Slashdot Mirror

pudge: Second ... two star hitters ...
I plead nolo contendere on that one! On the other hand, Bush doesn't know the name of his star Supreme Court Justice Anthony/Antonio Scalia! And I could argue that Antonin Scalia counts as at least 1.8 Supreme Court justices because Clarence Thomas votes with him over 80% of the time! Which would you rather have, a President who didn't know his hometown baseball stars, or a President who didn't know who was on the Supreme Court? (Yeah, I know, Bush just misspoke. Lighten up, will ya!)

pudge: Third, you can't be serious about the forgeries. ...
I seriously think there's not enough information to draw a firm conclusion, and that's what I wrote. Look, all CBS ever had, all anybody's ever seen, are faxes from Burkett. Fax resolution is 150 DPI, which, for purposes of document forensics, is piss poor. As I type I'm looking at a blowup of a CBS doc that says "Report to the 111th" (with superscript). The 'o' in "Report" is exactly 9 pixels tall. The 'o' in 'to' is 10 pixels tall. the '1's in "111" are 7 pixels wide. My point is that no reputable expert is going to swear beyond the shadow of a doubt based solely on 150 DPI faxes. Sure, the preponderance of the evidence says they're forgeries, but the standard in a criminal trial is beyond the shadow of a doubt. You want a little doubt? It looks to me like some of the instances of the same glyph are higher or lower than others. Typewriters; especially worn ones, strike at varying heights. MSWord doesn't. I'm not claiming that proves the docs are valid; I just think there's still signifcant uncertainty about them. From what I know now, on a 50/50 bet I'd bet against them. But on a 20:1 bet, I'd put up $10 to say they're valid against your $200 claiming they're false. Would you take that bet? How about 100:1? See what I mean? There's still uncertainty about them.

pudge: Fourth ... he hasn't done anything..
Flat out false. here's a small summary from Kerry's Senate career awards. Here's another, comparing Kerry's legislative accomplishments with Cheney's. Read here and here about the BCCI affair.

A word of advice here. You've clearly been getting most of your information from anti- Kerry sources. It's a free country, you're welcome to do that, but my advice is: don't take all that stuff as the full and complete story on Kerry. Taking that stuff as gospel and ignoring the counter arguments makes you look, well, ignorant. I'm not saying you are ignorant; just that some of the things you say leave an unfortunate impression. Case in point:

pudge: Further, I don't know how you can consider what Bush has done in Iraq a substantive issue, ...
Most observers consider Iraq to be the most substantive issue of the campaign.

pudge: ... Kerry has completely reversed his position on Iraq ...
False. Read this analysis from the SF Chronicle's Marc Sandalow. Yeah, I know, you think you can safely igore it because the paper's probably liberal. But I'm telling you, that's the kind of ignoring that can lead to ignorance! By the way, Kerry didn't say 'the invasion was "the right decision,"' he

Thanks for that, Karl Rove. Please back that assertion up with facts. Because it sure seems to anyone who's actually paying attention that there's a huge disparity between Bush and Kerry. Let me list just a few of the differences that I've observed.

Kerry actually mentioned science in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually mentioned his web site in his DNC acceptence speech. Kerry actually saved the lives of several people in Vietnam and afterwards. Kerry is a documented war hero. Everyone who was actually there at the time says so. (Lots of people who weren't there and just happen to be funded by wealthy Republicans from Texas claim otherwise.)

Meanwhile Bush's favorite philosopher is Jesus, which is fair enough. Lots of Christians love Jesus. But Bush can't name anything Jesus ever said, let alone abide by His word. Still, Jesus is a good name-drop sop to the sacreligious right for him, so he'll continue to use that line.

Bush has never saved anyone's life. Bush started a preemptive war that has so far resulted in over 1000 American deaths and at least ten times that number of Iraqi deaths -- including innocent women and children.

Come on, man, pick up the beat. Kerry is much superior to Bush. Don't listen to the right-wing talking heads. Think for yourself.

