open thread - The Orange Mane

Exile_In_SJ · 08-13-2004, 08:51 AM

this works at other sites, an open thread where anyone can spam away, or argue to their hearts desire, and there'll be no hijacking of threads since it's an open thread/forum.

Exile_In_SJ · 08-13-2004, 09:05 AM

from betsys blog

John Hawkins links to this funny piece. What a funny spoof. And, as with the best satire, there is a strong element of truth.
Dems Question Hurricane Threat?

Florida has been declared a state of emergency and the National Guard put on alert due to a pair of so-called "hurricanes" sources claim are going to hit the state sometime in the near future. Named "Bonnie" and "Charlie," the storms are supposedly entering the US from Cuba, a declaration some see as a prelude to a declaration of war against the dicta... er, beloved president-for-life Fidel Castro. Many prominent Democrats see the storm threat as being hyped for political purposes.

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said when asked whether President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have overstated the threat of hurricanes. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Kerry relentlessly reminded reporters, a few curious passers-by, a group of mimes and a janitor that such storms were dealt with in a multilateral, sensitive fashion when he was in Vietnam. "This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path," Mr. Kerry declaimed. "I will make America safer from hurricanes than they are." Mr. Kerry also stated that he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations," instead of unilaterally declaring a state of emergency in Bush's "go-it-alone" fashion. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards added that while storm security is important, Mr. Bush has ignored other pressing issues. "The President of the United States actually has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, blowing a rather large bubble. Howard Dean, the former front-runner for the Democratic nomination, questioned the timing of the hurricane threats. "This administration knew about this at least three weeks ago," a red-faced, angry Dean raged at reporters. "They could have chosen any date they wanted to reveal this to the public." Suddenly calmer, Dean rolled down his sleeves and said,"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is hurricanes." Added Dean, "I think in some ways, unfortunately, the hurricanes have already won."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) even suggested the administration was using the fear of hurricanes to aid President Bush's political campaign. "I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration is copying and pasting old hurricane alerts that were later found to be fabricated. This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain," said Wexler. "One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket right after their inaugural week," he said.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, also panned the announcement as "a reminder of the Bush administration's ... politics of fear," adding that the administration "is primarily focused on covering its political behind between now and November." A spokesperson for the think tank added,"Oh, I almost forgot... Bush is Hitler."

Note: yes, this is satire. However, all the quotes, except the very last, were taken from actual news stories about Liberal Democrat reactions to news concerning the war on terror and "hurricane" inserted.

watermock · 08-13-2004, 09:43 AM

This an obvious conspiracy:

Exile_In_SJ · 08-13-2004, 07:15 PM

War stories
Neal Boortz (archive)

August 13, 2004 | Print | Send

The mask is off. Further denials are useless. After the events of the past seven days the ingrained leftist, pro-Democratic Party bias of the nation’s mainstream media has been fully exposed. All it took was for a certain Vietnam veteran to write a book daring to question the war hero status of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry. Media lips are now drawn into a permanent snarl; the knives are out and the scent of blood is in the air. Circle the wagons and may the effort to protect the Democratic candidate proceed.

To make this scenario as clear as possible, I ask you to remember one basic difference between George Bush and John Kerry. George Bush is not running on his record of military service during the Vietnam War. John Kerry is. John Kerry is not running on the basis of his recent service as an elected official. George Bush is.

Now … turn back the calendar to earlier this year. George Bush was asking the voters of this country to reelect him on the basis of his previous four years as president and commander in chief. Suddenly Democratic detractors come forward with questions about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard over 30 years ago. Democratic sycophants were using words like “AWOL” and demanding investigations. Blood had been thrown in the water with the media sharks and the White House press briefings immediately turned ugly. Reporters wanted details – all of the details – of Bush’s National Guard service. They wanted pay records, dental records, medical records, flight records and statements from fellow guardsmen confirming Bush’s participation. The AWOL word had been used and it was George Bush’s job to provide all of the information necessary to prove that it wasn’t so.

If you think back I’ll wager you can’t remember one single story from any of the alphabets (ABC, NBC, etc.) questioning the motives or the honesty of the people who brought the AWOL charges. Their motives were assumed to be worthy and pure. It was the president on the spot, not the detractors.

Now … let’s turn the calendar pages to early August, 2004. A group of Vietnam veterans step forward with some questions and charges about John Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam, the very record that John has presented to the American people as the sole and exclusive reason (save for their hatred of George Bush) that he should be the 44th President of the United States. If the media’s treatment of the George Bush AWOL charges were a guide, we would expect to see an immediate feeding frenzy from the mainstream media. Demands would be made of the Kerry campaign that records, documents and any and all other available evidence be presented to prove Kerry’s claims of heroism.

