posted on March 16, 2004 11:42:26 PM new
Jay Leno:
"President Bush was out touting his economic record in Ohio last week. Now this is a state that lost 225,000 jobs since Bush took office. If Bush wants to tout his record he should do it somewhere where the Bush economy has actually created jobs, like India or Thailand or China."
David Letterman:
"The presidential campaign is really heating up. George Bush, his campaign is really doing much, much better, and he's shot right up in the polls since he captured Martha Stewart.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 17, 2004 05:00:17 AM new
::I caught bits and pieces of the news all day. I most have missed the polling data on the terrorist view on the elections. Is Nader splitting that vote?::
It was reported/discussed in the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and on Fox News. Probably elsewhere....but I just didn't catch it.
:o you believe that his statement was incorrect?:: Yes, I believe he could have lied about these 'so called leaders' saying this. The Washington Times took the time to track kerry's activities and he can't be placed being around any 'foreign leaders'. Maybe some think they were calling him on the phone.
::Again?:: Yes, as in repeating my original statement.
::Was this a Gallop or a USA Today poll?:: I already stated it was Andres McKenna Polling and Research company.
::When did the leader of Noth Korea become a terrorist or are we now just saying that anyone that does not fall into line with us politically are terrorists?:: If you'd read my previous post, I said and not only terrorists, also Jong Ill.
::Is Spain now a terrorist nation?:: Spain has now voted in a Socialistic government. Don't know if that's what some here are hoping for or not. But I prefer that we NOT become a socialistic government.....and with kerry being as ultra-liberal as he it....he'd only promote more ultra-left wing policies.
::Bush calls their leader part of the axis of evil and you wonder why they may support his opponent?::
lol, NO I don't wonder. I agreed with him having the guts to call it like it is rather than pussy-footing around and pretending that Jong-Il and his ilk are really nice guys and present no danger to our country.
But it's obvious to most that by letting kerry's statements be broadcast in his nation....he believes kerry will be a 'much softer - no back bone - push over - kind of guy. Whereas Bush isn't.
::Besides - other than a soundbite - what actual, real-world relevance does it have?:: Relevance? I think it should be front page news when a communist country leader supports a candidate for President of the US.
::So this is just a bash and smash forum?:: No, but both sides are presented. You appear to think that a lot of things kerry's saying our this President are "bash and smash"...his supporters see that differently.
::Back in the employment thread you kept inisisting that Kerry had put forth no opinions on job creation and stabilization, you kept insisting over and over that there was nothing so when I dropped in and posted his views from the website you stopped posting. You called outfor the info, I am assuming retty sure that you would not get it and when you did, you had no comment on it. This is not meant as a an attack on you BTW - it's just a single example.::
fenix - I *did* respond to your 20 [monitor] page copy and paste. I sure hope you weren't expecting me to answer it line by line.
posted on March 17, 2004 05:44:26 AM new
And those jobs Leno jokes about have been lost because of legislation passed and signed by clinton.
And I hope everyone checks out kerry's voting record on free trade. Much different than what he now says he'll do. He has support free trade. NOW he says he'll do a 120 day review looking into all the trade issues. right...he's been in the Senate HOW LONG?
posted on March 17, 2004 09:11:02 AM new
Linda - isn't there rather a large difference between free trade and supportive exporting of jobs? You can suppport free trade while still halting tax breaks on companies that export their production lines overseas.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 17, 2004 12:28:28 PM new
fenix - The point I tried to make on trade were that kerry has voted for free trade....just as it's always been...none of these 'new restrictions' that he's saying he wants to impliment now. He wasn't suggesting these changes until he decided to use this as one for way to bash this President. The job loss didn't just start happening.....it started during the clinton administration. We're just noticing the full results of those changes during this recession and slow recovery.
posted on March 17, 2004 12:30:21 PM new
Who will the new socialist leader of Spain support?
From the "Sociocrati Global Village:
"We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. ...Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration.
...I think Kerry will win. I want Kerry to win." --Spanish Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, who scored an upset in Spain's elections, partly on his vow to retreat from fighting the JIhadi terrorists now discovered responsible for last week's train bombings.
**FINALLY, Kerry has the endorsement of a NAMED foreign leader...and a fellow Socialist, to boot!
posted on March 17, 2004 02:13:41 PM new
KD - That was a post taken from The Federalist and a quote from Spain's new socialist party leader.
Those who keep track of how far left or right our representatives are by their voting patterns/records, on all the issues - have rated kerry 92 out of 100. Further left than kennedy who received an 88.
I wouldn't expect a leader of a socialist party to support a president who's conservative or right winged....however you wish to word it.
edited to make correction on how far left kerry's votes are.
posted on March 17, 2004 02:38:37 PM new
How easily you overlook that the rating he has earned.....of 92 is from his own voting record....not a 'take' the Federalist has of kerry. It's fact.
edited to correct the rating given kerry for his ultra left voting record.
posted on March 18, 2004 07:48:56 AM newI would much prefer socialism....
we already know that....no surprise there.
