applying for a deferrment, and accepting the rejection, volunteering for dangerous duty, and then being named to a presitgious admiral's assitant position.
vs.
getting daddy to pull strings to get you into a champagne squadron, not fulfilling your duty, and losing flight status.
right - the records are out, they've been vetted several times already, and Kerry is clean as a whistle.
if these asshats question the official navy records regarding jfk's medals, they question every vets medal, too, because - maybe they didnt deserve them either.
you are completely mischaracterizing kerry's testimony, as well as the nations, and veterans mood at the time.
nobody was "for" Vietnam in 1971. there was a huge backlash against this unpopular and worthless war. stating otherwise now is dishonest.
Kerry represented a large group of vietnam vets, and presented their stories to congress. He spoke Truth to Power. He was a decorated war hero that came back and spoke against the war he took part in. He spoke Truth.
As for the Swift Liars -let me say that I have extreme reservations against a group that is formed by a Nixonian creation.
For chists sakes, O'Neill - the head of the Swift Vets makes several appearances in the damn Watergate tapes with Nixon! You think that this man is after "truth"? You think this man has any credibility?
you're definition of documentary flies in the face of reality, and a commonly held definition.
what you want - is a news report. ---
now onto your "point".
keep in mind that - as Clinton said - unseating an incumbent is a two step process. 1) you need to convince the electorate that the incumbent needs to be fired. 2) you need to convince the electorate that your candidate is better.
the "not voting for bush" point is important and necessary at this time.
on to "what kerry has done" in the senate:
John Kerry is not a big name legislator - his legislative accomplishments are significant, but the lesser part of his tenure. His most significant duties have been in the "oversight" role that congress holds over the executive branch.
Kerry was the lead investigator in the Iran-Contra Affair, the BCCI affair, as well as an investigation into POW's/MIAs in 'Nam that allowed us to finally normalize relations with that country, and put to rest rumors that there were still POWs.
He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.
He did the right thing.
How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.
We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.
i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.
F911 is the counter argument. for years we've heard the administrations steady drumbeat of all terror, all the time, through various media outlets - there has been no counter argument to the admin's claims. even the NYT and WP admitted that they should have been more vigorous in verifying the steady stream of shit coming from the whitehouse.
Finally - we get the other side of the story, and you have the audacity to point out that theres an agenda? no shit. you watch a cousteau documentary, and you get a pro-environment slant. you watch a holocaust documentary, you get an anti-nazi slant, you watch an energy companies documentary, you get a "how wonderful the world is with our energy" slant.
the purpose of a documentary is to advance the authors point of view.
the *NEWS* is supposed to report both sides of the issue.
>here are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back >to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin >Laden.
If there are, I'm sure that the Bush administration would have explicitly demonstrated this fact in every media outlet that would repeat the admin's claims.
and, there have been no credible reports that have linked the two.
go ahead, but the context is missing, as the entire Kerry campaign isnt based on branding of the letter "F".
did you see the bumper stickers that say "W '04" ? you dont see any "F '04" stickers, do you?
"W" is a branding campaign. Its a damn good branding campaign. Its the *only* thing that make George W. Bush electible. If you'd like I can go into it more...
but if you make a statement, like - oh - saddam hussein is in cahoots with al qaeada, or that there are WMD that are about to be used on the US, and they turn out to be... well... *false*... then it is a lie.
--- I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place. ---
you know that the poll you're linking to is incredibly inaccurate, right? the boy-wonder *may* have acheived a 2 point bounce. maybe.
--- I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place. ---
its because the school system is training *consumers*...
nobody goes over why credit cards are evil. why leasing is bad, why you save a little cash, the magic of compound interest, and why you should never pay $150 for sneakers.
Slashdot Mirror
applying for a deferrment, and accepting the rejection, volunteering for dangerous duty, and then being named to a presitgious admiral's assitant position.
vs.
getting daddy to pull strings to get you into a champagne squadron, not fulfilling your duty, and losing flight status.
yep - completely the same.
right - the records are out, they've been vetted several times already, and Kerry is clean as a whistle.
if these asshats question the official navy records regarding jfk's medals, they question every vets medal, too, because - maybe they didnt deserve them either.
you are completely mischaracterizing kerry's testimony, as well as the nations, and veterans mood at the time.
nobody was "for" Vietnam in 1971. there was a huge backlash against this unpopular and worthless war. stating otherwise now is dishonest.
Kerry represented a large group of vietnam vets, and presented their stories to congress. He spoke Truth to Power. He was a decorated war hero that came back and spoke against the war he took part in. He spoke Truth.
