Sounds like a terrorist to me. We let terrorists run for the United States of America Senate now? I guess the Democrats support terrorism. Leave Keyes alone. Just send him your slave reparations and shut up already, damn.
Partisan? I'm not a Republican, just a decent, honest citizen who believes John Kerry is an asshole. In any case, he admitted he took part in actions which were war crimes. He said it, not me.
Then again, he did throw away his medals, so, oh, wait, he made a gesture of throwing away medals, but they were some other guy's, right? He needed to keep his to use when he ran for president 30 years later.
John Kerry's an asshole. Democrats would serve themselves better to have picked a decent candidate, and leftists are laughably hypocritical for supporting him-- a man just as bad as Bush!
You make a valid point. We'd better demand tests to see if Kerry is also an alcoholic......in addition to an admitted and self-celebrated war criminal.
The DUI arrests happened a quarter century ago, and Bush is now alarmingly clean and sober, not even touching a drop of alcohol. He's certainly not proud of his past indiscretions, whereas Kerry continues to tout his career as an admitted war criminal as somehow making him worthy of office.
All of the sites you mention except Slate/MSN include numerous examples of Kerry's falsehoods.
Where were the protests at the DNC this year? Democrat voters deserved a hell of a lot better than Kerry, but Kerry is who they were served.
They deserve four more years of Bush for ranting about him instead of choosing a candidate who represents real Democratic values.
In short-- it's partisanship. It's a little game between reds and blues. Republicrats will never change anything. When will the major parties actually represent something other than beating the other side?
I'm with you when it comes to civil liberties, but Kerry voted for the PATRIOT Act along with 99% of Congress. If we want a decent candidate to ever be offered by either of the two major parties, we have to keep shoving these right back up their asses.
So get up in that ass there, Kerry.
I'm not worried about another four years of Bush. If I really thought he was as dangerous as the leftists say, I'd be supporting Kerry. As it stands, they're just two sides of the same plug nickel.
They're both Republicrats. I don't think either is going to make a substantial difference in the next four years, so I'm going by their character.
Some people see Bush as an evil, Satanic overlord. I see him as a genuinely well-meaning, if not misguided, person. Kerry "feels" unctuous, insincere, and plastic.
Bush hasn't said he's served his country bravely as a National Guardsman. He doesn't say he's proud of being an alcoholic. Kerry does identify himself with what he did during the Vietnam era. It doesn't seem as though he's changed much since then.
The bottom line is that I don't want Bush as president, but I "like" him more than Kerry.
In any case, I'm voting for the batshit insane Badnarik, or Nader. Anything to get across the message that I'm sick of the two major parties putting forth candidates who stand for nothing but buzzwords and platitudes. Give me a screaming Dean over a mewling Kerry any day.
Maybe I'll give you Kennedy, but the rest were distinguished war veterans with real combat and leadership experience.
Anyway, my insinuation is that Kerry joined the military solely to springboard a political career. He knew he could get a cushy assignment, and he knew he could get out if it got rough.
You're right, I didn't like Kerry from the beginning. I wish the DNC could have transplanted Kucinich's ideals into Dean's persona. But they didn't. They put up this bullshit blueblood (Bush is rich, but he's not Boston rich with a goddamned crazy stuck-up rich wife) instead, so let the Dems cry themselves to sleep for the next four years.
The worst thing that can be said about Kerry is that he was political, he wanted out of the war, and he rode the anti-war crowd to public office while either duping or getting duped in the "Winter Soldier" investigation.
Personally, that's exactly what I consider to be relevant, and indicative of why I despise the man. He used the military as a springboard to politics, and he's been a career politician ever since.
So his military career consists of committing war crimes. Good game, Kerry old chap. Wasn't his one kill for shooting a retreating VC in the back?
In any case, he must have at least been swift himself to avoid enemy fire of any consequence. Maybe too swift, tripping over bowls of rice and so quick to retreat that men fall off his turning boat! Then he saves them, and gets medals!
Kerry brought Vietnam into the campaign. I would have left it alone like GWB's drunk driving, abortions, and rampant cocaine abuse, but Kerry claims his service (committing war crimes) as a reason to vote for him, so he invites criticism.
