posted on June 9, 2004 12:19:15 PM new
Like a fish out of water, Kerry continues to thrash around.
Can you say flip flop again.
-------------------------
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry spent the past week hawking a tough national-security image to convince voters that he can be trusted to aggressively fight the war on terrorism, calling it the "greatest threat" facing America today.
But less than six months ago, the Massachusetts senator said in a televised debate that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat posed by terrorism.
"I think there's been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said in January when asked whether he agreed with most Europeans that President Bush "has exaggerated the threat of terrorism." "There needs to be a refocusing," Mr. Kerry said.
In the current political battle, in which national security appears to play a considerable role, Mr. Kerry is singing a decidedly different tune from his primary days, promising to fight a tougher and smarter war against terrorists than Mr. Bush has.
The Kerry campaign did not explain the apparent discrepancies in his positions, except to say that his current position is the one he's sticking with.
"John Kerry spent this week talking about the security challenges before our nation, and what we need to do to make our nation stronger and safer," campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said. "These terrorist threats are very real, and more must be done to address them."
Mr. Kerry called the prospect of a nuclear attack by terrorists "the greatest threat we face today."
"The question before us now is what shadowy figures may someday have their finger on a nuclear button if we don't act," he said in one of a series of speeches in which he accused Mr. Bush of not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough.
In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism.
He also said he would expand the standing army by 40,000 troops — at no additional cost to taxpayers — to fight terrorism. Yet, he had insisted during much of the primary that the fight against terrorists was primarily a police action rather than a military operation.
Last month, after Attorney General John Ashcroft warned of terrorist attacks this summer, Mr. Kerry took a hard line on terrorism.
"We were again reminded that we do live in dangerous times," he said.
During a January debate in Greenville, S.C., moderator Tom Brokaw asked Mr. Kerry to explain his assertion by asking, "Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?"
Mr. Kerry listed several areas of exaggeration for the crowd of Democrats, including "nuclear weapons."
"They are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way," Mr. Kerry responded.
He went on to say that the war on terror is "occasionally military," but that "it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world, the very thing this administration is worst at."
Among those struck by Mr. Kerry's assertion was Sen. John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat who went on to win the South Carolina primary and become Mr. Kerry's toughest primary opponent.
After answering an unrelated question, Mr. Edwards asked to return to the earlier question.
"It's hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September 11," said Mr. Edwards, who makes most short lists of potential running mates for Mr. Kerry.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
1. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
2. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
3. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...“Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
…BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]
4. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
5. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
6. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
7. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
8. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
9. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
10. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
11. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
12. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
13. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
14. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
15. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
16. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
17. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
18. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
20. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 9, 2004 12:40:48 PM new
Bear - once again I think you and the your favorite writers are stretching to find some other reason to make a dig at Kerry.
In todays world with the cold world over and no clearly defined enemy nation, terrorism is the greatest outside threat to this country. That said, Bush has exaggerated the hell out of the threat even using it as an excuse to veto drug importation bills. If Bush had his way we would go thru life afraid of our own shadow. All the time using that fear to rob us more and more civil liberties while day by day handing the terrorists victory after victory in their goal to destroy our way of life without them ever having to actually take another move against us.
Post on website that you are going to launch another attack some where somehow via some method and search and seizure laws in New York go out the window as random subway passenger searches are mad legal. The list goes on. Actually since no one knows who is really typing those words, it may just be a 14 computer geek in Denmark that is inspiring you to hand over every freedom you have and all the while all you can do is try to attack someone who is stepping forth to tr y to make change.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 9, 2004 01:39:36 PM newI just got stuffed again.
SO your husband finally took you to Mas. & married you, made an honest woman of you, is that correct peepa? And now you're bragging about your honeymoon?
Tell it to someone who cares.
------------------------------
Bush-Haters Serve Their Own Egos Before Serving Fellow Man
Posted June 4, 2004
By Cheryl Felicia Rhoads
Those who claim to serve their fellow man have a responsibility to proceed with caution during times of great peril. In conducting the national debate on the war in Iraq in a shrill and reckless tone, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other critics of the Bush administration are aiding and abetting our enemies.
Kennedy, whose own personal history is questionable at best, has spewed moralistically that, "We now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."
This is but the latest in a string of hysterical statements leveled at the current administration. It is never necessary for a person of good will to recklessly impugn the motives of those with whom he disagrees simply because they might see things in a different light. But are the Bush-haters of good will? Do they serve others or are they serving their own egos and need to be right?
