michaeledward
Grandmaster
This, and the entire post is worth reading. It may not be a conspiracy theory ... but is sure as hell is an awful lot of coincidences ....upnorthkyosa said:
old_sempai
Green Belt
Lets look at the alternative and his cronies as well:
Sandy Berger.... stole classified documents, possibly even destroyed some to hid what????? His role in the previous administrations failure to act decisively to past terrorist attacks... an administration that had 8 years to do something meaningful and did basically nothing. Never mind that Bush had been in office only 8 months before being handed another Pearl Harbor.
Richard Clarke.... the counter-terrorist expert that recommended not going after Bin Laden... not once, not twice, but three times... certainly must be a charm in that somewhere?????????
The lady democrat [cant remember her name] on the 911 Commission that set up the wall between the different agencies, FBI, etc that prevented sharing intelligence.... wouldn't want to invade their privacy while they're making plans to kill Americans....
The bleeding hearts that say its wrong to keep the enemy combatants locked up in Gtmo.... after all they were in Afghanistan as tourists.....
And now for the big one... the guy that remembers being in Cambodia in 1968 at Christmas time on a secret mission while serving one of the shortest tours of duty in country for any American military serviceman.... 4 months.... hell I spent more time in boot camp than he did in combat and then gets wounded by a rock no less and receives a Purple Heart.... The man that went to private Swiss schools and travels the world living in mansions where the gardener probably earns more than most lower income Americans... this man can surely relate to my driving a 20-year old car while putting my children through college when I was turned down for financial aid.... he certainly can feel my pain and understand my humble dreams and daily needs....completely.....
One liberal president had the morals of an alley cat... this wannabe has even less scruples when it comes to honesty.....
artyon:
Sandy Berger.... stole classified documents, possibly even destroyed some to hid what????? His role in the previous administrations failure to act decisively to past terrorist attacks... an administration that had 8 years to do something meaningful and did basically nothing. Never mind that Bush had been in office only 8 months before being handed another Pearl Harbor.
Richard Clarke.... the counter-terrorist expert that recommended not going after Bin Laden... not once, not twice, but three times... certainly must be a charm in that somewhere?????????
The lady democrat [cant remember her name] on the 911 Commission that set up the wall between the different agencies, FBI, etc that prevented sharing intelligence.... wouldn't want to invade their privacy while they're making plans to kill Americans....
The bleeding hearts that say its wrong to keep the enemy combatants locked up in Gtmo.... after all they were in Afghanistan as tourists.....
And now for the big one... the guy that remembers being in Cambodia in 1968 at Christmas time on a secret mission while serving one of the shortest tours of duty in country for any American military serviceman.... 4 months.... hell I spent more time in boot camp than he did in combat and then gets wounded by a rock no less and receives a Purple Heart.... The man that went to private Swiss schools and travels the world living in mansions where the gardener probably earns more than most lower income Americans... this man can surely relate to my driving a 20-year old car while putting my children through college when I was turned down for financial aid.... he certainly can feel my pain and understand my humble dreams and daily needs....completely.....
One liberal president had the morals of an alley cat... this wannabe has even less scruples when it comes to honesty.....
artyon:
M
MisterMike
Guest
:cheers: artyon: :cheers:
artyon: :cheers:michaeledward
Grandmaster
re: Sandy Berger - Please see the most current news reports. Sandy Berger has been cleared of all charges, other than absent mindedness. No documents were destroyed or lost. The 911 commission got to see all relevant materials.old_sempai said:
re: Richard Clarke - His plans were acted upon when the United States launched cruise missle attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan. How did the country react; "Wag the Dog". "Wag the Dog". Clinton was trying to obscure his impeachment trial. Were we committed to get al Qaeda then? Were you fighting for an invasion of Afghanistan then?
re: John Kerry - While certianly not poor, John Kerry actually has married into most of his money - twice. And lest you forget, John Kerry served two tours of duty in the Pacfic; February 1968 - November 1968 on the USS Gridley, November 1968 - March 1969 in command of a Swift Boat.
re: George Bush & 8 months in office - During this time, how often did the President or his adminstration hold counter-terrorism meetings?