The Kerry campaign would be handling multiple demands from The New York Times, the Boston Globe, ABC, NBC and the rest of the locusts for all of the medical records pertaining to Kerry’s second and third Purple Hearts. Apologies would be demanded of the Democratic and Kerry lawyers who referred to Dr. Louis Letson, the physician who applied the band aid to Kerry’s first Purple Heart wound as a “phony” physician. Maureen Dowd would be opining about obscene Republican operatives daring to question the medical credentials of a man who undoubtedly had saved far more lives in Vietnam than John Kerry. Obviously, it hasn’t happened exactly that way. We haven’t heard one objective reporter asking Kerry to defend his lawyer’s name-calling. Change the fact situation just a tad. Have Dr. Letson make a statement supporting Kerry’s claims, and have a Bush lawyer refer to him as a “phony” physician. I don’t have to tell you how outraged the media would be, do I? I didn’t think so.

And what of the people supporting Kerry’s detractors? One columnist referred to a Houston homebuilder who had made a donation to the Swift Boat veterans as a “mysterious Republican moneyman.” Mysterious? A Texas homebuilder is mysterious? I think a Hungarian financier who finances Moveon.org and The Media Fund, both Kerry surrogates, might qualify as mysterious, but has anyone seen dark hints about the money behind these organizations?

If anyone else out there has a plan to write a book exposing liberal media bias in America, they should consider applying their efforts to another cause. The media is doing all too good a job of exposing itself.

Blueflame · 08-13-2004, 07:58 PM

Re: Dr. Letson

FACT

Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate.
REFERENCES
FactCheck.org:
...even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
...
medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the "person administering treatment" for Kerry's injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm.
In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says "the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade." But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson.
Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time. Hibbard's affidavit says that he "turned down the Purple Heart request," and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."
That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")
Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.
Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want
Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US.
Information cited at John Kerry.com:
Letson Offers NO PROOF He Treated Kerry.
Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/2/68 firefight. Offering only an account of dates and places-which is readily available in Kerry's biography and media accounts-Lester has produced nothing to verify his treatment of Kerry.
...
Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003.
"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]

http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

Meck77 · 08-13-2004, 08:01 PM

I tried this with a random thread before and it lasted about 20 posts. Personally I think if we kept a thread like this going we would stay on topic more often and save alot of threads from going into the butt or simply getting trashed.

Anyhow, anyone notice the raider banner that appears every so often? There is an advertisement to purchase raider gear in hear? I've seen it like 3 times.

This is an outrage!!!!!!!!

Blueflame · 08-13-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meck77

I tried this with a random thread before and it lasted about 20 posts. Personally I think if we kept a thread like this going we would stay on topic more often and save alot of threads from going into the butt or simply getting trashed.

Anyhow, anyone notice the raider banner that appears every so often? There is an advertisement to purchase raider gear in hear? I've seen it like 3 times.

This is an outrage!!!!!!!!

What... you don't need "emergency toilet paper*", Meck?

*one of the few practical uses for a Fade jersey

watermock · 08-13-2004, 08:57 PM

Blue, you have to be kidding me.

Quote:

...even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Of course. Except when it's a freaking scratch according to TWO SOURCES and Kerry didn't really know what he was doing, obviously. If he had blown off his hand because he lit the fuse like a 12 year old on July 4th, he would of gotten a purple heart.

Quote:

Hibbard's affidavit says that he "turned down the Purple Heart request," and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn."
That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.")
Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart.
Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want.

Why should Hibbard care once he got stateside, did he have some vendetta against Kerry?

Quote:

Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003.
"Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04]

Well, when you have someone making crap up, it's their right to dispute it correct? This wouldn't of come up without Kerry making himself out like McArthur on steroids.

Let me remind you this guy had the shortest service in his unit, lasting 4 months and screwed up his own grenade.

And honestly Blue, your taking some questionable political stances here that are notexactly honest. I don't mind you being one of Kerry's DupedO'Crats, but try to keep it even handed.

Kerry is the one hanging his WarJock on the wall, while ignoring his record in the Senate.

Why don't we do this....Let's have Kerry show where his three purple hearts were inflicted. Let's see his forearm. He want's to "roll up his sleeves for America". Surely a wound of any significance would be apparent even after this time, particuliarly the first one. I don't need to see the one when apparently his balls were blown off and he left active duty after 4 months, 16 days in Nam. It was a total political stunt.

But the real amusing thing was, he used it as an anti-war platform before Congress to get himself into the Senate.

Now it's some convoluted war policy without anything more than thinking the Euro's were not raking in billions in Graft from the Oil for Terrorism program. It wasn't "BushCorp" that raked in Billions, and it isn't Halbitron, altho they are making money, they are at least doing more than taking kickbacks from Saddam. It's all so rediculous. We are fighting terrorists in a 2 million person cemetary where they bury weapons and a freaking Mosque armory, and what is his solution? Get the UN and France's approval? They were swimming in milk.

Blueflame · 08-14-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

Blue, you have to be kidding me.

Of course. Except when it's a freaking scratch according to TWO SOURCES and Kerry didn't really know what he was doing, obviously. If he had blown off his hand because he lit the fuse like a 12 year old on July 4th, he would of gotten a purple heart.

In which case, your issue is with military policy at the time... and factcheck.org; not me.