In being bombarded with Kennedy's relentless pomposity, along with that of his protégé, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.,) and many in the media, I am reminded of a fictional character portrayed by actor Hart Bochner in the first Diehard film in 1988.
Bochner's character in the film is an opportunist who claims to know how best to deal with terrorists who have captured his office building. He befriends them, offering himself as the alternative to dealing with a rogue cop played by Bruce Willis. Willis is even scornfully called a lone cowboy.
The terrorists are quietly amused. They use the Bochner character for their own ends. And then they kill him. So much for appeasement.
Thankfully, the film's hero, played by Willis, maneuvers many harrowing obstacles, even running barefoot across broken glass, before he saves the day.
I'm certain President George W. Bush can relate to Diehard with regard to his current nemeses. He needs to keep running the country and this necessary war in spite of his political foes' sharp words.
I discovered, in a bit of wonderful irony, that Diehard's Bochner is the son of another actor known for playing sophisticated know-it-all types, Lloyd Bochner, whose most famous role may be that of Mr. Chambers in an episode of the immortal Twilight Zone television series.
In that story, aliens come to Earth promising cure for disease as long as mankind agrees to disarm itself.
Unlike the character played by his son in Diehard, the elder Bochner's character survives long enough to relate a cautionary tale. He aligned himself with the aliens when they arrived with a seemingly benevolent book, the title of which, To Serve Man, gives the episode its name. The book turns out to be, not a gift, but a cookbook. Too late, the doomed narrator realizes that everyone on Earth is on the menu.
It's serendipitous that two of my favorite fictional examples of elitists getting hoisted on their own petards are played by father and son actors. Both Bochners play to perfection characters with pretentious worldviews that lead them directly into the hands of their enemies.
The Bochners, however, only portrayed fools. Kennedy, Kerry and the other elitists hold the attention of the world stage.
Does this mean one can't ever question a wartime president? Of course, not. However, the tone and timing of a debate dictates whether one is wise enough to decipher true danger.
The Bochners' fictional characters discovered in both of their scripts that due to their pride in their sophistication, they were destroyed by evil. Ultimately, both characters die hard. In real life, today's elitists serve terrorists with wild accusations and their hatred of President Bush. By their demagoguery and sanctimonious tone, they are in fact boosting al-Qaeda's morale and therefore their cause.
If they don't rethink their strategy for discourse, they may find that many of us will join Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl in their horror. Indeed, the left is serving up a recipe for disaster from a most dangerous cookbook.
Cheryl Felicia Rhoads is an actress and writer who lives in Hollywood. "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International, a sister news organization of Insight.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
[ edited by Bear1949 on Jun 9, 2004 01:41 PM ]
posted on June 9, 2004 03:04:28 PM new
BEAR, LOL, You made my day. First your republican flip flop line gets you stuffed BIG TIME, then you imply this father of 6 and grandfather of 4 is gay. I find your post very funny. Even if I was gay what would that have to do with your failed party's leadership? Please do yourself a favor and take a smart pill you need it if you want to hang on this board. I am sure we will talk again, I find your posts and replies very entertaining.
posted on June 9, 2004 06:59:48 PM new
Come November we'll see who get hysterical at the results. And it won't be the Pro Bush group.
-----------
Written by Leo Lacayo
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
The San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked me how many negative responses I had received to an invitation issued to a candle light vigil for President Reagan and he couldn't believe it when I said... ''None!'' Well, the truth is I am sure some negative people may be coming out soon, but for the time being most of the anti-Reagan storm troopers were with all the Pollsters... in hiding, under the rock they usually crawl out of.
This has NOT been a good week for liberals, including John Kerry, as his campaign swirls toward the sewer. First, Kerry for King sought to portray the country as mired in economic malaise. Then, record economic growth slamed him back. This was quickly followed by a double-whammy: There was a big drop in unemployment numbers.
Then they publicly laughed at the president's projection of 3 million new jobs by the election. A record 1,270,000 new jobs have appeared with six months of increasing growth ahead of us.
The enemies of the American people, the anti-American press, spearheaded by the New York Times and the San Francisco Comical proceeded to make hay of the interrogation methods of the murderers in our custody, as if we had conducted torture tantamount to the Inquisition. At the same time they ignored Nick Berg's execution, which was something that stuck in the throat of real Americans everywhere.
