Kerry or Bush? Cast your vote

[purlieu]

Nice research Art - but the last link didn't have any pictures.

[purlieu]

berge, you are certainly very selective with your facts (or else implausibly naive). I doubt you are naive, as you seem to be an intelligent person based on your stock-related posts. I just don't think it is helpful in any debate to pick out broad-brush smearing tidbits of fact to justify your world views.

Let's take as a given that all nations (including the U.S.) are acting for the most part in their own self-interest. Now, let's take the first statement that France, Germany and Russia are arming terrorist nations. Let's take Saddam's Iraq, as I am asuuming that is the "terrorist nation" you are referring to. From a purely moral standpoint in a vaccuum, arming this ruthless dictator was genuinely abhorrent. But, you would have to include U.S. in this group as we propped him up in the first place. Now, don't get me wrong - I think from a Machiavellian standpoint, we had some justification for doing so, as we needed this strong man to contain that other loony nation, Iran. It could very well be argued that more good than harm was done by installing this equalizing force. Of course there are innumerable comlexities involving the U.S. history with Iraq in the last 30 years. I'll tell you what was not one of them: Iraq having weapons of mass destruction by themselves or with which Iraq was about to attack U.S. interests. At the time we took on the task of ousting Saddam, we and the U.N. had him satisfactorily contained and things were relatively stable in that part of the world. Now that we have the job "done", Iraq is a quagmire with U.S. troops getting killed at a higher rate post-job than pre-job. Iraq has become an anarchic terrorist haven and a flashpoint for anti-U.S. sentiment throughout the Islamic world, and throughout parts of the non-Islamic world. And, guess what, the real culprit, Osama, is still watching satellite TV and following our election closely. The U.S. took its eye off the ball by going into Iraq. There is no excuse for limiting the manpower on the hunt for Osama. Going into Iraq, quite clearly has done more harm than good. In the pro-Bush utopian myth, "we went in there, ousted a dictator and started a happy democracy." In the real world, well, see above.

Not only was invading Iraq at the time and in the manner we did it bad for international relations, it was bad from a purely operational standpoint. Bush and his team squandered valuable goodwill with other nations (as you know, goodwill is a valuable form of capital in business; likewise, it has immense value in the political arena) for an operational folly. Not only that, he did it by feeding the U.S. population a bunch of bullshit about imminent threat of attack via WMDs.



Now, to address the simpler question of your post. No, those are not the ideas I was referring to. I was speaking more generally about showing some mutual respect. But, as far as the Iraq war issue, as an example, letting the weapons inspectors finish their jobs, and perhaps with more tact and negotiation, we could have swayed more countries to join us in the Iraq war if it later made sense (i.e. Iraq was a true danger).

Berge, you know as well as I do that the mere fact of a brutal dictatorship is not the reason the U.S. decides to invade a country. That is just a facile after-the-fact campaign slogan to throw out some semblance of justification.

[berge]

37K of 40K new "voters" dems registered in wisconsin....non existent address, voting machines in Philly, had votes alreay cast before polls open...typical dem crap

[m_h13021]

Thank you.....
Damn has to be the best four links in this entire thread. Nice find. - Marty

[berge]

probably just names three of the most corrupt sources around, lol...Moore is a fat sack of lying shit......CBS has damaged all media outlets with their National enquirer journalism....and the NY Times seems to lie without a care that anyone notices

[Art2Gecko]

unfortunately when did "facts" ever matter to the Michael Moore, Kool aid drinking moonbats.

If CBS, or the NYT says it, it must be true..

This election is going to tell us how gullible the electorate is to the media distortions.

[berge]

ART...nice display of facts......great post...imagine if the media actually worked with facts for a change

[Art2Gecko]

I suggest you do a little more research..

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4302750

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4362327

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4362635

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4447322

[m_h13021]

No I am serious.....
care to elaborate on why in your opinion President Bush will be considered the worst?