Quote:

Why should Hibbard care once he got stateside, did he have some vendetta against Kerry?

I don't know Hibbard, so if it's all the same to you, I won't speculate on his motives. The link provided above does state (re: Hibbard), however, that he says the injury he now claims to "remember well" was to Kerry's forearm. Trouble is, Navy medical records show the injury was above the elbow.

Quote:

Well, when you have someone making crap up, it's their right to dispute it correct? This wouldn't of come up without Kerry making himself out like McArthur on steroids.

Let me remind you this guy had the shortest service in his unit, lasting 4 months and screwed up his own grenade.

And honestly Blue, your taking some questionable political stances here that are notexactly honest. I don't mind you being one of Kerry's DupedO'Crats, but try to keep it even handed.

Just because my political views don't always mesh with yours does not make them "questionable" or "not exactly honest", Mock. Every stance I take is based on information I've assimilated through various sources, just like yours are.

Quote:

Kerry is the one hanging his WarJock on the wall, while ignoring his record in the Senate.

Why don't we do this....Let's have Kerry show where his three purple hearts were inflicted. Let's see his forearm. He want's to "roll up his sleeves for America". Surely a wound of any significance would be apparent even after this time, particuliarly the first one. I don't need to see the one when apparently his balls were blown off and he left active duty after 4 months, 16 days in Nam. It was a total political stunt.

But the real amusing thing was, he used it as an anti-war platform before Congress to get himself into the Senate.

Now it's some convoluted war policy without anything more than thinking the Euro's were not raking in billions in Graft from the Oil for Terrorism program. It wasn't "BushCorp" that raked in Billions, and it isn't Halbitron, altho they are making money, they are at least doing more than taking kickbacks from Saddam. It's all so rediculous. We are fighting terrorists in a 2 million person cemetary where they bury weapons and a freaking Mosque armory, and what is his solution? Get the UN and France's approval? They were swimming in milk.

The bottom line is that either Kerry, all his crewmates, the official Navy records, snopes, factcheck, and everyone who supports Kerry's version of the circumstances of his Vietnam service.... or the swiftvets, who are not nonpartisan, but paid Republican operatives with a book they want to sell... is not advancing an accurate accounting of events that transpired 30+ years ago. Having seen numerous significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the swiftboat version, I tend to believe the official records.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-14-2004, 07:23 PM

Anyhow, anyone notice the raider banner that appears every so often? There is an advertisement to purchase raider gear in hear? I've seen it like 3 times.

This is an outrage!!!!!!!!

****, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with this guy about anything.

Also outrageous are the ads by somebody selling "re-elect Bush" buttons and stickers, IMO.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-14-2004, 07:24 PM

Washington Post remorsefully washes its hands on Iraq

Even as the bombs were dropping on Najaf, Nasiriya and Kut, the Washington Post was ladling out heaps of remorse for its abysmal coverage in the lead up to the war.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," opined veteran Bob Woodward

Following a tradition established by the New York Times, the Post offered soothing bromides to assuage their guilt, producing a lengthily front page story apologizing for its role in misleading the American people to war.

One can only hope that the Iraqis whose lives have been ruined or whose family members have been killed will receive a copy for their sacrifice. Perhaps, it could be used as a blanket after their homes are turned into rubble by the latest "coalition" bombing raids.

http://www.progressivetrail.org/arti...3Whitney.shtml

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 08-14-2004, 07:29 PM

Terrorism fears no longer helping Bush, study finds

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...ws-fear12.html

A new study reveals a surprising twist on the conventional wisdom about November's presidential election: While political pundits seem to agree that news of terrorist threats and other dangers from abroad is good news for President Bush's re-election bid, the opposite might be true.

Michigan State University political science professors Darren W. Davis and Brian D. Silver say their study found that the more worried people are about the possibility of another terrorist attack, the more likely they are to vote for John Kerry. The research will be presented at a meeting of political scientists in Chicago next month.

The professors have been tracking Americans' attitudes about politics, civil liberties and security in a series of national and Michigan-wide surveys since 2001.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, they found that people who expressed greater concern about threats of future terrorism were more likely to approve of Bush's presidential performance, while those who were less worried were less likely to support the president.

Blueflame · 08-14-2004, 08:06 PM

You mean Karl Rove might have to decide between the two contradictory messages we've been getting recently?

(that simultaneously... a) America is safer and b) Orange Alert! Terrorist attacks are imminent and inevitable.)

watermock · 08-14-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Michigan State University political science professors Darren W. Davis and Brian D. Silver say their study found that the more worried people are about the possibility of another terrorist attack, the more likely they are to vote for John Kerry. The research will be presented at a meeting of political scientists in Chicago next month.

We will have to wait for that one with baited breath. This is so damn funny it's pathetic. They are "sensitive" and are bowing down like Frenchmen. It's not wrong to want peace. It's just wrong to be ignorant.

Have you ever talked to a vietnam era "Political Scientist" from Michigan State? This is so damn funny. Oh man Oh man Oh man.

