Slashdot Mirror

The reason for this is often argued to be because of lawsuits which drive the doctor's insurance premiums through the roof.

This is false.

The reason for this is because we want the best healthcare system.

Define "best". One definition of best is having the best doctors, even if no one can afford them. That's the measure conservatives prefer. Or, you can integrate the quality of service times the percentage of the population served, normalized by the cost. That is, how well do we economically provide the best service to the most people? At that, the US is hardly the "best". For care given per dollar we're closer to the worst.

Judging by the record personal debt numbers, I'd say it's the credit card companies.

That's true, that could be personal spending is including more credit debt, but you can't say that all of it is. That still doesn't detract from the fact that people are buying things. Which means (hopefully) businesses will start doing what they need to continue to grow including hiring more people.

But, the minimum wage itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the vast majority of the jobs being created are the kind of unskilled jobs that typically pay minimum wage.

No, you can't really directly dictate what kinds of jobs get created, but you can wield significant influence by providing incentives for companies to keep those jobs in this country,


and to hire citizens over H-1Bs (or equivalent).


I think the H-1Bs issue is valid, although the case could be made that many of those that are hired (not all) are more driven to do well. But then that goes to another social issue I think that kids now a days are more interested in pop culture (movies, music, video games) and less interested in pushing innovation. I think that's the major missing thing in our countries educational system.

As far as outsourcing, it's not as significant matters as often made out to be. Plus many of the current "tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas" policies in place were put in place prior to the current administration.

Do you have a business degree? You certainly seem to think like an MBA, and sadly I don't consider that a compliment.

No I don't have a business degree or a MBA...

I am thinking about taking some business classes if I ever decide to start my own business or to improve my chances in the future beyond what my computer degrees can provide currently...


There are other options, like finding ways to make your existing employees happier, which has been proven time and again to make them more productive. Hint: this isn't achieved by treating all your employees like faceless cags in the machine which can simply be hot-swapped at will.


Agreed, but once again, I think that's a corporate matter, not a presidential or legislative matter.

I believe one of the ways business in general can do better is to do items such as that. One of the airliners (heard a story on NPR - think it was Market Place) was finding some cost savings by listening to suggestions made by the workers.


Isn't this a relative thing as far as job production goes?

I'm not sure what you mean here.


By this I mean, if you take job stats from any two points in time, you can easily make a case either way. If you take numbers during the depression as a job related stat and during a large job growth period like during WWII with the public works and war effort jobs being in play, then growth stats can be somewhat misleading a bit.

You can make the case right now that unemployment rates are lower now then during Clintons reelection bid.

Fear in the business world (due to terrorism, oil prices, or avoidance of another dot-com bust) has made many business reluctant to invest like the need to. Overcoming that investment fear is starting to occur which will hopefully drive the economy even more.

Changing the policies midway could add more variables to have to contend with with another few years before new policies can effect the economy. Or the next administration may reap the benefits of it.


(3) globalization

(3) is only partially independent, and probably the area in which the administration has the greatest influence,

Many of the free-trade agreements did start during prior adminstrations so some of that is not solely the current administrations doing, although they are making new free-trade agreements which th

Here you go, although I doubt anyone will get a chance to read this: www.factcheck.org's debunking of Kerry being the most liberal senator, etc.

Factcheck.org

The problem, some casual readers might think this is a professional news site and not realize its a news & gossip site from a man (Matt Drudge) with right wing view.

If you go over to Drudge.com You can read the Drudge Retort, a counter view from the left side.

I read many blog/news/gossip sites, but I like to know the views of the editors and owners. Would you blindly trust everything you read on the Internet? Most sites are not non-partisan, they lean and have viewpoints which cloud true reporting of the issues.

True non-partisan sites like Factcheck.org and Spinsanity.org have cleared up a some "Sound bites" from both sides. Why can't I get a news channel like this?

-
Partisan

When you are truly interested in a subject, you quickly learn to talk about it in such a way that you know how to pronounce the words and use them in an appropriate way, in a way that other people use them. For example, since you are commenting on Slashdot, you probably don't say "Internets".