"He has screwed up everything that is important."

That is a pretty broad & extreme statement? - Marty

[zatoichi]

That is nice, but I was discussing their performance.

So far the Bush performance is not good.

[berge]

The Uses of Cash
By Joseph Lisanti, Editor, The Outlook

The collective corporate treasury is filled with cash. Putting it to use could boost stocks.

Earnings of U.S. corporations are surging now after climbing out of the cellar over the past three years. S&P 500 operating earnings had peaked at 56.16 in 2000, then sank to 38.85 the following year. This year, we expect a record 66.43 and a further advance to 73.12 in 2005.

As a result, companies are flush with cash. At the end of September, the aggregate cash on the balance sheets of companies in the index stood at $590 billion, up 126% from the $261 billion they held at the end of 1999. We think all that excess cash augurs well for stocks.

We expect corporations to use at least some of the cash in coming months. As we see it, they have several options:

They can pay down debt. Current cash on the balance sheets of S&P 500 companies is equal to more that 38% of their long-term debt. While we don't see the cash being used to completely pay off corporate bonds (especially those low-rate instruments issued over the past few years), some repayment is likely.

They can buy back shares or increase the dividend. Either move could improve the stock's total return. Share buybacks, if not offset by shares issued in conjunction with the exercise of incentive options, can boost per-share earnings because the same profits are stretched over fewer shares. That could cause investors to bid up the company's stock.

Another use for cash is to buy another company. Merger and acquisition activity often spurs more of the same. That's generally good for the stock market because traders rush to buy shares of companies that are perceived to be potential targets.

Lastly, companies could invest in capital equipment to make operations more efficient. S&P economist Beth Ann Bovino notes that nondefense capital goods orders, excluding aircraft, surged 2.6% in September, a positive sign for business investment.

We think the deployment of corporate cash should send stocks higher in the months ahead.

in other words...it's in much better shape than when clinton allowed all the corporate scandals, that ran stocks in a phoney bull market that stole a lot of peoples retirement

[berge]

like protecting the right of France, germany and russia to arm terrorist nations? or the UN to steal from and starve children? or dictators to murder 1000's of innocent people? Some kinds of respect are not worth having...and I cannot respect the nations that allow these things....France is becoming a fascist nation....the UN a harbor for terrorists

[zatoichi]

You must be kidding.

Bush will be seen as one of the worst. He has screwed up everything that is important.

[m_h13021]

You need to do a little more reading.....
here is a good start http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260743/ref%3Dnosim/nationalreviewon/002-5473452-7188825. It will put some clarity into what happened prior to 9/11. Believe it or not George W Bush and his administration will be looked back upon years from now as one of the nation's best. Just as American's came together post 9/11 and are now back to our "me" attitudes - George W Bush had a 90% approval rating(the highest in history) immediately following 9/11 only to have the majority now pointing the finger of how "bad" President Bush has lead the county. You have to give the man credit, has stayed the course and needs to finish the job. - Marty

By the way if Senator Kerry is elected you can be sure that his selection of his cabinet will be from the same people that "opted" to let Osama Bin Laden "live" under President Clinton's administration. http://members.aol.com/kerrydanger1/kerryterror2.swf

[purlieu]

Drift - that is definitely one of the things I was thinking about. What kind of freedom is it where we cannot go freely about in the world? A limited one at best. I traveled quite a bit in that part of the world in the late 80's and early 90's with no troubles. I think with the right amount of respect for other nations' ideas, we can get back to more of a world "friendliness."

[DrifticuS]

I've gone to India like 5 times with my family in my life, and pre "operation Iraqi freedom" I felt a small sense of pride walking around as an American Citizen in the airports, or showing the customs guy my American passport. This past December i went to India and Malaysia and i can tell you first hand we have a bad name, customs agents were more rude to us, all the American pride was lost and i felt like people were mumbling stuff about us...granted thats not the most important thing in the world but still its like what happened?