We should accept his "study" at face value. This is classic Osterich mentality. You might as well have it come out of San Francisco University. MSU is well known as a liberal hideout. Try again dimwit. To even assert this is hillarious nationally. So so this professor goes around to pizza joints and conducts a survey.

Your pathetic.

Blueflame · 08-15-2004, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

We will have to wait for that one with baited breath. This is so damn funny it's pathetic. They are "sensitive" and are bowing down like Frenchmen. It's not wrong to want peace. It's just wrong to be ignorant.

Have you ever talked to a vietnam era "Political Scientist" from Michigan State? This is so damn funny. Oh man Oh man Oh man.

We should accept his "study" at face value. This is classic Osterich mentality. You might as well have it come out of San Francisco University. MSU is well known as a liberal hideout. Try again dimwit. To even assert this is hillarious nationally. So so this professor goes around to pizza joints and conducts a survey.

Your pathetic.

Obviously the editors of the Chicago Sun-Times must be "ostriches... dimwits and hilarious nationally.. and pathetic", then...

watermock · 08-15-2004, 12:32 AM

It's a study from MSU that was posted by the Sun Times. I simply pointed out how it was politically biased.

Quote:

Michigan State University political science professors Darren W. Davis and Brian D. Silver say their study found that the more worried people are about the possibility of another terrorist attack, the more likely they are to vote for John Kerry. The research will be presented at a meeting of political scientists in Chicago next month.

You don't get the Osterich take. We are supposed to give in and be "sensitive" to cold blooded killers and expect them to bring flowers of peace. It's not going to happen. Puzzle me this. When did a Islamic Terrorist ever bring a real fig leaf to the table?

It's nice to be innocent, and it's a shame they are following the teachings of a crazy man. But while moderation into a secular society has been the norm from America to Japan to even Russia, the Islamic nuthood continues to want to achieve one thing. You honestly don't get that it is Religious Facism thru Theocracy. You don't get it.

watermock · 08-15-2004, 12:38 AM

All of a sudden, the cockroaches come out, and instead of letting their country go thru a transitional government, they declare war.

Maybe they liked Saddam gassing them better.

So what do you do? Don't even ask me. We are in a now win scenario at this point. Iraq will fall into a theocracy and we might as well thank stupid policy. I went into this over 1.5 years ago. That is why policy was to keep Iraq and Iran were kept balanced. Bush decided to keep that balance. Bush Jr. was fed up with their intransigence and took action to remove a mass murderer.

So you tell me who is wrong. someone who wants democracy, or some nutcase hiding weapons in a cemetary and what amounts to a "sacred" mosque. We didn't have a problem taking out Mt. Cassina in Italy. I am fed up. I would of beaten these savages down with a hammer months ago if they defied us. Go think being Sensitive will make a difference. I keep telling you people that window has passed, and I hate Rummy for thinking he could break Islamic spirit. He's an idiot, and I called for his resignation months ago. Cheney should of taken the spot with McCain taking the veep.

Blueflame · 08-15-2004, 12:47 AM

Oh, I understand all right, Mock... when governments are run by religious zealots, the potential exists for a lot of abuses. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So tell me this, Mock... did you ever really buy into the notion of the Islamic world embracing democracy at gunpoint? It's an alien concept to them.

The animosities in that part of the world have been ongoing for literally thousands of years... and I suspect they'll continue no matter what we do. You and I do agree, however, that we're in a no-win situation in Iraq now.

watermock · 08-15-2004, 01:33 AM

No we are not of the same mind. I'm not as "Sensitive".

If terrorists are hiding out in Churches we didn't have a problem blowing them up. Get a lesson in history. I could of handled this war better than Rummy. He a ****ing idiot.

Notice how his assface smirk is off the media these days. I was calling for this idiots head a year ago.

Man, I'm trying to think staying the course is important. Why didn't they just bench the smirking Rummy and let Cheney run the damn war. In WW2 Rummy would of been relieved of duty, and that idiot Tommy Franks, well, you know my opinion of him. and let McCain into the ticket?

I will tell you one thing about Tommy Franks. I hate him with a ****ing passion I can't even possibly control.

He marches into Baghdad and resigns getting his 4th ****ing star? WTF is that? I called that moron an idiot a year ago and my opinion has been strengthened. And that freak show Wesley Clark.

I'm so pissed at these posturing Pentagon idiots I can't even hold my piss for their stupidity. A ****ing 3rd year political science bimbo could of predicted this situation.

How many Generals took retirement in WW2 unless they were relieved of command. Now we have Wesley Clark and Tommy Franks both dumping? And Rummy?

You don't retire during a war. They were both idiots! IMO, it was desertion. In war, your relieved of command or do the duty.

I want all their god damn heads. From that Smirking, hidden Rummy, to that idiotic Little Rock moron Clinton let throw bombs around in Wesley Clarke to that totally incompetent and moronic Tommy Franks.

I want to beat them over the God Damn head.