During the vice-presidential debate, Cheney said viewers should go to http://factcheck.com/. He was wrong about two things: 1) First, the web site he meant was http://factcheck.org/, of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center. 2) Second, he was wrong about thinking he would get support from Factcheck.org: Cheney Plugs FactCheck. Instead, the web site truthfully points out the legal troubles of the company.
The problem is not that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have accents. The problem with Cheney saying "Internets" and "go to Factcheck.com" is that he is out of touch and uncaring.

Factcheck.org is NOT an honest web site. Instead, it is very slickly dishonest. If you didn't know how to check Factcheck.org's facts, you would not realize that Cheney's involvement with Halliburton is far more corrupt than the first layer of facts cited by Factcheck.org show. Cheney, while he was Secretary of Defense, arranged to change the rules of the Department of Defense so that no-bid contracts would be allowed. Then he arranged that only Halliburton would be allowed to get those contracts.

When you are truly interested in a subject, you quickly learn to talk about it in such a way that you know how to pronounce the words and use them in an appropriate way, in a way that other people use them. For example, since you are commenting on Slashdot, you probably don't say "Internets".

During the vice-presidential debate, Cheney said viewers should go to http://factcheck.com/. He was wrong about two things: 1) First, the web site he meant was http://factcheck.org/, of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center. 2) Second, he was wrong about thinking he would get support from Factcheck.org: Cheney Plugs FactCheck. Instead, the web site truthfully points out the legal troubles of the company.
The problem is not that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have accents. The problem with Cheney saying "Internets" and "go to Factcheck.com" is that he is out of touch and uncaring.

Factcheck.org is NOT an honest web site. Instead, it is very slickly dishonest. If you didn't know how to check Factcheck.org's facts, you would not realize that Cheney's involvement with Halliburton is far more corrupt than the first layer of facts cited by Factcheck.org show. Cheney, while he was Secretary of Defense, arranged to change the rules of the Department of Defense so that no-bid contracts would be allowed. Then he arranged that only Halliburton would be allowed to get those contracts.

Odd how they don't acknowledge that the economic deterioration began before he took office

Because it it wasn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both candidates simply recycled their flawed math of the previous debates and spewed feel good oratories while managing to avoid the real issues almost entirely.

Get the facts: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=259.ht ml

Then vote kerry anyway... cause it's not bush.

You mean the Patriot Act?
Not that I think that the Patriot act is totally ok, but leaving it up to the politically motivated ACLU to explain what it is is kind of a bad idea.

I agree that Michael Moore sometimes has an objectionable way of presenting material. But, as you are doing, many people talk about Michael Moore instead of talking about the huge amount of corruption he tries to document.

Here are reviews of 35 books that say the same thing as Michael Moore.

Here is just a little hint of the corruption: Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?

Here's another hint: George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?

Here's another hint: The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2: The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"?

Somewhat off topic...
During the debate (a few hours ago) Cheney incorrectly referred people to factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org.

It looks like the guy who registered "factcheck.com" was watching the debate. Check out where it redirects! BWAHAHAHAHA

1) The deferred compensation is cash, not options, so I think the reference to the 433,000 options is not referring to deferred compensation. All the stories I've read on both sides of the issue support this interpretation.

2) While the Guardian says that the deferred compensation is "up to 1m a year", I believe the actual figures have been around $150,000/year and *have* been disclosed by the Cheneys at least in some years. The factcheck article cited earlier shows Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred compensation so far (for 2001-2003 tax returns, with a payment coming for 2004 and one for 2005) while VP. (Here's the 2003 disclosure from the Cheneys.)

3) Even being generous and taking the critics' attacks on Cheney via the Congressional Research Service's ethics standards as "still having a financial interest" seriously, when you read the fine print in those same attacks, they are basically arguing that the financial interest is limited to the fact that if Halliburton goes bankrupt then Cheney doesn't get the 2004/2005 deferred compensation. Since Cheney has already earned $20+ million from Halliburton, I personally find it extremely dubious that he would make some decision to keep an extra few hundred thousand... especially given the microscope this stuff is under.