Thanks for playing - Mike
OP
OP
MartialArtist68
Guest
One thing I want to say about that is that some people have a tendency to LIE. Yes, I know we have that "innocent until proven guilty" thing but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. "Absentmindedness" explains why I'm not in Calculus right now because they misplaced school records. "Absentmindedness" could explain why I forgot to write about not being malicious on my "How many ... does it take to screw in a lightbulb" post.michaeledward said:
I did like your post, however!
My ranting is done.
pck
So how does Bush, who thinks that only people who make more than 200,000/yr are the "small business owners" in this country, who has openly stated to the super-wealthy "you are my base", who has had everything in life handed to him on a silver platter, and got leapfrogged up into the Natl Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam - how is he more "down-to-earth" or understanding of "the little guy"?
Kerry has actually worked for some of his money.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I didn't want to have to post the entire story, but when the word 'LIE' is thrown around so prominantly. I am not sure who you are referring to in the pronoun 'some people'. For clarity sake then:MartialArtist68 said:
http://journals.aol.com/richardbk8/TheSentryNewsDigest/entries/416
OP
OP
MartialArtist68
Guest
<i>nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. </i>
Did they have an attendance sheet or a list of documents that "should be here"? I'm just curious...
Did they have an attendance sheet or a list of documents that "should be here"? I'm just curious...
M
MisterMike
Guest
Apparently, a lot of AOL users won't need converting:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39932
"In what some political observers might view as shocking news, a poll of America Online members is currently forecasting a landslide victory for President Bush, who collects 48 of the 50 states in this year's electoral race.
The unscientific survey, whose results change in real time as more people vote, reveals with more than 34,000 participants, Bush takes a whopping 58 percent of the popular vote compared to 40 percent for Sen. John Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.
...
Kerry may be winning in the war of 'hating Bush,' but he is not the best man for president. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39932
"In what some political observers might view as shocking news, a poll of America Online members is currently forecasting a landslide victory for President Bush, who collects 48 of the 50 states in this year's electoral race.
The unscientific survey, whose results change in real time as more people vote, reveals with more than 34,000 participants, Bush takes a whopping 58 percent of the popular vote compared to 40 percent for Sen. John Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.
...
Kerry may be winning in the war of 'hating Bush,' but he is not the best man for president. "
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Can you point out where Kerry has stated he intends to negotiate with "Al Queda"? Thanks.Kane said:
Why do you think this? Do you think Kerry has lied when he discussed his plans for pursuing Al Qaeda?Kane said:
Can you provide a list of other worldwide tyrants you're willing to conquer, along with a sense for how many American lives these actions are worth, how many civilian lives, how much of a monetary cost, and what cost in international standing you're willing to withstand?Kane said:
Saddam's "ties to Al Queda" were no more significant (and, in fact, were less significant) than those of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Should we conquer those nations?Kane said:
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Assuming you're referring to Sandy Berger, the word you're looking for is "he", not "she".MartialArtist68 said:
M
Mark Weiser
Guest
Originally Posted by Kane
Saddam also has ties to Al Queda, and we shouldn't even get into why that is bad.
It is no worse than GW Bush having direct ties to Osma Bin Laden. He has even had luncheons and dinners with him and his family at his ranch in Texas years ago during the time Osama was being recurited to fight Soviet Union in Afganistan.
Should GW be held accountable to having ties to this Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?
Saddam also has ties to Al Queda, and we shouldn't even get into why that is bad.
It is no worse than GW Bush having direct ties to Osma Bin Laden. He has even had luncheons and dinners with him and his family at his ranch in Texas years ago during the time Osama was being recurited to fight Soviet Union in Afganistan.
Should GW be held accountable to having ties to this Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Oh, yeah, that "worldnet," website? The one with the poll about Hizzoner winning in a landslide? Eminently objective and reasonable, especially if you can't get access to the latest from Himmler.