[berge]

http://www.clubforgrowth.net/video/zucker.wmv?PHPSESSID=beedf115eef21962a1f89af9694645bd

[berge]

"Rock the vote"? who knew the democrats meant crack?

[berge]

France will be always on Arafat's side: foreign minister

www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-29 03:40:46

PARIS, Oct. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- France will be always on the side of the Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier declared Thursday.

"France, as I told you (Arafat) in Ramallah on June 30, will be always on your side to back your effort in favor of a just and negotiated peace," Barnier said.

"It is with concern and sympathy that I keep informed of the development of your health," said Barnier.

"I wish to express my most sincere wishes for your recovery, hoping that you can return rapidly to your place to lead the
Palestinian Authority," he said.

According to one of Arafat's doctors, the 75-year-old Palestinian leader is suffering from a potentially fatal blood disorder which will require more tests to determine the cause outside the West Bank, where he has been kept under virtual house arrest for the last three years.

French presidency announced on Thursday evening the leader's imminent move to Paris for treatment at the request of Palestinian Authority. He was expected to arrive in Paris on Friday. Enditem


Kerry's friend's the french, happily supporting terrorists

[purlieu]

Saddam Hussein was about to attack us?? What a joke!
Get rid of Bush and his cronies before he turns another country into a terrorist haven and further destroys U.S. interests around the world and at home.

[Sh0oter]

George Soro is voting for KERRY !

[Sh0oter]

Bush is war freak. Need another Billions next year putting fear on American people about terrorism. America 9/11 happen because of his fail intelligence and we are at war for a wrong cause imo.

[berge]

Deputies: Ohio man registered to vote as Mary Poppins, Michael Jordan
an Associated Press report 10/19/04
DEFIANCE, Ohio - Elections officials knew something was wrong when they got voter registration cards for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Michael Jordan and George Foreman.

They notified the Defiance County sheriff, who arrested Chad Staton on Monday on a felony charge of submitting phony voter registration forms. Investigators also were looking into allegations that he was paid with cocaine in exchange for his efforts.

Staton, 22, had fraudulently filled out more than 100 voter registration forms, Sheriff David Westrick said.

"Staton was to be paid for each registration form that he could get citizens to fill out," the sheriff said. "However, Staton himself filled out the registrations and returned them to the woman who hired him from Toledo."

Staton was charged with false registration and was released without bond pending arraignment.

No other charges had been filed in the case Monday, authorities said.

According to Westrick, the NAACP's National Voter Fund had submitted the false registrations to the elections board in Cleveland. George Forbes, Cleveland chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Monday that the voter fund operates independently from his chapter.

Officers said they interviewed a Toledo woman who claimed that she had paid Staton with cocaine for the registrations. Officers said they obtained a search warrant and took voter registrations and drug paraphernalia from her home.

The woman claimed she had been recruited by a Cleveland man to obtain voter registrations, Westrick said.

Unfortunately, too typical of some democrats, dead voters, phony ballots, multiple voters (vote early, and often!!) bus loads of homeless paid in booze or cigarettes for their ballot....then of course they try and disqualify the military vote

[berge]

And the staffs of CBS, the NY Times and CNN should be arrested for impersonating journalists...they do not merit the extra legal rights granted to the fourth estate...they are lower than the National Enquirer in terms of standards, IMO

[berge]

LOL, they would vote for Kerry and the U.N. btw...the UN keeps showing that it is the most corrupt POS on the planet....world peace would most likely be advanced if we pushed the building into the ocean

[Art2Gecko]

How would they vote?

http://www.howwouldtheyvote.org/

The War On Terror has many enemies with many faces, all with one goal in mind: the elimination of the United States Of America. They will not stop until every American meets the same fate our fallen loved ones met on 9/11. How you vote on Nov. 2, will send a message to the enemies of freedom. What do you want that message to be?