I call it smear, smear, smear. I'm still waiting for some credible evidence.

To quote from a nice paragraph at factcheck.org:

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The actual PDF of the agreement can be found here.

That's what you're talking about, right?

--LP

To quote from a nice paragraph at factcheck.org:

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The actual PDF of the agreement can be found here.

That's what you're talking about, right?

--LP

Man, you are not keeping up with the story. Joseph Wilson (the husband of the CIA agent) was not the only guy who investigated stuff in Africa, nor were famous forged Niger doucments the only ones describing Iraqi interest and discussions with African countries about obtaining uranium.

There was a lot of evidence that Wilson knew nothing about. In fact, Wilson himself was able to obtain confirmation from the Nigerians that A) Iraqi ministers had visited Niger, and B) Iraqi ministers were interested in obtaining uranium. Wilson didn't find that particularly interesting, but the people putting his intel together with other pieces found it quite interesting.

This all became public in July 2004, got some coverage but not nearly as much as the "bush lied" stuff. I googled around for a good source to pass on to you but I presume you can google yourself. A good analysis/summary of the story based on current facts can be found factcheck.org. Side note on factcheck.org: In terms of factcheck.org I haven't been able to figure out if they are biased a particular direction or not but I presume you can try to figure out for yourself.

Well, apparently you get all your facts from the kerry campaign.
All the money cheney got while vp was from deferements.
All the money from the stock options are going to charity.
He even bought an insurance so he gets his money even if haliburton goes bankrupt.
source: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

There isn't any news in this "news" for anyone, it seems like just another excuse to be able to trashtalk Bush, rewrapping an old story using people "all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity" (NYT quoted). In addition the NYT article states "American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes", it should seem obvious for all that choosing which point of view or arguments to believe is not lying even if you are later proved wrong.

For all those who are tired of loudmouths endlessly repeating their favourite rants ("Bush/Kerry is a liar" etc.) here's a link to FactCheck.org: http://factcheck.org/.

Go - Read - Think - Think some more - Read some more - Doubt your assumptions - Think again - Vote (if you're an US citizen) for whoever you agree the most with but please respect that others do not see the world through your eyes, heart and brain (observations/feelings/thoughts).

Please differentiate yourself from the Moore/Limbaugh crowd and be proud of it. Please don't base any vote on who shouts the loudest or for that matter on whoever shouts less.

Kerry would not have put us in Iraq.

Maybe not, but he claims that he would have. Have you heard him claim otherwise? Kerry's stated and consistent position is that he would in fact have put us in Iraq. He thinks the president screwed it up, is all, and Europe should be sharing the tar-pit with us.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269

It's funny that those same blogs don't fact-check the Bush administration as much as they do the Kerry campaign. Here is an administration that has told more lies to the public (in the few press conferences that they've had; they're also very secretive) than any that I can remember (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II).

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are."
"Saddam is in cahoots with al Qaeda, and could give WMD to them."
"We went to war for the freedom of the Iraqi people."
"These tax cuts are going to stimulate the economy and create many new jobs by stimulating investment."
"We've inherited a recession from Clinton."
"You don't need to know who Cheney spoke to in his secret energy policy meetings."
"We're going to whole-heartedly support fighting AIDS in third-world countries."

It's so funny that I could cry.

In 1971, Kerry declared, in Congress, "I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Kerry lied in order to advance his own career. His words endangered the lives of American soldiers in Vietnam.

Even after 30 years, some disgusting acts should never be forgotten. Achieving a political career by lying about the acts of American soldiers in Vietnam is absolutely disgusting.

If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.

president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce

I haven't seen the $200 billion figure coming from anywhere other than from Kerry. Most other sources say the war's cost far is a negligible $120-140 billion. (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253) Although apparently some say he meant the $200 billion figure to mean the eventual cost, he implies that we've already spent that much. We haven't, but we have somehow misplaced $8.8 billion. (http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews= 25168)

Clickable version of parent's link

Given the national embarrassment, never mind the hypocrisy demonstrated in killing thousands & spending billions exporting your laughable democratic process...

Can anybody seriously believe that the fact that these problems still haven't been fixed after 4 years isn't deliberate???