Then Mr. Kerry went on his crazed ranting about President Bush's lack of an exit strategy from Iraq. He was nailed again by the punctual turn-over of sovereignty to the Iraqis. The militias are slowly but surely being overpowered, and the Iraqi police heroically confronted the fanatic terrorist. All of this was bad news for Bush-haters everywhere. Then came the coupe de grace: the unanimous votes for the U.S.-sponsored United Nations resolution giving the president a huge wealth of support for what we are achieving in the middle east.
John Kerry, who not more than a few days ago was making fun of Reagonomics and the heir of the Gipper, George W. Bush, must be feeling pretty so weak, that he had to run to the coffin of President Reagan in Simi Valley, at the Reagan Library, and basically try and claim some part of the Reagan Revolution as his, in order to salvage his can't shoot straight campaign. History shows us that no one is a bigger enemy of everything President Reagan stands for than Kerry and his band of leftist cohorts. History shows us that President Bush, and his policy of ''Freedom through Strength'' is the only competent heir who merits a re-election of historic proportions.
As the saying goes: ''Mr. Kerry, ... I know Ronald Reagan and YOU, Sir, are NO Ronald Reagan, .. I have also met Daniel Ortega, and YOU, Sir, are a good friend and cohort of DANIEL ORTEGA, a megalomaniac whose aim is not a better America, just a leftist dominated one. So welcome to the exclusive club of real losers: Carter, Dukakis, and Gore! The name ''Kerry'' is soon to be chiseled in alongside that group of losers.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on June 9, 2004 07:08:54 PM newCome November we'll see who get hysterical at the results. And it won't be the Pro Bush group.
Well I certainly hope not. It just won't do to have all you tough-guy bring-em-on types crying in your beer...
edited to add, this is the first poll I've seen where Bush and Kerry were not in a dead heat by the margin of error. My goodness, whatever is the country thinking??
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
[ edited by profe51 on Jun 9, 2004 07:10 PM ]
posted on June 9, 2004 07:12:14 PM newHehe, if kerry makes it all hell is going to break loose here
Like??
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 9, 2004 07:17:49 PM new
profe I guess you can't add Margin of error is 6 %
It will change as it gets closer to November.
Now what brownie points was Kerry trying to make when he visited the casket of Reagan at Simi Valley. Made the sign of the cross and bowed his head. Why did he go all the way to California when Washington DC is closer. You make the call....
"Now what brownie points was Kerry trying to make when he visited the casket of Reagan at Simi Valley. Made the sign of the cross and bowed his head. Why did he go all the way to California when Washington DC is closer. You make the call...."
The answer libra is that he was in Califonia, not Washington. Kerry had flown from Washington to California to attend his daughter's graduation from film school.
"He bowed his head and made the sign of the cross." Can you tell me what was wrong with that gesture of respect that he paid Reagan?
posted on June 9, 2004 08:27:41 PM new
Libra - I think that you owe Prof an appology and your monitor a good cleaning as it very clearly stated on the very first line of the graphic that the margin of error on the poll is FOUR not six.
::Now what brownie points was Kerry trying to make when he visited the casket of Reagan at Simi Valley.::
How funny that many were called evil and unpatriotic for not showing respect to Reagan and when yet when Kerry does, it is viewed with an eye of suspician. Truth be told, I doubt he could have done anything correct in your mind. Had he been in Washington rather than California it would have been a blatantly political move trying to put himself on a level he has yet achieved and had he not gone to either you be complaining about such a public show of disrespect.
::Made the sign of the cross and bowed his head. ::
Those damn catholics, the nerve of traditional gestures of respect at a memorial. I would watch those Californians closely because I know I saw at least a dozen others making exact same gestures. I think it could have been a secret sign of solidairty with Kerry.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 9, 2004 09:32:16 PM new
Libra, Democrats,republicans, independents, alike attended those ceremonies - or did that escape you?
1st of all, they are all career politicians and it could it any one of them or their families left standing there. They came out because he was a president. The nearest thing to royalty this country has. Secondly, what would you expect a catholic to do - throw black roses on top of the coffin??
Hey Near, I'd like to join the cheer leading team too, but some things are just too dumb to cheer on. oh well, too bad for me,....but hey, there's always the arm chair psychiatrists team! lol>>>
posted on June 9, 2004 09:45:38 PM newprofe I guess you can't add Margin of error is 6 %
I can add... and read
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 9, 2004 09:47:04 PM new
blairwitch:
I'm still waiting to hear all about the hell that's going to break loose if Kerry wins. Please, fill us in.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 9, 2004 10:11:37 PM new
I don't feel I own him any apology.
