August 27, 2004
Kerry should not have pulled the McCain ads
This cartoon was true 4 years ago and it's still true today.
I think Kerry should not have pulled the McCain ads exposing McCain as a liar for Bush. McCain want to have it both ways - to compain about what Bush did to him - and to endorse a man who McCain clearly hates so that some day he might get a shot at president. It might be a different stort if McCain weren'ty actively involved in this election - but he is. So - I hope MoveOn picks up those spots and runs them. McCain is as dishonorable as the Swift Boat Vets who are lying about Kerry's record. McCain is the very thing he hates.
hey wills, leave ashmed out of this. lol. you know, i too liked him in 2000, better than Gore AND bush. now i've lost all respect i had for him. and dole too. another tool. i to am ashamed to call myself american. like i've said in another post, it's all about reality TV. if people would stop and see the whole picture and realize that WE are america, not the politicians. WE have the power. and WE can take it back! from both parties. they are both cut from the same cloth, they're just dyed differently. imagine how the rest of the world sees us? i can tell you that Mexicans have no respect for this country anymore. and Canadians too.
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 27, 2004 09:15 AMThats because the the majority of the free world is liberial, not liberial as in democrates, but liberial as in freedoms, wanting to move the country forward and you have independent thinkers. When you have conservatives you don't move the country forward you keep it with the bible and you cut freedoms away by using a blood thirsty god and scaring little children with satan. Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists are a good example of conservatives. Other issues such as big business and envirmontal protection are just issues each side just add's to there label.
"con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
con·serva·tive·ly adv.
con·serva·tive·ness n."
"lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party."
www.dictionary.com
Excellent point Joshua, well said. But conservatives have labeled the word 'liberal' as something evil. Bigotry is OK by them, I guess. Also, Joshua G., I tried emailing you but it came back to me. E-mail when u get a chance...
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 28, 2004 01:40 PMI just don't get it. Here we have someone who went to Vietnam and received medals being blasted by someone who was granted a free ride in the National Guard flying obselete planes. How is it that the US citizenry puts up with this crap? How did it become Kerry is a bad guy and not W? I just don't get it. Frustrated!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: mary at August 29, 2004 10:52 AMMary, it is called "COMMON SENSE", and as my old Irish Grandmother used to say, "Tommy, common sense ia not all that common."
Josh's whole spiel on the difference between liberal and conservative are comical. I would love to pound on that one. I would burn up all of Marc's bandwidth, and I have to go put a second coat of paint on my son's bedroom ceiling. Let me just say that Josh is CLOSE to be exactly right on the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Posted by: tomocius at August 29, 2004 12:10 PMIf you really didn't have the time you wouldnt have posted at all, so why don't you "pound" on me asap?
Posted by: Joshua Gillogly at August 29, 2004 02:07 PMCommon sense to bash someone with real military service as opposed to papa's boy? Come on....that is not common sense.
Posted by: mary at August 29, 2004 02:21 PMso, if i get this correctly, dictionary terms are now comical? Like I've said before. The majority of people don't really care about politics. As far as they are concerned, some good mug slinging is all they want. AND, there are a lot of sheeple out there that depend on the media and government to think for them. So in essence, you should blame the people for allowing Bush to get away with all the mud-throwing that is going around during this election. Kerry is trying to be polite about it, but the medai, rush, etc, portray that is weakness. I have two sons, but I tell them I love them everyday, even in public, I hug them and kiss them (8 years, 10 months). Does that make me weak? No, it makes me a caring father, but in the eyes of some, I could be viewed as weak, affimanate, fag, pussy, etc. You get the idea.
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 29, 2004 03:16 PM
Charlie, do you really think that most people only want to see mud-slinging? You might be right and that is almost how it seems. Why are most people allowing the bashing of Kerry's record? Is it human nature? And if so, how do we combat with intelligence and facts?
I simply don't understand how Kerry's record is in question but Bush, the Texas Guard evader is not. Isn't everyone ready to throw mud in that case? It doesn't seem so. That is what is so incredibly frustrating.
Let's throw mud where it belongs...the Whitehouse. Where is the public on that agenda. Again, frustration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry that you do not understand what we are voting for on November 2, Mary. We are voting for the President of the United States. Basically, we are electing the Chief Executive Officer of the country. Inasmuch as Kerry served in Vietnam, that is not the only criteria that is needed to elect a President. NOOOOO QUESTION that Bill Clinton was the greatest president in the last 100 years, and guess where he served? Answer please ... No where, not even the Arkansas National Guard. Now tell me, why all of a sudden is a man's military record the only criteria to getting elected?
Mary, I own two companies, and if I were interviewing a man for a job and throughout the interview process all the man told me about was what he did 35 years ago, it would lead me to believe that he has done nothing in the last 35 years. Tell me, what has John Kerry done post 1970?
Posted by: tomocius at August 29, 2004 05:56 PMBeing a three term Senator is just a figure head. It certainly is not an accomplishment in my book.
So, now we now the ONE thing he did before 1970, and we know the ONE thing that he did since 1970. A BUSY BUSY man, that Kerry.
How about the worst President in US history, what has he done?
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!
Worst president in history?
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Reading Josh's definition of a liberal and a conservative it seems that liberals are people who have moved away from traditional values, and moved toward more open minded, less orthodoxed ideas. And I cannot think of a better example than abortions. The killing of a child has moved off the conservative stage, and moved on to be excepted open minded stage of liberalism. Even to the point that when the babies head and shoulders are out of thye womb, a doctor can stick a needle into the babies brain and kill it in the name open-mindedness.