When you look at the extensive funding involved in electing a candidate, it's obvious that some people really have a vested interest.

Are the OSCE being asked to ensure the fairness of (and will they have access to) the whole process? Us Brits are becoming quite used to fake authorities apparently sanctioning Blair's deceptions.

Of course, we didn't even start on why the Democrats put forward John Kerry - an unelectable candidate.

There's a nice computer game based on this year's presidential election. Buy it, play it and then make sure someone else plays it.

Missing other senators with the homonym of kerry would not be that hard.

The facts don't seem to match your version there...

These are facts. They aren't up for debate. Employment rates don't matter a whole lot if all you're doing is turning former middle-class folks into poor folks, while making rich folks richer. For the vast majority of the population things are considerably worse than they were four years ago.

Well, the $9000 claim isn't a fact at all, but you do have a point about the "middle class" (at least by one definition, those earning $25-75k/yr) having shrunk - what you missed, though, is that the upper class also shrank over the same (2000-2003) period! Incomes dropped across the board early on, due to the economic implosion (recession, dot-bomb bubble, telecoms, 9/11, Enron/MCI) - but the loss almost halted across 2002-2003, and has probably already reversed. For 2002-2003, the upper income category expanded again slightly, while the middle shrank by much less than it had previously. (Lots more figures here if you're interested.)

I'd also point out that employment is rather important for the people who don't currently have it: being unemployed with no income may still put you in the same bracket as having a $24k/yr job, but it's certainly a very different situation :-)

Neither party has done anything to improve the situation, nor will they so long as they are, or answer to, the people who profit from this situation. I don't expect Kerry to do any better; I only hope that he deadlocks the government and thereby prevents it from doing any more harm. Jesus, I'm getting depressed just thinking about how low my expectations have dropped....

In general, I'd say being left alone is the best most people can or should expect from the government. In the long term, even when the government actively props up failing businesses things usually get worse long-term as a result. (I'm not a hardcore anarchist/libertarian: I'm all in favor of the government regulating banks to make sure my money doesn't disappear, food to keep toxic additives or contamination out, etc - I just know they can't run an economy and shouldn't try.)

The facts don't seem to match your version there...

These are facts. They aren't up for debate. Employment rates don't matter a whole lot if all you're doing is turning former middle-class folks into poor folks, while making rich folks richer. For the vast majority of the population things are considerably worse than they were four years ago.

Well, the $9000 claim isn't a fact at all, but you do have a point about the "middle class" (at least by one definition, those earning $25-75k/yr) having shrunk - what you missed, though, is that the upper class also shrank over the same (2000-2003) period! Incomes dropped across the board early on, due to the economic implosion (recession, dot-bomb bubble, telecoms, 9/11, Enron/MCI) - but the loss almost halted across 2002-2003, and has probably already reversed. For 2002-2003, the upper income category expanded again slightly, while the middle shrank by much less than it had previously. (Lots more figures here if you're interested.)

I'd also point out that employment is rather important for the people who don't currently have it: being unemployed with no income may still put you in the same bracket as having a $24k/yr job, but it's certainly a very different situation :-)

Neither party has done anything to improve the situation, nor will they so long as they are, or answer to, the people who profit from this situation. I don't expect Kerry to do any better; I only hope that he deadlocks the government and thereby prevents it from doing any more harm. Jesus, I'm getting depressed just thinking about how low my expectations have dropped....

In general, I'd say being left alone is the best most people can or should expect from the government. In the long term, even when the government actively props up failing businesses things usually get worse long-term as a result. (I'm not a hardcore anarchist/libertarian: I'm all in favor of the government regulating banks to make sure my money doesn't disappear, food to keep toxic additives or contamination out, etc - I just know they can't run an economy and shouldn't try.)

I'm not sure about your $9,000 number. I saw Kerry say it, too, but Factcheck, and I, disagree. It is not a statistic relating the jobs being created. It is a statistic relating to the industry-wide average.