So I ask you to put aside your political affiliations and opinions to answer the question with intellectual honesty. I will not try and convince you of what I believe the answer to be, that is not my goal. The sole purpose of this site and this spot is to simply ask the question. You must come to your own conclusion.

On Nov. 2, ask yourself how important are all the other issues being pushed in this election, if the terrorists have their way. But more importantly, ask yourself, How Would They Vote?

[zatoichi]

In Hawaii most people who know what they are talking about, discount the closeness in the race for Presidency.

Typically a lot of Democratic households won't say who they are going to support. This is typically 20 percent of the voters.

Conservatively speaking it will be Kerry 55 Bush 40 Nader 5.

[berge]

it is amazing how many states that are traditionally solid R or D are now split almost evenly

[Art2Gecko]

Neglected Hawaii Emerges As Swing State

Oct 22, 2:00 PM (ET)

By DAVID BRISCOE
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041022/D85SKLCO3.html

HONOLULU (AP) - Often dismissed as too small, too isolated and too Democratic to worry about in presidential contests, Hawaii suddenly has a close race.

Democrats say Sen. John Kerry still has an edge over President Bush in the contest for Hawaii's four electoral votes, but the race has become awfully tight for their comfort. With late poll closings - 11 p.m. EST on Nov. 2 - and a slow count, Hawaii politicians are talking about offering a dramatic conclusion to what could be an ultra-close national election.

"We may make the difference," said Linda Chu Takayama, campaign manager for Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye, who is all but assured of victory in his own race for an eighth term. "Surprise, surprise. The polls I've seen show it up and down but always within the margin of error."

The only statewide media poll, more than two months ago, showed Kerry leading Bush, 48-41. Private polling reviewed by strategists for both Kerry and Bush more recently suggests the race is still that close.

Hawaii may not be a big-vote, difference-making tossup state like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, but the race is remarkable in a state Democrat Al Gore won by 20 percentage points in 2000 - and one that has been solid blue on most election maps.

Democratic strategists in Washington privately admit they have neglected Hawaii, but no more. They have dispatched political operatives to shore up Kerry's support and believe the race is now about as close as Washington state and Oregon, two long-standing battlegrounds that both parties think are leaning toward Kerry.

Open campaigning for the presidency is just getting started in the islands. The first major rally for Kerry and Sen. John Edwards was Friday near the state Capitol. Campaign signs for Bush and vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney are just now popping up along roadsides.

Local candidates in leis line major thoroughfares and freeway entrances with their own signs in Hawaii's colorful honk-and-wave style of campaigning. But during the campaign no major national political figure, much less Bush or Kerry, has set foot in the state, 4,800 miles from Washington.

"They're going to rely on us to carry the election here," said Republican Gov. Linda Lingle. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are the only GOP presidential candidates ever to win Hawaii's vote. They, like Bush, were running for second terms.

Republicans say Bush has been helped by cable television ads running in the islands, where cable viewership is high. Bush and his party have outspent Kerry $17 million to $5 million on national cable TV ads that include Hawaii.

Also, with the tourism industry recovering from the Sept. 11 attacks, Hawaii's unemployment rate is 3.1 percent, lowest in the nation. And Republicans say they're doing better than expected among the state's large number of veterans.

On the other hand, Democratic Sen. Inouye told The Associated Press while campaigning on Oahu this week that anger over the deployment of a disproportionate number of National Guard troops from Hawaii, the state's highest-in-the-nation gasoline prices and Bush's support for gun legislation are factors that help Kerry.

Also, Ralph Nader failed to submit enough valid signatures to be included on the ballot this year as an independent after winning 6 percent in 2000 running on the Green Party ticket.

Lingle, elected in 2002 as the state's first Republican governor in four decades, has campaigned with Bush on the mainland and has traveled to Iraq to boost state support for the war and the 10,000 Hawaii-based troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At home, Lingle has played Bush surrogate for weeks as she campaigns for Republicans to wrest control of the Hawaii House.