I'd like to add something to the list of grievances against the CPD, they used a typewriter to write the Memorandum of Understanding posted in the article. How riduclous is that?

How about taking control of your life rather than blaming the government, corporations, and rich people for everything.

You know, I'm really sick and tired of hearing this from conservatives. As if liberals are incapable of taking control of their own lives or have nothing better to do than to sit around and talk shit about the government and corporations.

I would like to hold my elected officials accountable for what I perceive as their failings. I'd like to do the same for our corporate executives too, like those involved in the Enron scandle. Have I got better things to do? Probably, but damnit, I just happen to give a crap!

When John Kerry is president next year, and he raises your taxes*, something tells me you won't be singing this tune of "taking control of your own life rather than blaming the government", but rather screaming bloody murder when you don't get your $300 check in the mail.

*John Kerry will probably not raise your taxes.

Make Coal Part Of The 21st Century Technology Solution

If someone does have a clear statement on Kerry's proposed economic policy, I'd like to read it. Seriously.

You haven't read much on the internet.

Here's some reading so you can catch up on the lack of education spreading across the internet:
http://www.johnkerry.com/

Working longer doesn't mean quality employee, in fact, maybe it's part of the reason so many Americans are lazy/grumpy workers.

It sounds like you support corporate greed. As a human I would rather make slightly less money and have pleasant happy employees.

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.

Here is his "official" policy in PDF format from his website.

Lots of big, simple, promises. I don't like those. Mind you, I can not imagine anyone doing a worse job with our economy than GW has. So I don't know what to think.

I know this is off topic but food for thought. If we can ./ a massive website like Nasa, I wonder what affect we will have on election day if we ./ georgewbush.com and johnkerry.com?

... because he's shown he's willing to stand up to other countries for the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens, even if it means taking a beating abroad.

The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!

Its only slightly relevant here in the U.S. what the rest of the world thinks with regard to U.S. politics. The rest of the world knows Kerry as the do-nothing politician (see for yourself - his 20 year career in the Senate is summed up in 2 sentences on his own site http://www.johnkerry.com/) - exactly the kind of man they prefer in the White House, so the rest of the world can continue to do as they please.

Do you think France, Germany and Russia had the Iraqi people's best interests in mind when they were using the Iraq Oil-For-Food program to rob Humanitarian Aid from the people of Iraq?

Do you think France has the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind when they repeatedly blocked NATO help for training Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq?

Did Koffi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement about how the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal helped anyone at all? (Oh, of course it did help the terrorist's recruiting effort in the Middle East.)

How about the Darfur region. Do you honestly think that Russia or China have the best interests of the people of Darfur in mind when they oppose a strong resolution by the UN Security Council?

My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should. Just as it is here in the U.S.

The world's gonna be dissapointed when we re-elect G.W. for another four years. But it'll be a safer world because of it.

John Kerry still favors . . . the patriot act . . . and all of the other things I dislike Bush for.

Well, he seems to be a little more reasonable on that issue than Bush, at least based on his web site:

As president, John Kerry will defend our liberty and our security at home. He will appoint an Attorney General who values and protects civil liberties. Like eight Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Kerry has rejected this administration's policy of detaining American citizens indefinitely, without access to a lawyer or chance to prove their innocence.

I'd still rather see Kerry say, "the Patriot Act is seriously flawed and needs to be totally overhauled or replaced with something else that lets us effectively fight terrorism without giving up our personal rights". Which he doesn't.

But at least he does say it needs to be changed around some, whereas Bush's web site says that the Patriot Act has been "vital" and says it is a "common sense measure". Bush's web site also attacks Kerry on the basis that he wants to change the Patriot Act, which implies that (a) he does, and (b) that Bush doesn't want to change it at all.

So, while Kerry may not go far enough, it's pretty clear that he claims to be significantly less fond of the Patriot Act than Bush is.

has a plan to fix the country, only I won't tell till I am elected"

More like "has a plan for america which is too boring for the media to report."