From the Kerry report itself,
"[T]he average wage in sectors that have gained jobs over the past three years was 30 percent lower than the average wage in industries that lost jobs." [CIBC World Markets, US Employment Quality Index, 6/21/2004]

Note that this is about industry and not specific jobs. If an industry fires the bottom-of-the-chain, low wage people and keeps the higher ups, who usually make more money, then the averge pay of the industry will go up. If an industry hires low wage people, then the average pay per person go down.

Also, the industries marked with growth, are the generally lower paying industries: education, hospitality, and construction. The industries that shrank were high paying industries: Information Services, Utilities.

With that said, there's still a job problem, but it's with the fact that most new jobs are the bottom-tier jobs. They aren't paying any less, it's the opportunity for the high paying jobs have decreased. Maybe the end result is the same, but I don't think that if you tried to get a job now vs the same job last year, you would get a $9000 less salary offer.

Even Sen. Kerry, whose campaign is hardly a paragon of honesty, likely knows better than to claim that a draft is imminent. It's rather unlikely.

The draft is not going to happen, not anytime soon. Can you imagine what would happen if that were to occurr? These are pure rumors

which factcheck.org has been doing, too. FAIR is worth looking at, too.

The other important function of blogs is to show the pulse of public opinion in areas that are not necessarily driven by large media outlets.

Go to any of the three letter network TV news sites and you'll see a lot of similarity. Consensus? Of what kind?

One of the most important sources of bias in news reporting is deciding what even qualifies as a news story.

Bloggers get to decide for themselves.

They make stuff up and pass it off as fact.

-il cylic

Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to use force in Iraq]. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively.

I can say I have a plan to get out in two weeks.

ala Yucca Mountain

Given that Bush has been caught in a stream of lies; outright lies and lies of omission (as well as blatent attempts to mislead the American voters and vast distortions), it's not "partisan" to say he's a liar. It's a statement of fact.

Given that Bush has been caught in a stream of lies; outright lies and lies of omission (as well as blatent attempts to mislead the American voters and vast distortions), it's not "partisan" to say he's a liar. It's a statement of fact.

Given that Bush has been caught in a stream of lies; outright lies and lies of omission (as well as blatent attempts to mislead the American voters and vast distortions), it's not "partisan" to say he's a liar. It's a statement of fact.

In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.

Yes, and it is unfortante because 30 second commercial spots are absolutely the worst way to inform yourself about the issues. The best resource I have found so far is FactCheck.org, a non-partison voter advocacy site affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. They examine the various ads and claims made by candidates and do an excellent job separating fact from fiction. They debunk the Republican's swift boat ads. They also deconstruct the Democrat's spin on the economic numbers. All in all, a vary balanced and well researched web site.

Because it is legal in the US to lie during elections. I can make an ad that would present as fact that Bush rapes 6-month old infants and then sacrifices them together with Rumsfeld. Any media outlet that airs Bush's ads will be required by law to air my own ad and First Amendment will probably protect me against any lawsuits (according to most of the past precedents).

Check out this article at Fact Check:
False Ads: There Oughtta Be A Law! Or -- Maybe Not.

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:

10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)


Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:

10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.

Odd, I thought that ALL the vets that served with him stood behind him on stage and endorsed him. Oh, you mean the same swift boat vets that went on TV and outright lied and said they served with him even though they have never even met.
FactCheck.org does an excellent job deconstructing the Swift Boat smear campaign. Yes, it is another Karl Rove hatchet job like the McCaine attack you mentioned. Unfornately it is working... Bush's recent surge in the polls is likely in no small part because of the these ads.

All politicians are liars. I'd rather have Clinton as president and get a balanced budget instead of national health care versus a talking chimpanzee promising whatever he's promising and getting "National Security".

I've been recommending people to FactCheck.org to see past all the political spin and really learn about the issues before the election. Factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group that does a great job of separating fact from fiction in the midst of all the mudslinging going on.

The prime cause of giant budget deficits is a plunge in the federal government's tax take, which fell from 20.9 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2000 to a projected 15.7 percent this year, the lowest share since 1950. About 45 percent of this plunge can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts. The rest reflects the end of the stock market bubble, the still-depressed economy and -- probably -- growing tax sheltering and evasion.