On the Democratic side, Inouye said, "Every day I'm talking about Kerry. It's going to be close but not as close as people think."

Former Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono, who lost the 2002 gubernatorial race to Lingle, said the Democrats weren't assuming anything this time. Hirono, head of Hawaii Women for Kerry-Edwards, said, "I've heard the Republicans say they're going to deliver Hawaii for Bush. Well, maybe they're taking Hawaii for granted, but we're not."

Said Republican Party Chairman Brennon Morioka: "Every indication that we have is that it's almost a dead heat right now."

[berge]

"cross between Gina Lollobrigida and Sophia Loren"??? I was thinking more like John Belushi and Janeane Garofalo

[Art2Gecko]

Polite society anticipates Teresa's pizazz
By Stephanie Mansfield
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 22, 2004


Federally funded Botox clinics. Diamond pickle pins. Fish stew for state dinners, followed by green tea and Portuguese pound cake. Pre-nups and private Gulfstream jets. Hermes bags, aromatherapy, homeopathic remedies and $4,000 Chanel suits. No more twin sets. No more twins. Blowsy hair, brassy mouth and bossy boots.
Is mainstream America ready for Teresa Heinz Kerry, a woman who radio host Don Imus wonders might be "too crazy to be first lady"?
"Well, they better be," said Betty Ford's former press secretary Sheila Weidenfeld. "I think she's going to be controversial, which is good. That's because she'll speak up."