As for the Swift Liars -let me say that I have extreme reservations against a group that is formed by a Nixonian creation.
For chists sakes, O'Neill - the head of the Swift Vets makes several appearances in the damn Watergate tapes with Nixon! You think that this man is after "truth"? You think this man has any credibility?
> "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say.
>And Clinton didn't (Somalia)?
Yep - Clinton didnt - they were placed in Somalia by GHWB, in Dec 1992, before clinton was sworn in.
you're definition of documentary flies in the face of reality, and a commonly held definition.
what you want - is a news report.
---
now onto your "point".
keep in mind that - as Clinton said - unseating an incumbent is a two step process.
1) you need to convince the electorate that the incumbent needs to be fired.
2) you need to convince the electorate that your candidate is better.
the "not voting for bush" point is important and necessary at this time.
on to "what kerry has done" in the senate:
John Kerry is not a big name legislator - his legislative accomplishments are significant, but the lesser part of his tenure. His most significant duties have been in the "oversight" role that congress holds over the executive branch.
Kerry was the lead investigator in the Iran-Contra Affair, the BCCI affair, as well as an investigation into POW's/MIAs in 'Nam that allowed us to finally normalize relations with that country, and put to rest rumors that there were still POWs.
you've never let reality bother you, have you?
John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....
---
He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.
He did the right thing.
How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.
We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.
i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.
>And Michael Moore has....
an oscar for best documentary.
ya know what -
F911 is the counter argument. for years we've heard the administrations steady drumbeat of all terror, all the time, through various media outlets - there has been no counter argument to the admin's claims. even the NYT and WP admitted that they should have been more vigorous in verifying the steady stream of shit coming from the whitehouse.
Finally - we get the other side of the story, and you have the audacity to point out that theres an agenda? no shit. you watch a cousteau documentary, and you get a pro-environment slant. you watch a holocaust documentary, you get an anti-nazi slant, you watch an energy companies documentary, you get a "how wonderful the world is with our energy" slant.
the purpose of a documentary is to advance the authors point of view.
the *NEWS* is supposed to report both sides of the issue.
you linked to FreeRepublic?
good lord man - they have negative credibility.
>here are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back
>to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin
>Laden.
If there are, I'm sure that the Bush administration would have explicitly demonstrated this fact in every media outlet that would repeat the admin's claims.
and, there have been no credible reports that have linked the two.
why does reality hate america?
>I can come up with better F-words than W-words.
go ahead, but the context is missing, as the entire Kerry campaign isnt based on branding of the letter "F".
did you see the bumper stickers that say "W '04" ? you dont see any "F '04" stickers, do you?
"W" is a branding campaign. Its a damn good branding campaign. Its the *only* thing that make George W. Bush electible. If you'd like I can go into it more...
>because it's not a documentary by the rules.
why would it not be a documetary? which rules are you referring to?
or morphing max cleland into osama binladen...
but if you make a statement, like - oh - saddam hussein is in cahoots with al qaeada, or that there are WMD that are about to be used on the US, and they turn out to be... well... *false*... then it is a lie.
zogby.
---
I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place.
---
they fibbed. par for the course.
you know that the poll you're linking to is incredibly inaccurate, right? the boy-wonder *may* have acheived a 2 point bounce. maybe.
---
I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place.
---
zogby's poll
except that the polls only show a 2 point bounce for bush, and the 11 point bounce was... well... a fabriacation out of thin air.
its gonna be fun to watch dubya fail.
no - you've got it wrong:
vote for dubya, or the terrorists will *win*.
its because the school system is training *consumers*...
nobody goes over why credit cards are evil. why leasing is bad, why you save a little cash, the magic of compound interest, and why you should never pay $150 for sneakers.
bah... the first true RTS was Archon.
>unless the Pie Guy is dodging cars and jumping over
>cement blocks on I-95
yes, actually - that is exactly what i want, along with the damn window washing guy when you get off the vine st expr @ 8th street.
the only place i've seen people selling pies is on broadstreet, in n. philly... hardly a highway :-)
and if you paid the tax structure in philly, you would be begging for some of it to be used for the public good, instead of paying off the damn mafia.
lol...
:-)
QTopia - christ, thats advanced... we're still using qt1.44
>Infact, they aren't even that interested in going
>thin client - why would they, it would reduce the
>number of windows licenses they can sell.
you - obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
in order to *legally* connect to an RDP server, you still need to pay for the windows licence, as well as the TSCAL.