Really, Micheal, I'm surprised at the compelete absence of reasoning and critical ability this claim exhibits. This website features articles by the well-known right-wing shill Ann Coulter--who refers to John Kerry (a DECORATED and WOUNDED VETERAN) as "Eddie Haskell)--by Hal Lindsey (author of the "Late Great Planet Earth," and a fundamentalist nutcake who's been making his living from preaching hateful crap since the 1970s)--and, my personal favorite!, if you'll look at the site at about the level of Hizzoner's Adam's apple, an article advancing the theory the the Tunguska meteor of 1908 was actually an alien spacecraft saving our planet.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, especially political. There is something very wrong with taking biased nonsense written by loons as objective information, to say nothing of buying into the whole fundamentalist lunacy this site exhibits--you know, "Jesus is coming back soon to SEND all you unrighteous to HELL, so support right-wing Israeli madness about rebuilding the TEMPLE, help us bash GAY PEOPLE, and you too can go to HEAVEN and watch everybody you're afraid of BURN in TORMENT for ETERNITY. Oh yeah, and vote for Bush or your daughters will be forced to play softball with LESBIANS."
Beyond the ugly yet pathetic morality exhibited on that site (sometimes I slip in decency, and wish there were indeed a Biblical hell, so such malice and viciousness could be appropriately rewarded), there's the ludicrousness of any pretense to objectivity.
Hey, did you catch my post on the Rev. Moon having himself crowned Messiah, with Ronald Reagan and a host of other prominent Republicans in the crowd? The Rev--oops, I forgot, the "Third Adam"--or was it "The Lord?" owns and operates "The Washington Times." Which he tells everybody is there to fulfill the Unification Church's mission. Which is to force everybody on the planet into One True Church, with the Rev at its head.
And these are the morons who claim that the UN houses the Antichrist.
Come on. You have to do better than this.
Really, Micheal, I'm surprised at the compelete absence of reasoning and critical ability this claim exhibits. This website features articles by the well-known right-wing shill Ann Coulter--who refers to John Kerry (a DECORATED and WOUNDED VETERAN) as "Eddie Haskell)--by Hal Lindsey (author of the "Late Great Planet Earth," and a fundamentalist nutcake who's been making his living from preaching hateful crap since the 1970s)--and, my personal favorite!, if you'll look at the site at about the level of Hizzoner's Adam's apple, an article advancing the theory the the Tunguska meteor of 1908 was actually an alien spacecraft saving our planet.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, especially political. There is something very wrong with taking biased nonsense written by loons as objective information, to say nothing of buying into the whole fundamentalist lunacy this site exhibits--you know, "Jesus is coming back soon to SEND all you unrighteous to HELL, so support right-wing Israeli madness about rebuilding the TEMPLE, help us bash GAY PEOPLE, and you too can go to HEAVEN and watch everybody you're afraid of BURN in TORMENT for ETERNITY. Oh yeah, and vote for Bush or your daughters will be forced to play softball with LESBIANS."
Beyond the ugly yet pathetic morality exhibited on that site (sometimes I slip in decency, and wish there were indeed a Biblical hell, so such malice and viciousness could be appropriately rewarded), there's the ludicrousness of any pretense to objectivity.
Hey, did you catch my post on the Rev. Moon having himself crowned Messiah, with Ronald Reagan and a host of other prominent Republicans in the crowd? The Rev--oops, I forgot, the "Third Adam"--or was it "The Lord?" owns and operates "The Washington Times." Which he tells everybody is there to fulfill the Unification Church's mission. Which is to force everybody on the planet into One True Church, with the Rev at its head.
And these are the morons who claim that the UN houses the Antichrist.
Come on. You have to do better than this.
michaeledward said:
Every election that rolls around, I hear that.
"A Vote for whomever is in the Middle, is a Vote for whomever is republican!"
SO I have to ask this... If thats the case, is the democratic party so weak, the only way they can win is to convert the middle? Or maybe the Republicans are... and have to dupe democrats into voting the middle to rob them of votes.