(Note: much of the reason the economy is taking so long to recover is, obviously, the war in Iraq, and the fact that Bush's tax cuts were back-loaded, having most of their effect in the years to come, not in the three years we just lived through.)

And you simply have no idea what you're talking about re "massively increased spending." Go look up what the annual increases in discretionary spending were under Clinton and under Bush. Even Cato calls it "The Republican Spending Explosion."

The guy who praised Kerry 8 years ago and changed his tune recently had relied on Kerry's own dishonest report when he praised him. He has clarified this, but the media has ignored his clarification because it goes against their agenda.

This argument only has merit if Kerry's version of the story was truly dishonest, but the evidence shows otherwise.

But they haven't been completely discredited.
And since you didn't offer any proof of your assertion, I won't either. nyah nyah.

Several of the original swift boat vets for thruth members have recanted their stories. Other vets have come forward saying they were interviewed by the organization, but their testimony was not used becuase it confirmed John Kerry's story (which matches official Navy records). There is even video footage of one of the swift boat vets for truth completely contradicting his current story; eight years ago he praised Kerry and described Kerry's heroism under enemy fire. Rather than reproduce all the sources here, I will refer you to the great work done at FactCheck.org. They have a well researched and footnoted analysis of the swiftboat claims:

Fact Check looks into Swift Vets.

There has also been huge amounts of evidence that the sift boat vets for thruth have direct ties to the Bush campaign (a violation of campaign finance law if true). The web off connections has been document in the New Your Times as well as various web sites.

Cheers,

Thad

Maybe he wouldn't take August off every year to get away from his arduous summer vacation schedule. Maybe in August he'd read Presidential Daily Briefings that outline Bin Laden's commitment to attack the united states.

Are we talking about the same John Kerry who has been absent from 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings since he's been there? including all of them in the year following the first World Trade Center attack. Hell, kerry was windsurfing during the RNC. This is the guy you're talking about who is so much better about vacationing when we have security issues?

I see... different rules for your guy. Guess that the FACT that he missed 76% of the Intelligence Committee Hearings doesn't matter either.
link

However, it doesn't take much to stumble upon well researched information concerning the Swift Boat Veterans themselves, nor the actual photocopies of the citations for John Kerry. I present the following URLs for you to make up your own mind, and I welcome any other URLs:

FactCheck.org
Disinformation.org
Washington Post
Swift Boats Eriposte"
... there are so many more I can't even count, just Google for yourself.

I must admit, I find it amazing that people continue to attack Kerry's role in Vietnam, while seemingly at the same time perfectly able to ignore the ample facts that George W. Bush didn't make it anywhere near Vietnam, and Vice President Dick Cheney managed to skirt the war entirely. Those are indisuputable facts.

The site you are thinking of is already cited in the Slashdot story: FactCheck.ORG from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Great site, but very limited focus. There is no examination of the underlying problems. In this case, that is a BIG shortcoming.

By far the biggest issue is one about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

The problem he warned us about has been happening big time for many years. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.

Every important speaker at the Republican convention spoke of keeping America safe. Every important speaker was reading speeches written for them by marketing consultants like Karl Rove. "Keeping America Safe" is code for "keeping America fearful by promoting violence so the rich can get richer". It was despicable when Bill Clinton did it, and it continues to be despicable now that George W. Bush is doing it. Possibly many of the nation's leaders are not fully aware of the circumstances. It seems that only a very small percentage of citizens realize the extent of the violence of the U.S. government.

The only really good way to educate yourself about the U.S. government is to read books about it. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. It's necessary to gather enough information that you can make your own informed conclusions, and not just copy the conclusions of others.

Don't like the books I found? Find your own. It's your duty as an adult to participate in the political issues of your country.

I think he means that there is corruption among Democrats today, just as there is among Republicans, and both should be covered. I understand that the Republicans are currently running the show, and therefore it seems natural to focus on them, but in the interests of your site being taken more seriously, you may want to include information about the corruption on both sides of the aisle. A bit more like how http://www.factcheck.org covers both sides.

I truthfully don't know the whole story either