"The French will love her," deadpanned Sheila Tate, Nancy Reagan's former press secretary.
"Put it this way," said author and Forbes FYI editor Christopher Buckley, "I think Teresa Heinz would be by far the only thing to enjoy during what I suspect will be four dreary years of the human tree."
For that reason, social Washington is salivating at the idea of a revitalized White House, with a multilingual, art-collecting, wine-drinking, garden-loving billionairess who calls herself "cheeky" and "sexy" running the salon.
Criticized as "bonkers" by her opponents, the unconventional Mrs. Kerry — who describes her detractors as "scumbags" — would be the first foreign-born first lady since John Quincy Adams' wife, Louisa, a native of London. And at the age of 66, she would be the oldest incoming first lady.
She would also be the wealthiest, having inherited an estate reportedly worth $500 million in 1991 ("my pile," as she jokes) after her first husband, ketchup heir and Pennsylvania Republican Sen. John H. Heinz III, was killed in an airplane crash.
She owns five luxury homes and a private plane, The Flying Squirrel. Mrs. Kerry's fortune — now estimated at $1.2 billion — has been her passport to a world of privilege and power far beyond that of the average political wife.
"She knows people in all walks of life," said Time magazine photographer Diana Walker, one of Mrs. Kerry's closest friends. "She knows where the brains are."
"What we're hungry for," said former Clinton administration official Ann Pincus, "is someone who's engaged."
The Bushes have been virtually incognito for the last four years. Harpers Bazaar recently referred to the first lady's style as "Marian the Librarian."
"Nobody's been to The White House," added Mrs. Pincus. "You don't know about them. There's no buzz." The president is a teetotaler and Laura Bush "doesn't even do lunches. It's like, 'Hello, is this 1958?' "
"Laura is a gracious person, but she's been relegated to being a pretty picture," noted publishing heiress Marie Ridder. "Whereas John Kerry does listen to Teresa, who has a powerful voice."
Her off-the-cuff remarks — including saying she only tacked on her husband's name for political reasons — differ radically from Mrs. Bush's quiet deference. But the real difference, observers say, is their personas.
"I think Washington will be more active" with Mrs. Kerry in the White House, said Democratic stalwart Esther Coopersmith. "I don't think John Kerry and Teresa will go to bed at 9 o'clock."
Described as "with it" by people she knows, Mrs. Kerry's sophisticated social circle is in stark contrast to Mrs. Bush's down-home Texas ways. Her politics are also starkly different.
Mrs. Kerry is pro-choice and pro-homosexual rights. Over the past decade, through the Heinz Endowments, she donated $8.1 million to the liberal nonprofit Tides Center, making hefty donations to the Three Rivers Community Foundation, which funds the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Pittsburgh. Marian Wright Edelman, Hillary Clinton's mentor and head of the Children's Defense Fund, has also been a recipient of Mrs. Kerry's largesse.
Washington socialites speculate what a Kerry administration would bring. "I don't think they're going to serve grits in the White House," said Smith Bagley, whose wife Elizabeth was ambassador to Portugal during the Clinton administration.
Both Republicans and Democrats agree on one point: Mrs. Kerry is an object of fascination.
"I think she has this kind of magic," said Mrs. Coopersmith's daughter Connie, a Democratic activist in her own right who did advance work for Mrs. Kerry recently. "She's a very subtle cross between Gina Lollobrigida and Sophia Loren. She's a real sensualist."
According to her acquaintances, the aspiring first lady likes to stay up late, is a marvelous cook, has lots of diamonds and is given to wearing espadrilles on the rope line. She loves shoes, and sports spike-heeled Jimmy Choos with confidence. Her clothes, from such trustworthy labels as Armani, while designer, are not regarded as couture.
"I doubt there will ever be an exhibit of her clothes at the [Metropolitan Museum of Art]," added Connie Coopersmith. One of her close friends is Ari Kopelman, president of Chanel.
She is often tardy, explaining that she doesn't like to "be bossed around" by anyone.
Some observers are worried at the prospect of an "engaged" first lady.
"The first lady is not elected to anything," said a former White House staffer. "The minute she thinks she is, she's in big trouble."
She and her husband don't always see eye to eye, and one recent report had the couple retreating to separate hotel rooms after a spat on the campaign trail.
"They argue, they discuss, they carry on," said Pie Friendly, longtime Washington hostess and friend. "Then they flirt. Then they argue some more."
Friends say the conversations are spirited and eclectic.
"Most political wives are anesthetized by the time they even get close to the White House," said French Wallop, ex-wife of former Republican Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, "They are not able to speak their minds, terrorized by the staff or their husbands. Teresa doesn't give a fig leaf what anybody cares about her."
Mrs. Wallop points out that the Bushes have only hosted "what, four or five state dinners in four years? These people don't understand that to get things done you have to have these stupid dinners."
On the topic of Laura vs. Teresa, Mrs. Wallop said, "Middle America would find Laura Bush more palatable than an intimidating person such as Teresa."
First ladies traditionally have been most effective, observers agree, when they are simply supporting their husbands. "She's not going to do what Mrs. Carter did, sitting in Cabinet meetings," recalled Anne Wexler Duffy, who served as Rosalynn Carter's press secretary, and noted the rolled eyes and rueful winks in those meetings.
Born in Mozambique and schooled in Switzerland, Mrs. Kerry has an air of "colonial aristocracy," said one acquaintance. That has not endeared her to some voters. (She famously described herself as "African-American" to black audiences.)
"Teresa is much more flamboyant," says Ina Ginsburg, the Vienna, Austrian-born former Washington editor of Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. Miss Ginsburg has known Mrs. Kerry for years — saying, "we shared a ski instructor" — and thinks she will be a wonderful change.
"It's non-Americans and Americans. It seems Europeans lose their temper. We're just more excitable."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041022-120846-3334r.htm

[berge]

what did the moron mean by "false presumption that we can affect the outcome"? we managed to affect the outcome in more than one war...he obviously does not think much of the U.S. military....he's scum....a weasel

[Art2Gecko]

DIE FIGHTING FOR AMERICA ... BAD. DIE FIGHTING FOR THE UNITED NATIONS ... GOOD.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

My God, folks. What has to happen here? Do you have to be hit over the head by an anvil? Do you have to be slapped across the face with a shovel?