I have a problem, basically, of Voting for the "Lesser Evil"
Given the choices, I could A) Vote for Kerry and kick myself in the @ss if he wins.
b) Vote for Bush, and kick myself in the @ss if he wins.
c) Vote for Nader, knowing that he will never win because no one takes the middle seriously, because its not labled Democrat or Repubican.
d) Not vote, and wash my hands of the whole mess, only to be told "Your part of the Problem"
Sounds like a No-win situation we have going here. Maybe Ill toss a coin in the booth.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I voted for Nader in the last election cycle. That should be evidence that you should support whom you believe will best serve your interests. The fact that the Republicans are actively supporting Nader should speak volumes to you.Technopunk said:
Looks like your best choice is 'D' ... but then you have to give up your keys to 'The Study'
More seriously, why do you think the D's and R' don't take the middle (whatever that is) seriously?
Mike
M
MisterMike
Guest
Well, i dunno Robert, even if a tenth of what you said was true, it doesn't have much to do with the credibility of AOL's poll.
They simply reported the poll.
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp
They simply reported the poll.
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp
michaeledward said:
Yeah, I was speaking in general terms, wasnt referring to anyone in particular. :asian:
michaeledward said:Looks like your best choice is 'D' ... but then you have to give up your keys to 'The Study'
Yeah, sad isnt it? Hehe.
michaeledward said:
I think a lot of that is conditioning... "My daddy was a Republican, so I am a republican" etc etc...
M
Mark Weiser
Guest
While your at it do something different write yourself in and vote for yourself.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I appreciate the courtesy, Michael.
However, the problem is that this "poll," is simply not a remotely-valid sample; it's composed of people who "vote," on a website, yes? And as such a poll, it isn't remotely trustworthy. Among other things, it's easy to stack the deck.
Gallup and the other organizations that conduct polling always explain how they get their results. They are careful to get a statistically-significant sample--in other words, they tell you, just as I was taught in tenth grade, how they did their expreiment. And mainstream media ALWAYS tells you something about how the poll was done.
Leaving aside the issue of nutcakes--but I am surprised, and even a bit appalled, that you would take seriously ANYTHING presented on a website with artciles by Ann Coulter and Hal Lindsey, to say nothing of their whole serious treatment of the flying saucer-that-landed-in-Siberia-in-1908 story, that failed so fundamentally in the basic responsibilites of "the news media."
The deeper problem, for your politics, is that such a site exposes something fundamental about the contemporary American Right: its very close ties to out-and-out nuttery. Reagan's telling evangelists that The End was coming soon, back when he was Prez, and his wife's astrologer; Ollie North's close ties to lunatic fringe groups like the Unification Church; that website's ties to the apocalyptic edge of Christianity, which wants Israel to expand and rebuild the Temple, to hasten on the End Times.
For all the Babittry, sexual peccadillos and stupidity of Democrats, at least they don't pull that crap.
Why would any rational person associate themselves with these nutbars?
However, the problem is that this "poll," is simply not a remotely-valid sample; it's composed of people who "vote," on a website, yes? And as such a poll, it isn't remotely trustworthy. Among other things, it's easy to stack the deck.
Gallup and the other organizations that conduct polling always explain how they get their results. They are careful to get a statistically-significant sample--in other words, they tell you, just as I was taught in tenth grade, how they did their expreiment. And mainstream media ALWAYS tells you something about how the poll was done.
Leaving aside the issue of nutcakes--but I am surprised, and even a bit appalled, that you would take seriously ANYTHING presented on a website with artciles by Ann Coulter and Hal Lindsey, to say nothing of their whole serious treatment of the flying saucer-that-landed-in-Siberia-in-1908 story, that failed so fundamentally in the basic responsibilites of "the news media."
The deeper problem, for your politics, is that such a site exposes something fundamental about the contemporary American Right: its very close ties to out-and-out nuttery. Reagan's telling evangelists that The End was coming soon, back when he was Prez, and his wife's astrologer; Ollie North's close ties to lunatic fringe groups like the Unification Church; that website's ties to the apocalyptic edge of Christianity, which wants Israel to expand and rebuild the Temple, to hasten on the End Times.
For all the Babittry, sexual peccadillos and stupidity of Democrats, at least they don't pull that crap.
Why would any rational person associate themselves with these nutbars?