I talked repeatedly about bringing security immediatly into that situation, and how it was not accounted for.

I can formulate Foreign Policy better than these two dimwits running for the office.

This isn't a ****ing beauty pagent. I am scared. I'm very scared.

Nipping at the heel of the enemy isn't going to work.

Mock's kitten says "I just want to be a night stalker and rip up your neck"
He jumps up on my shoulders. He can outrun a piece of string.

things are not going well in Iraq, and I think it's the fundamental election issue.

If I am an AlQuada operative, I do exactly what I am doing. There is no way I attack till after the election.

Then we will see if Kerry can appease 4 more years.

Blueflame · 08-15-2004, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

No we are not of the same mind. I'm not as "Sensitive".

If terrorists are hiding out in Churches we didn't have a problem blowing them up. Get a lesson in history. I could of handled this war better than Rummy. He a ****ing idiot.

Notice how his assface smirk is off the media these days. I was calling for this idiots head a year ago.

Man, I'm trying to think staying the course is important. Why didn't they just bench the smirking Rummy and let Cheney run the damn war. In WW2 Rummy would of been relieved of duty, and that idiot Tommy Franks, well, you know my opinion of him. and let McCain into the ticket?

I will tell you one thing about Tommy Franks. I hate him with a ****ing passion I can't even possibly control.

He marches into Baghdad and resigns getting his 4th ****ing star? WTF is that? I called that moron an idiot a year ago and my opinion has been strengthened. And that freak show Wesley Clark.

I'm so pissed at these posturing Pentagon idiots I can't even hold my piss for their stupidity. A ****ing 3rd year political science bimbo could of predicted this situation.

How many Generals took retirement in WW2 unless they were relieved of command. Now we have Wesley Clark and Tommy Franks both dumping? And Rummy?

You don't retire during a war. They were both idiots! IMO, it was desertion. In war, your relieved of command or do the duty.

I want all their god damn heads. From that Smirking, hidden Rummy, to that idiotic Little Rock moron Clinton let throw bombs around in Wesley Clarke to that totally incompetent and moronic Tommy Franks.

I want to beat them over the God Damn head.

I talked repeatedly about bringing security immediatly into that situation, and how it was not accounted for.

I can formulate Foreign Policy better than these two dimwits running for the office.

This isn't a ****ing beauty pagent. I am scared. I'm very scared.

Nipping at the heel of the enemy isn't going to work.

Mock's kitten says "I just want to be a night stalker and rip up your neck"
He jumps up on my shoulders. He can outrun a piece of string.

things are not going well in Iraq, and I think it's the fundamental election issue.

If I am an AlQuada operative, I do exactly what I am doing. There is no way I attack till after the election.

Then we will see if Kerry can appease 4 more years.

What we're in agreement on is this point: America is in a no-win situation regarding Iraq.

We also seem to agree that some of Bush's Cabinet has displayed staggering incompetence. (I'm incensed that none have been censured, much less fired over their failures). And since their boss hasn't done anything about their ineptitude, I'm in favor of firing him come November. Even if I didn't like Kerry, I'd probably vote for him just to be rid of the Bush cabinet... particularly Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Blueflame · 08-15-2004, 11:19 AM

This is an interesting article on the SCLM (so-called liberal media)...

http://www.sundayherald.com/44026

alkemical · 08-15-2004, 11:46 AM

I love this! So now, do we not only have kids getting used to getting searched randomly at school, and other security measures - but now we get to introduce them to more gov't sponsored propoganda. **** the gov't.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rism-ads_x.htm

Ad campaign urges employers, families to plan for emergency
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Homeland Security Department is enlisting allies in its effort to prepare the nation for another terrorist attack: your kids and your boss.

"In schools, on the Internet and in TV and radio ads, youngsters will be introduced to a new Homeland Security mascot: a dog (an American shepherd) that will be named in a contest. The campaign, using the dog and a set of Ad Council advertisements, will encourage families to develop an emergency plan and talk about where kids should go, who will pick them up and how they will make contact."