Have you heard the latest from The Poodle? John Kerry has a 20-year record in the United States Senate, along with two decades of public statements to go with it, but so far the press has given him a complete pass on his comments regarding the use of American armed forces outside our borders. The media continues to toe the Democratic company line from that The Poodle went to Vietnam, got a few medals, and that means that he's fully qualified to be the Commander in Chief. That liberal record in the Senate and his history of public statements are just small footnotes.

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday about John Kerry's approach to foreign policy. Here's one paragraph from that article:

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.' "

Read it again, folks. Then read it again after that. This isn't some ancient yammering from Kerry back in the 1970's. This is contemporary Kerry. This is Kerry after having served a decade in the Senate. This is Kerry saying that it OK for Americans to die fighting for a cause ratified by the United Nations, but not OK for American soldiers to sacrifice their lives just fighting for the United States ... fighting for their country. America is not worth dying for. Dying for the United Nations is.

This is a virtual repeat of Kerry's statement in the 1970's that it was his belief that U.S. troops should only be deployed outside of the United States with the permission of the United Nations. Oh, to be sure ... he's tried to back off from that statement during this presidential campaign, but I have this nasty tendency to believe what people tell me when they're not running for office, rather then when they're fishing for my vote. Now we see that Kerry reiterated his feelings just ten years ago!

Put these statements together with some other favorites .. the famous "global test" line for instance. Can it be any more clear? Kerry is, as I have been warning for six months, soft on sovereignty. Kerry, as president, would feel compelled to play a grandiose game of international "Mommy May I?" before he takes steps to protect this country and its citizens. Oh ... and don't forget that Kerry feels that terrorism was just a mere nuisance prior to September 11th. Tell that to the families of the Marines who died in the Khobar towers, the families of sailors killed on the USS Cole, and the families of those who died in the first attack on the World Trade Towers.

And did you hear Kerry yesterday? He was addressing the question of whether or not he would have removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. He says he would have, but only if he had been able to develop the appropriate international coalition. That means France and Germany. Well, there was no way in hell France and Germany were going to participate in dethroning their Sugar Daddy ... so that means that if it had been Kerry's call, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq today. But wait! There's more! Please remember that Kerry also voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait! The reality is that if the great and wonderful John Kerry had been making the decisions Saddam would today be ruling over both Iraq and Kuwait .. and God only knows what else.

What does it take to make you Democrats understand? What does it take to make those of you with those Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers and yard signs understand the danger that this man presents to our country? Do you really believe that the American Commander in Chief should seek some sort of global permission, or the blessings of the United Nations before he can act in the defense of our homeland and our neighbors? Do you really believe that it OK for Americans to die in battle, just so long as they're fighting under the flag of the United Nations?

You hate Bush? You hate his swagger? You despise his smirk! You think he stole the election? Fine! Is that hatred strong enough for you to jeopardize the safety of our country just to wipe that silly grin off his face? Is that burning hatred so strong that you can sit back and say "well at least Bush isn't the president" after the next terrorist attack on our homeland?

Look at this man! I used to think that he was just an empty political vessel. Not so. John Kerry is a dangerous politician bent on granting to the majority of Europeans that which they desire so strongly, a weakened United States. He denigrated our servicemen and women when he returned from Vietnam, and he dishonors them and all that they stand for now by saying that while it is OK for them to die for the United Nations, their lives should not be put on the line for their own country. This is a man who truly believes that the United States is little more than a member "state" of the great and exalted UN.

This country's salvation may lie in you having one quick pang of consciousness when you walk into that voting booth on November 2nd. When you stand there ready to cast your vote you'll have the spirit of international Islamic terrorism on one shoulder trying to guide your hand toward a vote for John Kerry. On the other shoulder will be the ghosts of the Khobart Towers, the USS Cole and of 9/11 urging you to set your petty hatreds aside and vote for the only man who you truly know will take the fight to the Islamic terrorists ... regardless of whether or not Kofi Annan approves.