Apparently neither you nor the people who gave you positive moderation have been to Kerry's website where Kerry (or his staff) outlines his positions on a number of issues, very few of which appear to have anything to do with Vietnam. I suppose doing a little research is too much trouble though.

so head over to: www.johnkerry.com

if you'd like to know more about Kerry.

Read Kerry's site and look for the portion on election reform where he tells America how he will push for instant runoff voting, public funding of elections, open debates, campaign finance reform. There is none. Kerry and Edwards are U.S. senators! If they wanted Nader not to be a spoiler, they could sponsor bills for any number of reforms, but they DON'T WANT THIRD PARTIES to compete. If they wanted to reform campaign finance, they could at least use their positions to try.

This election, sworn statements were given in court by the Maine Democratic chairwoman and others saying that their national party PAID both volunteers and lawyers for the official duty of removing Ralph Nader from the state ballots. She admitted in court that volunteers called Nader petition signatories and begged them to remove their names during the grace period on signatures asking them if they were certain they wanted to do so and hurt Kerry.

Between 2000-2003, employees annual premiums for family coverage increased 48.9%. There's a lovely graph here of what this looks like.

This year, in 2004, it went down. Just kidding, it went up another 11%.

Individual health care coverage is $3,695 per year on average. $9,950 for family coverage.

Over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $3,512 and prescription drug prices have grown four times faster than inflation.

For a good solution, see here.

Enjoy your "tax cut"!

Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.

Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.

Maybe if you clicked on the more detailed plan link on the right you'd some answers to your questions?

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health _care.html

Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.

Cover All Americans With Quality Care
The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.

Cut Waste And Inefficiency
Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.

I do not care that he has not protected our borders and prevented illegal immigrantion, but done the oppostie and embraced it. I have no problem with someone entering the country properly, but someone who illegally enters is an invader and should be treated accordingly.

Once a government has embraced "illegal" immigration, then are the immigrants really all that "illegal" anymore? It looks more like streamlining "entering the country properly".

I don't drink Busch Light, and I'm not going to vote for Bush Light either.

Hmmmmm....four-digit UID....couldn't be could it?

People _deserve_ nothing. Sorry, it's Nature's way. If you wish to give them something, that's your prerogative, freedom permits you the freedom to give. However, if you use your guns to take from me in order to satisfy your urge to gain pleasure by giving, then you're stealing from me and I'll use my guns to protect myself.

Why does everything come down to a matter of force when dealing with Americans? "Two words. Nuclear Fuckin' weapons..." The fallacy in this thinking is that you seem to believe it's a zero-sum game. It's not: especially when you have farmers plowing their crops back into the fields to increase their moetary yield.

'random birth' is bullshit quite frankly: my families fled oppression, social theft, and/or poverty in order to come to the USA ... ...That's a self-selecting demographic

You're right, it is a self selecting demogarphic. Frightened people flee, and you still seem to be afraid of enough things to need to keep your guns around. Let's face it - you aren't going to face a military threat (you do have the most effective army), and your personal weapons aren't really going to help you against a terror attack. So tell me again, what are you afraid of? An Afghani coming over to steal your stuff?

Any other race, religion or culture can do the same. All they have to do is:
* respect each other's rights, including those of religion, speech, and property
* have a free and independent press
* have an open, multiparty democratic system with an ironclad separation of religion and state

Respect each other's rights - as long as;

you subscribe to Christianity or the cable broadcast version of it
just like yours
open multiparty democratic process as long as you can fund raise enough cash to actually run.

Smash all non-democratic nations and force them to be democratic or nuke the shit out of them. Who needs six billion people anyway? New Hampshire has it right: Live Free or Die.

And this is the crux...why do you think people hate you? Why do you think people would want to commit terror attacks against you? It's because of exactly this sort of foreign policy thinking. It's about thinking that says it is acceptable to chase profits instead of raising living standards.

The rest if the world hates you like a poor innercity person hates the landlord.

You invest nothing in the third world but expect no jealousy?

Thank God America got the Puritans and Australia got the convicts....

We wouldn't be in war if say someone like John Kerry had won the 2000 election?

You mean Gore?