The kernel of Swiftie truth is that Kerry never served a day in the hospital, despite all those medals. Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Why pay Bush's service record any attention, when he's never claimed to be a war hero?
By "unbiased" you mean "accusations which I believe to be true are not biased," right? Bush's entry is drastically more critical of the man than is Kerry's, which ignores any substantiative criticism and brushes the Swift Boat allegations aside as "mostly untrue."
I'm not pro-Bush, but I'm definitely anti-Kerry. The Democrats deserve their loss this year for putting forth such an awful candidate.
Can anyone say they are truly pro-Kerry and not just anybody-but-Bush?
Bush didn't open his RNC speech with "reporting for duty." Kerry did. Kerry wants Vietnam to be an issue, so we make it an issue that he won all those legitimate purple hearts, but that he did it by requesting them himself and never spending a day in the hospital, and spending less than a season in Vietnam. John Kerry is an asshole.
I don't understand you people. Do you play for fifteen hours at a time? Maybe before a wife and a baby I could have done that, but not now. Many RPG claim "forty hours gameplay," but I've played for that duration spread over a single week and haven't passed more than their midpoints.
And how are Bill O'Reilly listeners different from the throngs of anti-Bush fanatics who merely parrot "he's evil--EVIL!" without any foundation in their own head for WHY? Do you enjoy their company merely because you consider them correct, and forgive their empty painted heads?
I can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, but there are equally kooky airheads on the liberal side. I'd say the same about the other sides of the political polyhedron, but they're usually forced to justify themselves to the mainstream, rather than rely on ideological rants and jingoism.
In the summary (realizing it was a quote, but that's what square brackets are for in this context), you could have enlightened your audience with the actual meaning of "ACM", like so:
The [Association for Computing Machinery] is preparing to take a policy position[...]
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a terrorist to me. We let terrorists run for the United States of America Senate now? I guess the Democrats support terrorism. Leave Keyes alone. Just send him your slave reparations and shut up already, damn.
factcheck.org is a great nonpartisan site. FAIR slants, but occasionally deigns to cover distortions with which they happen to agree.
Reading best-rated down, this was a great set of nonpartisan comments until I came across yours.
Partisan? I'm not a Republican, just a decent, honest citizen who believes John Kerry is an asshole. In any case, he admitted he took part in actions which were war crimes. He said it, not me.
Then again, he did throw away his medals, so, oh, wait, he made a gesture of throwing away medals, but they were some other guy's, right? He needed to keep his to use when he ran for president 30 years later.
John Kerry's an asshole. Democrats would serve themselves better to have picked a decent candidate, and leftists are laughably hypocritical for supporting him-- a man just as bad as Bush!
You make a valid point. We'd better demand tests to see if Kerry is also an alcoholic... ...in addition to an admitted and self-celebrated war criminal.
The DUI arrests happened a quarter century ago, and Bush is now alarmingly clean and sober, not even touching a drop of alcohol. He's certainly not proud of his past indiscretions, whereas Kerry continues to tout his career as an admitted war criminal as somehow making him worthy of office.
For issues which matter to me (eg. civil liberties), the two major candidates are practically identical.
Lucky I'm not a potato.
All of the sites you mention except Slate/MSN include numerous examples of Kerry's falsehoods.
Where were the protests at the DNC this year? Democrat voters deserved a hell of a lot better than Kerry, but Kerry is who they were served.
They deserve four more years of Bush for ranting about him instead of choosing a candidate who represents real Democratic values.
In short-- it's partisanship. It's a little game between reds and blues. Republicrats will never change anything. When will the major parties actually represent something other than beating the other side?
I'm with you when it comes to civil liberties, but Kerry voted for the PATRIOT Act along with 99% of Congress. If we want a decent candidate to ever be offered by either of the two major parties, we have to keep shoving these right back up their asses.
So get up in that ass there, Kerry.
I'm not worried about another four years of Bush. If I really thought he was as dangerous as the leftists say, I'd be supporting Kerry. As it stands, they're just two sides of the same plug nickel.
They're both Republicrats. I don't think either is going to make a substantial difference in the next four years, so I'm going by their character.