08-13-2004, 08:51 AM	#1
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	open thread this works at other sites, an open thread where anyone can spam away, or argue to their hearts desire, and there'll be no hijacking of threads since it's an open thread/forum.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-13-2004, 09:05 AM	#2
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	from betsys blog John Hawkins links to this funny piece. What a funny spoof. And, as with the best satire, there is a strong element of truth. Dems Question Hurricane Threat? Florida has been declared a state of emergency and the National Guard put on alert due to a pair of so-called "hurricanes" sources claim are going to hit the state sometime in the near future. Named "Bonnie" and "Charlie," the storms are supposedly entering the US from Cuba, a declaration some see as a prelude to a declaration of war against the dicta... er, beloved president-for-life Fidel Castro. Many prominent Democrats see the storm threat as being hyped for political purposes. "I think there has been an exaggeration," Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said when asked whether President Bush and his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, have overstated the threat of hurricanes. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Kerry relentlessly reminded reporters, a few curious passers-by, a group of mimes and a janitor that such storms were dealt with in a multilateral, sensitive fashion when he was in Vietnam. "This administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path," Mr. Kerry declaimed. "I will make America safer from hurricanes than they are." Mr. Kerry also stated that he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations," instead of unilaterally declaring a state of emergency in Bush's "go-it-alone" fashion. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards added that while storm security is important, Mr. Bush has ignored other pressing issues. "The President of the United States actually has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time," he said, blowing a rather large bubble. Howard Dean, the former front-runner for the Democratic nomination, questioned the timing of the hurricane threats. "This administration knew about this at least three weeks ago," a red-faced, angry Dean raged at reporters. "They could have chosen any date they wanted to reveal this to the public." Suddenly calmer, Dean rolled down his sleeves and said,"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is hurricanes." Added Dean, "I think in some ways, unfortunately, the hurricanes have already won." Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) even suggested the administration was using the fear of hurricanes to aid President Bush's political campaign. "I am deeply concerned that the Bush administration is copying and pasting old hurricane alerts that were later found to be fabricated. This administration has a long track record of using deceptive tactics for political gain," said Wexler. "One cannot help but question whether their aim was to deflect attention from the Kerry-Edwards ticket right after their inaugural week," he said. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, also panned the announcement as "a reminder of the Bush administration's ... politics of fear," adding that the administration "is primarily focused on covering its political behind between now and November." A spokesperson for the think tank added,"Oh, I almost forgot... Bush is Hitler." Note: yes, this is satire. However, all the quotes, except the very last, were taken from actual news stories about Liberal Democrat reactions to news concerning the war on terror and "hurricane" inserted.

08-13-2004, 09:43 AM	#3
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	This an obvious conspiracy:

08-13-2004, 07:15 PM	#4
Exile_In_SJ Ring of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,169	War stories Neal Boortz (archive) August 13, 2004 \| Print \| Send The mask is off. Further denials are useless. After the events of the past seven days the ingrained leftist, pro-Democratic Party bias of the nation’s mainstream media has been fully exposed. All it took was for a certain Vietnam veteran to write a book daring to question the war hero status of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry. Media lips are now drawn into a permanent snarl; the knives are out and the scent of blood is in the air. Circle the wagons and may the effort to protect the Democratic candidate proceed. To make this scenario as clear as possible, I ask you to remember one basic difference between George Bush and John Kerry. George Bush is not running on his record of military service during the Vietnam War. John Kerry is. John Kerry is not running on the basis of his recent service as an elected official. George Bush is. Now … turn back the calendar to earlier this year. George Bush was asking the voters of this country to reelect him on the basis of his previous four years as president and commander in chief. Suddenly Democratic detractors come forward with questions about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard over 30 years ago. Democratic sycophants were using words like “AWOL” and demanding investigations. Blood had been thrown in the water with the media sharks and the White House press briefings immediately turned ugly. Reporters wanted details – all of the details – of Bush’s National Guard service. They wanted pay records, dental records, medical records, flight records and statements from fellow guardsmen confirming Bush’s participation. The AWOL word had been used and it was George Bush’s job to provide all of the information necessary to prove that it wasn’t so. If you think back I’ll wager you can’t remember one single story from any of the alphabets (ABC, NBC, etc.) questioning the motives or the honesty of the people who brought the AWOL charges. Their motives were assumed to be worthy and pure. It was the president on the spot, not the detractors. Now … let’s turn the calendar pages to early August, 2004. A group of Vietnam veterans step forward with some questions and charges about John Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam, the very record that John has presented to the American people as the sole and exclusive reason (save for their hatred of George Bush) that he should be the 44th President of the United States. If the media’s treatment of the George Bush AWOL charges were a guide, we would expect to see an immediate feeding frenzy from the mainstream media. Demands would be made of the Kerry campaign that records, documents and any and all other available evidence be presented to prove Kerry’s claims of heroism. The Kerry campaign would be handling multiple demands from The New York Times, the Boston Globe, ABC, NBC and the rest of the locusts for all of the medical records pertaining to Kerry’s second and third Purple Hearts. Apologies would be demanded of the Democratic and Kerry lawyers who referred to Dr. Louis Letson, the physician who applied the band aid to Kerry’s first Purple Heart wound as a “phony” physician. Maureen Dowd would be opining about obscene Republican operatives daring to question the medical credentials of a man who undoubtedly had saved far more lives in Vietnam than John Kerry. Obviously, it hasn’t happened exactly that way. We haven’t heard one objective reporter asking Kerry to defend his lawyer’s name-calling. Change the fact situation just a tad. Have Dr. Letson make a statement supporting Kerry’s claims, and have a Bush lawyer refer to him as a “phony” physician. I don’t have to tell you how outraged the media would be, do I? I didn’t think so. And what of the people supporting Kerry’s detractors? One columnist referred to a Houston homebuilder who had made a donation to the Swift Boat veterans as a “mysterious Republican moneyman.” Mysterious? A Texas homebuilder is mysterious? I think a Hungarian financier who finances Moveon.org and The Media Fund, both Kerry surrogates, might qualify as mysterious, but has anyone seen dark hints about the money behind these organizations? If anyone else out there has a plan to write a book exposing liberal media bias in America, they should consider applying their efforts to another cause. The media is doing all too good a job of exposing itself.