If you haven't, I'd suggest watching the speech he gave in May (the one Republicans harped on as crazy ranting) titled Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore Speech on Iraq Policy linked from here on C-SPAN. I watched the speech and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be in Iraq if he had won the 2000 elect... if Gore was president. ;)

My biggest complaint with liberals is that they are emotional and reactionary. The liberal philosophy appeals to the heart not the sense.
I feel the same way about conservatives (substitute emotional for manipulative), so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Where has Kerry stated how he would handle this war he would inherit?

That's one of the biggest problems I see that Kerry has: a weak, all-talk-no-action Iraq policy. Iraq is the biggest election issue today, and to take a cursory look at his website, you wouldn't know that we're at war there. His "plan".

But what about Bush? Where has he laid out his plan? It's his war, shouldn't he lay out his plans? Maybe here? Nope, no plan. Nobody knows what they're going to do with Iraq, but Bush should actually be doing something right now. Right now, Bush is the President of the United States. He stirred up a hornets nest in Iraq. What is he doing about it right now? He's not telling you.

...how else can you explain thousands of liberals being explicitly anti-Bush while supporting Kerry, a candidate that supported the same policy they cite as grounds to get rid of Bush for?

Liberals, I guess including me, rally around Kerry because he's the only hope we have of getting rid of Bush. We're pragmatists that way. That's why we're against Nader running. To be honest, I didn't vote last election. I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican. I wasn't even registered to vote. But you can bet I'll vote in this election. I'll vote to change the course, because I see us headed over Niagara Falls, and I want to try and turn the boat around.

Come to think of it, I dont' remember the liberals denouncing the fall of communism as a result of Reagans coldwar hedge bet. Amazing though, they sure as hell knew that spending was wrong at the time.

Do you still beat your wife?

Personally, I believe that deficit spending is almost always wrong, and deficit spending on defense when there is not a clear need for it is even more so. Having been very young at the time when this all happened, I can't give you more than that.

Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments:

Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.

To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site, and one from Fox News.

But Kerry has focused on a single main issue: that he's not George Bush.

Do some research, go to Kerry's Website and find out what he stands for, rather than waiting for it to be spoon feed to you by some poster on a tech forum.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.

You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.

Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.

While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

It's under medicare, go figure.

At least President Bush discusses the problems facing Social Security and gives the general philosophy behind his solution. John Kerry doesn't even list Social Security as a national issue.

Some current and former members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, privately, have viewed Kerry as a ruthlessly ambitious pol light on personal conviction ? a bit of a phony, in other words.
Kerry has always been an elusive figure, a complex man who rarely opens up to anyone outside a small circle of close advisers, family and friends.
One senior adviser once told me he loved working for Kerry because he would do anything ? whatever it took ? to win.

Too much is at stake to play by Dukakis' rules and lose again. That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up?

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment.

What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Or how about Dead Texans for Truth, highlighting those who served in Vietnam instead of the privileged draft-dodging president, and ended up as names on the wall instead of members of the Air National Guard.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. Perhaps with money on the table, or investigators on their trail, we will learn just what kind of wild and crazy things the president was doing while Kerry was saving a man's life, facing enemy fire and serving his country.

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

LOL. Poor baby. forced to cite his own sources but can't seem to think of any to cite so he just whines at me to go to google.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you read reputable accounts instead of Salon-magazine hatchet jobs?

Hey moron - here's a suggestion, why don't you cite one if you want me to read it?? Salon is reputable as far as I am concerned, as is the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, CBS, CNN, NPR, and similar sources, all of which seem to agree the swift boat vets are lying. Look, I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am on this; I'll read an article if you suggest it, but you seem to prefer to whine about what I'm saying and call me names rather than actually suggest an article. I have read a number of articles on this and they seem to conclude that the SBVFT are lying.

You're talking about people who worked with other people.

I'm talking about people who worked for the Bush Administration and/or campaign. That is not just "people who worked with other people." Your crap about Move On and other 527s is irrelevant. As I said the Swift Boat stuff has Rove's handwriting all over it. You can't say the same of Move On. Even if you could though, it's irrelevant; Move On did not fabricate or outright lie like the swift boat ads did.