Generations of Americans are depending on you to do the right thing.

[berge]

and all the left wingers in hollywood have outsourced movie production to avoid paying union wages....I thought they were pro-union? oh yeah, that's only when SOMEONE ELSE has to pay, not them....again putting americans out of work to make excessive money...

[berge]

so...since heinz outsourced all of their factories...and put a lot of americans out of work...does that not qualify them as people who have chased excessive wealth at the expense of others?

[zatoichi]

I have no problems with rich people in general. If Heinz-Kerry is worth $1.3 billion then good for her. I have no problem with anyone with wealth.

I have issues with those who want a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of the weak (ie poor and children)

[berge]

and she must be be either a drunk, or a moron, based on most of her comments....

[hurley cruppers]

John Kerry is a piece of crap, sell out the citizens of the
United States of America to the United Nations.

I come from the old country, hang 'em high

The media is next.

How many companies out of Teresa Heinz are over seas? 56 of 57

They are all traitors, following globalism chasing the American buck.

And they talk about bring jobs back to America?????????????

Liars!!!

Who wants a president and a first lady worth 1.3 billion $$$


HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nlightn]

This is an interesting perspective since Dubya professes to be Christian>>>

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.

- The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.

- The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.

In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.

We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.

2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.

We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done - torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction - regardless of the consequences.

3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.

We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.


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

Take action: Share this important theological statement with your friends, family, pastor, and church!
Use the button below to send this critical message - signed by more than 200 theologians and ethicists from across the theological spectrum - to as many people as possible. Spread the word that as Christians, our allegiance to Christ takes priority over any national or political identity:

[nlightn]

Bush's Hometown Paper: You Broke Promise, We Endorse Kerry


The Lone Star Iconoclast

Kerry Will Restore
American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans¹ benefits and military pay.

Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.*

Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It¹s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush¹s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush¹s lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President¹s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper¹s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a ³wartime president.² America is in service 365 days a year. We don¹t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don¹t get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern¹s dress. America¹s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and ³spin² will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.

Kerry also voted against President Bush¹s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry¹s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq¹s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq¹s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq¹s borders and non-interference in Iraq¹s internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans¹ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling ³test² from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton ‹ companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.

Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans¹ programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.

Vice President Cheney¹s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process ‹ an enormous conflict of interest ‹ plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry¹s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That¹s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

[nlightn]

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The Agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials

October 19, 2004 ­ It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost." Copyright © 2004 Robert Scheer

[m_h13021]

Hmmmmmm, very disturbing.....

Please use caution watching the following video clip quite nauseous: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

[ottoman]

LOL (i think)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1018041bushmask1.html

[capgain]

:)

[berge]

I agree...BRIG would kick ass, take names, and make Guinness the official beer of america

[capgain]

BRIG

[berge]

it's been stale...and slow...I thought dead voters would liven it up

[zatoichi]

Wow berge. Nine posts in a row.

Way to go in getting this board jumping!

[berge]

Bond’s fight against vote fraud was born in the chaos surrounding St. Louis’ handling of the November 7, 2000 election. Among the more bizarre and fraudulent events that marred election day there included a dead man who filed suit to keep the polls open late because he feared long lines would prevent him from voting. His identity was later switched to that of a partisan political operative for a Congressional candidate – even though evidence shows he already voted earlier that day. The St. Louis lawsuit was mirrored by an identical pleading filed in Kansas City 14 minutes earlier on election day and, interestingly, both lawsuits listed the Missouri Democrat Party and Gore-Lieberman 2000 as co-plaintiffs. A post-election review of the entire mess by Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt found more than 1,200 illegal ballots were cast and counted in St. Louis City and County, including votes cast by 14 dead people. Further confirming evidence of vote fraud, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce recently handed down a 17-count indictment against three individuals charging them with vote fraud.

[berge]

http://www.cafepress.com/xtremerightwing.11457200