08-13-2004, 07:58 PM	#5
Blueflame Miss Congeniality Welcome to Peyton's Place Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in my cups... lol Posts: 33,038 Adopt-a-Bronco: Randy Gradishar	Re: Dr. Letson FACT Letson was NOT the doctor who signed Kerry's sick call sheet and was not a Kerry crewmate. REFERENCES FactCheck.org: ...even a "friendly fire" injury can qualify for a purple heart "as long as the 'friendly' projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment," according to the website of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. ... medical records provided by the Kerry campaign to FactCheck.org do not list Letson as the "person administering treatment" for Kerry's injury on December 3, 1968 . The medical officer who signed this sick call report is J.C. Carreon, who is listed as treating Kerry for shrapnel to the left arm. In his affidavit, Letson says Kerry's wound was self-inflicted and does not merit a purple heart. But that's based on hearsay, and disputed hearsay at that. Letson says "the crewman with Kerry told me there was no hostile fire, and that Kerry had inadvertently wounded himself with an M-79 grenade." But the Kerry campaign says the two crewmen with Kerry that day deny ever talking to Letson. Also appearing in the ad is Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time. Hibbard's affidavit says that he "turned down the Purple Heart request," and recalled Kerry's injury as a "tiny scratch less than from a rose thorn." That doesn't quite square with Letson's affidavit, which describes shrapnel "lodged in Kerry's arm" (though "barely.") Hibbard also told the Boston Globe in an interview in April 2004 that he eventually acquiesced about granting Kerry the purple heart. Hibbard: I do remember some questions on it. . .I finally said, OK if that's what happened. . . do whatever you want Kerry got the first purple heart after Hibbard left to return to the US. Information cited at John Kerry.com: Letson Offers NO PROOF He Treated Kerry. Despite Letson's claims to have treated Kerry, he is not listed on any document as having treated Kerry after the 12/2/68 firefight. Offering only an account of dates and places-which is readily available in Kerry's biography and media accounts-Lester has produced nothing to verify his treatment of Kerry. ... Letson Didn't Record His Memories of Vietnam Until Kerry's Emergence in 2003. "Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time." [National Review Online, 5/4/04] http://www.eriposte.com/media/liars_inc/swiftboat.htm

08-13-2004, 08:01 PM	#6
Meck77 Ring of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 16,312	I tried this with a random thread before and it lasted about 20 posts. Personally I think if we kept a thread like this going we would stay on topic more often and save alot of threads from going into the butt or simply getting trashed. Anyhow, anyone notice the raider banner that appears every so often? There is an advertisement to purchase raider gear in hear? I've seen it like 3 times. This is an outrage!!!!!!!!

08-14-2004, 07:23 PM	#10
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Anyhow, anyone notice the raider banner that appears every so often? There is an advertisement to purchase raider gear in hear? I've seen it like 3 times. This is an outrage!!!!!!!! ****, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with this guy about anything. Also outrageous are the ads by somebody selling "re-elect Bush" buttons and stickers, IMO.

08-14-2004, 07:24 PM	#11
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Washington Post remorsefully washes its hands on Iraq Even as the bombs were dropping on Najaf, Nasiriya and Kut, the Washington Post was ladling out heaps of remorse for its abysmal coverage in the lead up to the war. "We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," opined veteran Bob Woodward Following a tradition established by the New York Times, the Post offered soothing bromides to assuage their guilt, producing a lengthily front page story apologizing for its role in misleading the American people to war. One can only hope that the Iraqis whose lives have been ruined or whose family members have been killed will receive a copy for their sacrifice. Perhaps, it could be used as a blanket after their homes are turned into rubble by the latest "coalition" bombing raids. http://www.progressivetrail.org/arti...3Whitney.shtml

08-14-2004, 07:29 PM	#12
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Terrorism fears no longer helping Bush, study finds http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect...ws-fear12.html A new study reveals a surprising twist on the conventional wisdom about November's presidential election: While political pundits seem to agree that news of terrorist threats and other dangers from abroad is good news for President Bush's re-election bid, the opposite might be true. Michigan State University political science professors Darren W. Davis and Brian D. Silver say their study found that the more worried people are about the possibility of another terrorist attack, the more likely they are to vote for John Kerry. The research will be presented at a meeting of political scientists in Chicago next month. The professors have been tracking Americans' attitudes about politics, civil liberties and security in a series of national and Michigan-wide surveys since 2001. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, they found that people who expressed greater concern about threats of future terrorism were more likely to approve of Bush's presidential performance, while those who were less worried were less likely to support the president.