No, CBS did not. Nightline did, albeit briefly

I was watching CBS tonight in Los Angeles, and you're wrong; they did mention the charges that the documents were fake. They didn't say much about it one way or the other but they did mention it. I read tomorrow's Post article (assuming you mean the Washington Post and not the New York Post, LOL), and it raises all the questions that were raised here. If it turns out these documents are fake, and really bad fakes at that, I will be very curious to see who faked them. Your theory that "CBS" did it is of course ridiculous; it is possible that some random Jason Blair-like reporter at CBS did this, but it seems bizarre that CBS would not catch such an obvious forgery. It is possible that the Kerry campaign did it too but that too seems ridiculous when the forgery is so obvious (if what some people are saying about typewriters is true). I remember typing on a typewriter in the 70s that had a ball for the type and it did the little th thing, so I don't know. But I'm no document expert here. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it all turns out; but it doesn't matter to you since you've already made up your mind.

No he fucking does not, you ignorant fuckwit.

Calling me names doesn't change what the quote says. Even given your explanation, it amounts to the same thing -- blatant fearmongering. "Kerry can't protect us from the terrorists." It's crap, and you know it, which is why you resort to calling me names. What is really sad about all this is that Cheney has already proved that his administration can only encourage terrorism.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

If you quoted what I said completely, I said that there is no evidence that Kerry will treat it as a crime and not a war AS IF IT COULDN'T BE BOTH. Re read the quote you quoted from Kerry -- he will use our military when necessary. Better yet, read the quote in context of his position on the war on terrorism rather than just the one line you found quoted in the Washington Times. Are you saying that things like "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, [and] public diplomacy" are NOT essential in the war on terrorism? Sorry, man, but I agree totally with Kerry in that quote -- the very problem the current administration has is treating the war on terrorism as solely a military operation and ignoring the rest! Meanwhile we wind up letting terrorists go because we can't build a case against them because we haven't focused on that. And attacking countries that are not involved in al Qaeda thereby

Just look at the Discharge Document and other documents from Kerry. These all use either handwriting or fixed width fonts.

Just look at the Discharge Document and other documents from Kerry. These all use either handwriting or fixed width fonts.

Not sure who you've been listening to, but Kerry has released his records.

They have been available on his web sight in pdf for several moths now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html

Kerry's military records: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html Cheers, atarola

Of the problems identified, which will Kerry's plan for education fix?

Is to read each candidates website, but ignore anything they say about the other candidate unless its positive.

Read what Kerry has to say about Kerry.
Read what Bush has to say about Bush.

Because the candidates tend to be more honest about the positive things about themselves.

Don't read in the media about a speech, read or watch the speech yourself (and again, ignore anything they say about the other candidate). cspan.org, the parties themselves, or the candidates websites are good sources for speeches. (Weirdly, the Bush campaign streams Kerry's acceptance speech)

I got involved seriously in researching politics for myself on the internet because I went to the state department website and signed up for the email of the briefing transcripts. Same with the DOD.

I was shocked at just how badly skewed the mainstream media coverage really is, how fundamentally incompetent they are. Now I don't mean to say that everything the administration says is correct. What I mean to say is that almost anything the media says the administration says is incorrect. That is, they're not even good stenographers.

I was also shocked at how stupid the questions were. Sometimes I thought the reporters were intentionally trying to start a war.

That's a good place to get started.

The next level is that you can go ahead and read the negative stuff, but only after you lookup the response from the candidate on their website. So you have charge/comeback. Don't let unsubstantiated charges go by. Neither candidate is lily white when it comes to honesty in their negative moments. In my experience, Kerry has been a little less truthful, but you need to draw your own opinions.

After that, download and review the platforms. W's is here: http://www.georgewbush.com/media/agendaforamerica. pdf K's here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america. pdf

(Don't be put off by the length of the Kerry one. W's is actually more detailed because its in bullet point form, while K's is padded with a bunch of speeches and attacks on Bush).