Some people see Bush as an evil, Satanic overlord. I see him as a genuinely well-meaning, if not misguided, person. Kerry "feels" unctuous, insincere, and plastic.
Bush hasn't said he's served his country bravely as a National Guardsman. He doesn't say he's proud of being an alcoholic. Kerry does identify himself with what he did during the Vietnam era. It doesn't seem as though he's changed much since then.
The bottom line is that I don't want Bush as president, but I "like" him more than Kerry.
In any case, I'm voting for the batshit insane Badnarik, or Nader. Anything to get across the message that I'm sick of the two major parties putting forth candidates who stand for nothing but buzzwords and platitudes. Give me a screaming Dean over a mewling Kerry any day.
Maybe I'll give you Kennedy, but the rest were distinguished war veterans with real combat and leadership experience.
Anyway, my insinuation is that Kerry joined the military solely to springboard a political career. He knew he could get a cushy assignment, and he knew he could get out if it got rough.
Perhaps balanced in fact, but slanted in the editorial expression of those facts.
Kinda like what Swifties are accused of doing, except they're considered outright liars and Republican shills.
You're right, I didn't like Kerry from the beginning. I wish the DNC could have transplanted Kucinich's ideals into Dean's persona. But they didn't. They put up this bullshit blueblood (Bush is rich, but he's not Boston rich with a goddamned crazy stuck-up rich wife) instead, so let the Dems cry themselves to sleep for the next four years.
John Kerry is an asshole.
Personally, that's exactly what I consider to be relevant, and indicative of why I despise the man. He used the military as a springboard to politics, and he's been a career politician ever since.
So his military career consists of committing war crimes. Good game, Kerry old chap. Wasn't his one kill for shooting a retreating VC in the back?
In any case, he must have at least been swift himself to avoid enemy fire of any consequence. Maybe too swift, tripping over bowls of rice and so quick to retreat that men fall off his turning boat! Then he saves them, and gets medals!
Kerry brought Vietnam into the campaign. I would have left it alone like GWB's drunk driving, abortions, and rampant cocaine abuse, but Kerry claims his service (committing war crimes) as a reason to vote for him, so he invites criticism.
The kernel of Swiftie truth is that Kerry never served a day in the hospital, despite all those medals. Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Why pay Bush's service record any attention, when he's never claimed to be a war hero?
By "unbiased" you mean "accusations which I believe to be true are not biased," right? Bush's entry is drastically more critical of the man than is Kerry's, which ignores any substantiative criticism and brushes the Swift Boat allegations aside as "mostly untrue."
I'm not pro-Bush, but I'm definitely anti-Kerry. The Democrats deserve their loss this year for putting forth such an awful candidate.
Can anyone say they are truly pro-Kerry and not just anybody-but-Bush?
Bush didn't open his RNC speech with "reporting for duty." Kerry did. Kerry wants Vietnam to be an issue, so we make it an issue that he won all those legitimate purple hearts, but that he did it by requesting them himself and never spending a day in the hospital, and spending less than a season in Vietnam. John Kerry is an asshole.
I don't understand you people. Do you play for fifteen hours at a time? Maybe before a wife and a baby I could have done that, but not now. Many RPG claim "forty hours gameplay," but I've played for that duration spread over a single week and haven't passed more than their midpoints.
I was comparing your Dittoheads with the unwashed masses at WTO rallies trying to recapture the summer of love. I was not suggesting you are a parrot.
My point was that there are uneducated fanatics on every side.
And how are Bill O'Reilly listeners different from the throngs of anti-Bush fanatics who merely parrot "he's evil--EVIL!" without any foundation in their own head for WHY? Do you enjoy their company merely because you consider them correct, and forgive their empty painted heads?
I can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, but there are equally kooky airheads on the liberal side. I'd say the same about the other sides of the political polyhedron, but they're usually forced to justify themselves to the mainstream, rather than rely on ideological rants and jingoism.
In the summary (realizing it was a quote, but that's what square brackets are for in this context), you could have enlightened your audience with the actual meaning of "ACM", like so:
The [Association for Computing Machinery] is preparing to take a policy position[...]
Nigerian Fraud Roundup Lassos 500 Nigerios
The topic would have been more readable had it been written like so:
Nigeria Detains 500 "419" Fraudsters