08-14-2004, 08:06 PM	#13
Blueflame Miss Congeniality Welcome to Peyton's Place Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in my cups... lol Posts: 33,038 Adopt-a-Bronco: Randy Gradishar	You mean Karl Rove might have to decide between the two contradictory messages we've been getting recently? (that simultaneously... a) America is safer and b) Orange Alert! Terrorist attacks are imminent and inevitable.)

08-15-2004, 12:38 AM	#17
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	All of a sudden, the cockroaches come out, and instead of letting their country go thru a transitional government, they declare war. Maybe they liked Saddam gassing them better. So what do you do? Don't even ask me. We are in a now win scenario at this point. Iraq will fall into a theocracy and we might as well thank stupid policy. I went into this over 1.5 years ago. That is why policy was to keep Iraq and Iran were kept balanced. Bush decided to keep that balance. Bush Jr. was fed up with their intransigence and took action to remove a mass murderer. So you tell me who is wrong. someone who wants democracy, or some nutcase hiding weapons in a cemetary and what amounts to a "sacred" mosque. We didn't have a problem taking out Mt. Cassina in Italy. I am fed up. I would of beaten these savages down with a hammer months ago if they defied us. Go think being Sensitive will make a difference. I keep telling you people that window has passed, and I hate Rummy for thinking he could break Islamic spirit. He's an idiot, and I called for his resignation months ago. Cheney should of taken the spot with McCain taking the veep.

08-15-2004, 12:47 AM	#18
Blueflame Miss Congeniality Welcome to Peyton's Place Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in my cups... lol Posts: 33,038 Adopt-a-Bronco: Randy Gradishar	Oh, I understand all right, Mock... when governments are run by religious zealots, the potential exists for a lot of abuses. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So tell me this, Mock... did you ever really buy into the notion of the Islamic world embracing democracy at gunpoint? It's an alien concept to them. The animosities in that part of the world have been ongoing for literally thousands of years... and I suspect they'll continue no matter what we do. You and I do agree, however, that we're in a no-win situation in Iraq now.

08-15-2004, 01:33 AM	#19
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	No we are not of the same mind. I'm not as "Sensitive". If terrorists are hiding out in Churches we didn't have a problem blowing them up. Get a lesson in history. I could of handled this war better than Rummy. He a **ing idiot. Notice how his assface smirk is off the media these days. I was calling for this idiots head a year ago. Man, I'm trying to think staying the course is important. Why didn't they just bench the smirking Rummy and let Cheney run the damn war. In WW2 Rummy would of been relieved of duty, and that idiot Tommy Franks, well, you know my opinion of him. and let McCain into the ticket? I will tell you one thing about Tommy Franks. I hate him with a ing passion I can't even possibly control. He marches into Baghdad and resigns getting his 4th ing star? WTF is that? I called that moron an idiot a year ago and my opinion has been strengthened. And that freak show Wesley Clark. I'm so pissed at these posturing Pentagon idiots I can't even hold my piss for their stupidity. A ing 3rd year political science bimbo could of predicted this situation. How many Generals took retirement in WW2 unless they were relieved of command. Now we have Wesley Clark and Tommy Franks both dumping? And Rummy? You don't retire during a war. They were both idiots! IMO, it was desertion. In war, your relieved of command or do the duty. I want all their god damn heads. From that Smirking, hidden Rummy, to that idiotic Little Rock moron Clinton let throw bombs around in Wesley Clarke to that totally incompetent and moronic Tommy Franks. I want to beat them over the God Damn head. I talked repeatedly about bringing security immediatly into that situation, and how it was not accounted for. I can formulate Foreign Policy better than these two dimwits running for the office. This isn't a **ing beauty pagent. I am scared. I'm very scared. Nipping at the heel of the enemy isn't going to work. Mock's kitten says "I just want to be a night stalker and rip up your neck" He jumps up on my shoulders. He can outrun a piece of string. things are not going well in Iraq, and I think it's the fundamental election issue. If I am an AlQuada operative, I do exactly what I am doing. There is no way I attack till after the election. Then we will see if Kerry can appease 4 more years.

08-15-2004, 11:19 AM	#21
Blueflame Miss Congeniality Welcome to Peyton's Place Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in my cups... lol Posts: 33,038 Adopt-a-Bronco: Randy Gradishar	This is an interesting article on the SCLM (so-called liberal media)... http://www.sundayherald.com/44026

08-15-2004, 11:46 AM	#22
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,696 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	I love this! So now, do we not only have kids getting used to getting searched randomly at school, and other security measures - but now we get to introduce them to more gov't sponsored propoganda. **** the gov't. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...rism-ads_x.htm Ad campaign urges employers, families to plan for emergency By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — The Homeland Security Department is enlisting allies in its effort to prepare the nation for another terrorist attack: your kids and your boss. "In schools, on the Internet and in TV and radio ads, youngsters will be introduced to a new Homeland Security mascot: a dog (an American shepherd) that will be named in a contest. The campaign, using the dog and a set of Ad Council advertisements, will encourage families to develop an emergency plan and talk about where kids should go, who will pick them up and how they will make contact."