For domestic issues, the parties agree more then you might think about what the problems in America are, the differences are in philosophy about how to go about it. The Democratic response is always pro-labor, pro-lawyer, pro-government, the Republican always pro-business, anti-lawyer, pro-free-market.

For foreign policy issues, I recommend the magazine Foreign Affairs. Its a little dry, but its where the foreign policy establishment in America (both parties) discusses what's _really_ going on. Again, you have to kind of filter out the bias of the author, but its the most indepth.

Personally, I do all of the above, plus I read a lot of weblogs and write my own: http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/

Finally, don't take it too seriously. The people who are really involved in politics are their own versions of geeks. (If you watch any of the conventions, that's really obvious, its like a Comiccon where everyone wears ties.) All this stuff is a very complex game, that ultimately, we use to test the candidates. People who are good leaders manage their campaign well, and inspire and motivate their people, which helps them win.

All he has to do is release is 180 records... the same ones he promised Tim Russert in April on air, on Meet the Press.

You mean, these records?

Kerry could shut these guys down in a minute if what they're saying is false.

Actually, he can't. He's a public figure; pretty much impossible to claim libel or slander. It's the same reason the right-wing was free to sell videos claiming that Bill Clinton was masterminding the murders of dozens of people.

John Kerry Issue Positions
George Bush Agenda

Despite the naive cynicism here and in the press both candidates do stand for something. Their position papers are pretty clear, maybe some fluff but generally they are trying to tell us what they want to do. It is difficult to find their actual positions anywhere else, and if you compare them in their own words you can cut through the rhetoric and form a pretty solid opinion.

Is this a thin swipe at another filthy rich ivy league yachtsman with an aristocratic brahmin accent? Lovey!

Oh look, a washed-up Deaniac. How's it going there? -- 4JKB4IA

Um...not hard at all? The reason I liked Kerry in the primaries was that every one of his views, positions and plans was clearly laid out on his website. Since he's become the official candidate, it's kind of been blurred a bit, but the message is still there.

Or are you listening to the Republican line that "changing your mind" is a sign of weakness?

Outstanding post! A breakdown/elaboration of blanks's points:

What do you expect from a country where education and intelligence is not a "High priority"? "? Education is competition, meaning tomorrow's educated students, who become business men could be your next big competitor.

The end result of the 'pass the failures' attitude toward pre-college scholastic achievement. The USA has, in the broadest of terms, a populace that can barely read the newspaper, don't know their way around a map of the world, can't remember the facts for key moments in world history, and watches inane sitcoms on television paid for by often inane commercials that constantly interrupt them at every carefully crafted plot point cliffhanger!

And as everyone knows in the USA people don't matter, Big business does.

Here are the two best examples I can come up with to support this assertion:

Even the USA government couldn't get Microsoft broken up into smaller companies during its antitrust suit with the software giant. Maybe, deep down inside, if they were successful, they would have screwed up the world economy as a result--part of which provides their operating funds. Hence, in the end, nothing happened. Microsoft is still in one piece and business is conducted as usual....

Look at the bipartisan political system in the USA: two sides of the same corporate-funded coin. Essentially, if you are not a 'Republicrat', you don't matter in the USA political process--your 'wasted votes' for third/alternate parties do little more than to motivate the two dominate political parties to fine-tune their platform and message in order to get the votes lost to dissent at the next election.

Yes business's would not be around if people couldn't buy their products, so they (we) get paid just enough to buy their products. And for those who can't afford it, that's what credit cards are for.

John Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage in the USA to $7.00 an hour. I am sure big business will fight against this to keep their labor costs low and their profit margins high as they have been since the last minimum wage hike in 1997. What 'burns me up' is how it is legal for restaurants to pay its waitstaff LESS than the minimum wage with the diners subsidising the waitstaff's wages with their tip monies to make up the difference--a process ripe for deception and uncertainty. Years ago, I used to work as a dishwasher at a now defunct restaurant chain so I've personally heard some of the 'horror stories' that revolve around tipping. I fully expect that if Kerry's minimum wage hike is passed into law, big business will simply raise their prices to get that money back as they have in the past ('passing the added costs on to the consumer')--a simple case of greed and inflation at work. A much better idea would be for the working poor who earn poverty level wages to be exempt from all forms of taxation except maybe monies paid into the Social Security system....

