-K was born in Africa was the truth :laugh: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

I think they should all play by the same rules :shrug:

Oh yeah!? Well, then, start putting pressure on your party to allow Nader to debate. You, and the Democrats, want it both ways, Jason. It disgusts me no end that when having Perrot in the mix benefitted the Democrats they never batted an eye. He was allowed to debate. But when Nader happened, the Democrats turned up the demonization lever. Too bad they didn't expend the energy that they dedicated to Nader on their Republican opponent, where it belongs. And they're doing the same now. God forbid anyone come right out and openly criticize Bush during the DNC.

BTW - all of this spin does not negate Nader investing in and profiting from companies that he preaches against. Therein is hypocrisy unrealted to the R and D fell deeds you are asserting in an attempt to justify Nader's acceptance of R aid in the election.

I'm all ears. Explain to me how he should stop aid that he didn't solicit and that can happen regardless of his wishes. You have no answer because you know what the answer is.

And as soon as you comb over your 401K and expunge the corporations whose practices you oppose, then we can talk about Nader's investments.