There is more than 4% margin of error on that pole as there are 3% neither, 1% other and 2% no opinion. That's more than 4%, it's more like 6%. It also depends on what state you take a poll in. So if you want to use the polls for discussion it must include a well rounded group which includes ALL voters. I don't see Nader in that poll. Like Jesse Ventura, Nader could jump out ahead.
Fennix what I was getting at is the fact that Kerry is for abortion. He is Catholic?
Catholics do not believe in abortion, that is the true catholic. Making the sign of the cross is a Catholic tradition. I just made a comment that's all.
posted on June 10, 2004 02:48:47 AM new
Libra - yes - Kerry is Catholic - I guess you missed the whole hullabalu that started when the Pope dissed Kerry by telling American priests that they should deny communion to Pro-Choice politicians. Many Catholics buck church doctrine, some are Pro Choice, some have been divorced, have premarital sex and others have the gaul to actually use birth control. (I guess the pope believes that the rhythm method is also a good preventative method for STDs and AIDS can be cured with a few Hail Mary's ) Personally I respect Kerry for standing up against the church on the subject. He took a stand regarding the legal right of women vs the churchs view which is exactly what a lawmaker is supposed to do and risked the wrath of many vs Bush who doesnn't even have the guts to stand up against them in the name of the greater good of the people he is supposed to serve in terms of stem cell research.
As for your margin of error definitions - it seems you have now made up ones that no pollster in the country recognizes. I don't think you are allowed to make up new definitions for catagories. People were polled and clearly stated their opinion and you have just decided that the fact that they stated the don't like either one, they like someone else or they simply could not care less and you have decided that they are in error? That's a bit arrogant don't you think?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 10, 2004 02:59 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2004 06:07:58 AM newThere is more than 4% margin of error on that pole as there are 3% neither, 1% other and 2% no opinion
Libra, you need to read up on MOE, never mind.
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
Libra, Here, you can find a good explanation of such things as margin of error and how it is possible to assess public opinion by a small number of questions asked to a tiny percentage of the entire population.
posted on June 10, 2004 06:39:18 AM new
Bush promises but doesn't deliver:
Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas
Published June 10, 2004
AUSTIN, Texas -- As comedian Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as one utility company used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota, director of strategic communications for the Center for American Progress, at the americanprogress.org Web site, we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health-care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died aborning after it hit the newspapers.
In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (to $150 from $225) and family separation allowance (to $100 from $250).
In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health-insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one of every five Guard members has no health insurance.
What a nice thank-you note.
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." Progressive lawmakers counterproposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted down the proposal. With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.
According to The Washington Post, the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a $1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's increase--and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177 million, and the highly successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by $100 million.
Anytime Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by, some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death--budget cuts follow.
Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut veterans spending by $910 million.
Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation committee that will have a look into that government failure?
Can we fire George Tenet again?
Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) points out that the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is not to pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?"
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 10, 2004 12:12:19 PM new
"He bowed his head and made the sign of the cross." Can you tell me what was wrong with that gesture of respect that he paid Reagan?
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 9, 2004 07:46 PM
He didn't respect Reagan.....it was all for the camera.
What was wrong with that gesture? Not a darn thing. But had President Bush done exactly the same thing....the lefties here would have had a field day pointing out how wrong he displays his religious convictions WAY too much. lol
religious tolerance for their own lefties....none for the Presidents IF they're Republicans.
posted on June 10, 2004 12:25:14 PM new
I doubt anyone would have said a word. Your paranoia is getting out of hand.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 10, 2004 12:39:14 PM new
profe51, I meant here on the board. I cant imagine what some people will do if Kerry makes it....I hope he does!
posted on June 10, 2004 12:40:03 PM new
Previous postings on past threads here proves the hypocrisy that's rampant here from those on the left, bunni. It's not paranoia to point out the truth.
posted on June 10, 2004 01:26:29 PM new
gotcha blairwitch, thanks for clarifying!
___________________________________
When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism. - Edward Abbey
posted on June 10, 2004 02:33:07 PM new
What's the difference between Kerry and Bush? The answer is not much! If you want real change, vote for Ralph Nader!
) Personally I respect Kerry for standing up against the church on the subject. He took a stand regarding the legal right of women vs the churchs view which is exactly what a lawmaker is supposed to do and risked the wrath of many vs Bush who doesnn't even have the guts to stand up against them in the name of the greater good of the people he is supposed to serve in terms of stem cell research.