Because of years of greed and inflation, we now have a proliferation of credit card and home equity loan offers by mail, TV, and radio and 'payday advance' firms 'everywhere' that will loan you money for a short time at usurious interest rates.

We are losing a battle, not just with the rest of the world dealing with education, business, ethics(?) but a battle of bettering ourselves and giving our children a chance to survive in the future.

The USA, for the most part, is a 'microwave' society. Only matters of national policy, national defense, or college level education are planned out more than three months in advance--if that! Everything else is temporary and subject to change at a moment's notice due to societal and market forces within its borders. As a result, we now have:

- poorly educate

You're several months slow, Mr Blue.

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

Actually there are only two reports of Kerry's departure from Vietnam that I can find anything about. If he had truly been sent home due to valor or injury or whatever, that documentation would absolutely be in the collection of military records that appears on Kerry's website. It's obvious to anyone who has served (I was in the Personnel Records business when I served) that the records on his site are not complete. He's just offered the flattering highlights.

The first theory is that the other officers in his unit requested that he be sent home after his third Purple Heart, mainly because of his attitude and the fact that he was a loose cannon. That medal was not considered a very honorable thing to have by the SWIFT boat guys, because it meant they had made a mistake. Most minor injuries were never turned into Purple Heart citations.

The other theory about his departure from Vietnam is that he used the "three-and-out" policy. There was an informal Navy "instruction", numbered 1300.39, that allowed an officer to request transfer out of Vietnam after 3 injuries. He apparently requested this transfer on March 17, 1969. It's interesting that this request is missing from his military records on his website, since his request to go to Vietnam is included, you would think his request to return home, or especially orders to return home if he did not request it, would be included. Interestingly, there is no mention of his departure from Vietnam in the records posted.

You should read this recollection from the doctor who treated Kerry the day after he was "wounded". His injuries were not severe enough to be treated by a medic or evacuated by helicopter, by the way... he showed up the next day at sick call and the shrapnel, which apparently did not come from enemy fire, was removed without anesthesia and the "wound" was covered with a band-aid.

I heard part of the decoration citation for his Silver Star medal on TV last night, and the question posed was something along the lines of "why would the Navy write such a thing if it wasn't true?". Well that answer is obvious to anybody who was ever in the military. Most officers write their own citations and they get rubber-stamped by their chain of command. Most decorations are just things you get to enhance your career. When I was in the Air Force, for example, if you didn't have an Achievement Medal by the time you had been in about 2 years and a Commendation Medal by the time you had been in about 5 years, you had pissed somebody off. And the Meritorious Service Medal was the traditional award for a Senior NCO either retiring or transferring to another duty station.

Purple Hearts and the various Star medals require combat action, which is the only reason they're not handed out in the same way, and the only things which keep them from being just as worthless as the medals I mentioned before.

I also knew of a guy at my duty station who had gotten a Bronze Star for service he had rendered during an action (excuse the vagueness... the situation was so weird that I would give away who it was to some with ANY more detail), and everybody who knew anything about the incident knew it was BS. He had gotten cut or scraped or something, which qualified it as a "wound" during non-flight enemy engagement.

Don't get me wrong -- as a veteran, I have the highest respect for those who have served, particular those who have been in the line of fire, as Kerry was. But when people read citations and take them as something exceptional when they happen all the time and they're usually written by the recipient, I have to respond.

RP

The proposal for preventing off-shoring is probably the weakest of the collection.

The most interesting piece is the health-care reinsurance proposal, where catastrophic care (starting at $50K/year?) would be handled by reinsurance of existing health care plans. A lot of the catastrophic cases are already handled by governments, but only after the insurance companies have spent who knows how much time and money fighting about it.