--------------------
taken from MSNBC First Read - today
Meanwhile, new Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero continues to say "American voters should follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts for president in November," per the Washington Post.
Zapatero on Onda Cero radio yesterday: "'First we win here, we change this government, and then the Americans will do it, if things continue as they are in Kerry's favor.'"
Promoting kerry for president, to follow in his footsteps???? LOL
posted on March 18, 2004 09:02:53 AM new Again, linda... you take my quote out of context in an effort to deceive.
I said,
I would much prefer socialism to fascism.
[b] a terrorist group claiming links with al Qaida endorses Bush...from Reuters
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The statement is purportedly from the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades -- a terrorist group claiming links with al Qaida.
posted on March 19, 2004 10:58:21 AM new
Hello all.
I think they would vote for Bush because he is ruining America by ways of the economy, jobs, morale of the American people.
On one hand he is allowing illegal aliens to take jobs away from legal aliens and American citizens, yet on the other hand he is blaming Clinton for the outsourcing.
posted on March 19, 2004 12:40:28 PM new
Hi back at you, clarksville.
When Bush and kerry have both supported the NAFTA agreement that clinton signed....I think that alone speaks volumes.
Now..if kerry had been like Dean and totally opposed these trade agreements, that would be a different issue.
But since kerry HAS supported the trade agreements, even voted FOR them I don't see much difference. Kerry claims he's going to put some restrictions on trade now. But he's been in the Senate for a very long time and by his voting record I sure don't see where he was working to put those 'limits' on trade for all those years.
posted on March 19, 2004 04:12:15 PM new
This is getting funnier and funnier with each passing day.
First kerry makes a statement, which he won't back up [world leaders hope I get elected].....THEN
as Spain, North Korea and now a past Malaysian PM start endorcing him publically, his campaign makes a statement that 'It's not appropriate for foreign leaders to endorce a candidate for President.
-----------
[taken from the WSJ - today]
The Associated Press reports Kerry picked up another foreign endorsement yesterday: from former Paul Krugman advisee Mahathir Mohamad, erstwhile prime minister of Malaysia:
"I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview.
"But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
Mahathir's comments about the "Jewish lobby" are hardly surprising; as the Anti-Defamation League notes, he has a long history of anti-Semitsm. As we noted in October, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman thinks Mahathir's anti-Semitism is President Bush's fault.
Maybe Krugman should sign on as an adviser to the Kerry campaign. He could urge the candidate to explain to the American people how President Bush caused Mahathir to make anti-Semitic remarks in the very next breath after endorsing Kerry.
Instead, the Kerry camp is very much on the defensive; Kerry adviser Rand Beers issued the following statement yesterday:
John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable. The world needs leaders who seek to bring people together, not drive them apart with hateful and divisive rhetoric.
This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.
Yet not two weeks ago Kerry was boasting about all the endorsements he had supposedly received from foreign leaders. If this guy weren't so damn electable, we'd say he has no chance of winning.
-----------
First he wants the world to know he has the support of foreign leaders....now he doesn't. Another 'flip-flop'.
posted on March 19, 2004 04:25:06 PM new
And just think of all the flip flops that Bush made when he tried to redefine the justification for the invasion of Iraq...over and over and over. What's the latest one?
WOW!
just a few Bush flip flops...not to mention the lies
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
posted on March 20, 2004 12:35:39 AM newBush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Well, strictly speaking, that's not really true.
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
What Bush actually said was that he wanted Osama bin Laden--and the Taliban--"dead or alive." However, he also said that Osama was just one of many terrorists he [Bush] wanted to go after. Even then he planned a long term war. http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.bush.transcript/
"When al Qaeda's leader eluded capture in Afghanistan, President Bush gradually reduced his prominence in speeches to de-emphasize his individual importance. Now, with Saddam Hussein the villain of the hour and the Sept. 11 mastermind's coordinates still unknown, Osama bin Laden has fallen entirely from Bush's lexicon.
A search of the White House Web site indicates Bush has not made an unprompted mention of bin Laden's name since March 8. That day, at a GOP gathering in Florida, the president spoke of "this bin Laden fellow," and vowed: "We're going to find him." The last time Bush spoke the hated name in any public forum was a July 8 press conference, in which he was specifically asked if he would find bin Laden.
Lately, Bush has avoided mentioning the Evil One's name even when asked about him directly. At a Cabinet meeting last week, when a reporter asked Bush about Al Gore's charge that Iraq was deflecting attention from the failure to get bin Laden, Bush replied that "Saddam is a true threat to America."
This is quite a shift from the months after the terrorist attacks, when bin Laden was treated to daily mentions by Bush and colorful phrases such as "wanted: dead or alive." But now, with bin Laden's status unknown, invoking his name only reminds Americans of the failure to apprehend him."
Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Again, not quite. What he said was:
QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?
Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...
BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.
And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.
He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?
BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.
I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
o you believe that his statement was incorrect?:: Yes, I believe he could have lied about these 'so called leaders' saying this. The Washington Times took the time to track kerry's activities and he can't be placed being around any 'foreign leaders'. Maybe some think they were calling him on the phone.