The conservative age old tradition of going to school and learning so that you can go out and become a productive member of society has given way to the new liberal thought of dumbing down our children so that they become non-productive members of our society. Not to worry, because if some conservative escapes this dumbing down process and succeeds we will take from him and give to our open-minded liberal failures their fair share.
Posted by: tomocius at August 30, 2004 07:52 AMJosh, you are a student? Honestly, what is your GPA? It is for the purpose of an exercise, tell me. I want to show you something.
Posted by: tomocius at August 30, 2004 07:57 AMtom, u mentioned you own two companies. you will not hire someone for what they did 35 years ago. Would you hire someone who lied on their resume? Bush did. He lied about not getting preferrential treatment when accepted into the guard. Form TX Governor Barnes admitted to it, after Bush scored very low and BARELY scored enough to pass. Not to mention failing to show up for a drug test, so he was grounded, and in doing so, wasted taxpayer's money. I would not hire either one. One for betting his career on what he did 35 years ago, and one for being a liar and need daddy to help him out in rough spots...
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 30, 2004 10:36 AMInteresing point of view:
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04355.html
Charlie, I am left with three choices. 1) I could choose not to vote. That is a vote in and of itself. 2) I could choose to vote for Mike Badnarik or 3) I could vote for George Bush.
Voting for Kerry is not a choice in my view. If I vote for Badnarik, it might help Kerry win. Bad choice. I therefore will be voting for Bush, unless something comes out in the next two months that tells me that is the wrong choice. But that something cannot be the same old bullshit.
Posted by: tomocius at August 30, 2004 11:29 AMRight now Tom, Bush is not an option for me. That man is just a bit too crooked for me. Kerry, he's basing his campaign on what he did over 30 years ago. Who am I left with? I'm still researching both candidates, looking at their websites and see what each have to say about how they will run, or ruin, the country.
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 30, 2004 01:04 PMhey wills, that could not be a flip-flop. why u ask? is it because there's no money left because we're funding welfare? sorry, i tried to be a republican. was i close? another flip/flop: I'm a uniter. What's going on today? I know it's old, but it's still valid today. I smell another civil war coming...
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 30, 2004 03:32 PMdamn, i posted on the wrong spot. need to get my head out of my ass. but i SO enjoy being a compassionat conservative...
Posted by: charlie chingas at August 31, 2004 10:21 AMOH OH OH I GOT A GOOD ONE, "IM GOIN TO FIGHT AND WIN THIS WAR ON TERRORISM", "WE CAN NOT WIN THIS WAR ON TERRORISM" then back to "WE WILL AND MUST WIN THIS WAR ON TERRORISM"
Tom I see you have a problem with abortions, is it because your killing somthing that has no past?, not memory? no real life to begin with? Tom would you sacrafice yourself to chance a baby? Most women who have abortions can not afford a baby, so that baby will either be left in the side of the road to die or be put up for adoption with houndreds of other babies, most of which will have a whole broken child hood for not being raised right and they will find easy impregnate or get it and it will start they cycle again, just every time the cycle grows into one big mess. There are also the mothers who find out midway threw being pregnent that they will die if they have the baby, or even worse both them and the baby will die. Or whats if a women is raped and she gets pregnent what about that?
Posted by: Joshua Gillogly at August 31, 2004 02:57 PMDoes anyone know where to find the McCain ad that Mark references in the title of this post?
Posted by: Paul at September 2, 2004 04:27 PMthen McCain turns homo and hugs the monkey... yeah, i'm pissed right now...
Posted by: charlie chingas at September 2, 2004 10:11 PMI am so ashamed that I wasted my vote for george war bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment? Growing up, I was led to believe that the republican party was a grass roots party of the people & for the people. In retrospect, it is clear that the last 3 presidents produced by the republican party were nothing more then the rich man's rich man hiding under the disguise of the overly misused term, "conservative". The economic dark ages of reagonomics fleeced the middle and lower classes of this county simply to benefit the rich and wealthy. George warmonger bush has quietly shifted this country back to those economic dark ages. Bush inherited a strong economy and ruined that real quick. And even though 9 -11 did happen, none of bush’s reckless irresponsible decisions are justified by that day in history. It is clear that he never had any real salient foreign & domestic policies when he became president in 2000. Now we have 4 more years of republican lies and a growing body count overseas. If we ever actually do get out of Iraq, nothing will have changed and nothing will have been gained. The American people have never been given a specific objective in Iraq or a clear definition of exactly what victory in Iraq is from the president. Invading Iraq never had anything to do with, WMD, freeing the Iraqi people or making Americans safer and secure. Statements about WMD, Freeing Iraq or Making America Safer are nothing more then a marketing spin used to hide the ugly truth and make the lies palatable to the American public and justifiable to the red necks who voted for him. Bush likes to make statements such as “It’s worth the price” but he never says just what exactly “it” is. If he really believes that, then he should put his money where his mouth is and send his daughters to go fight in Iraq. The republican party claims to be for smaller less wasteful government but the current administration is responsible for the waste of more money, resources and human lives then any past democrat presidency. I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that the blood of Americans and innocent civilians is on my hands and the hands of those who voted for george warmonger bush. The real legacy of the bush cabinet is going to be one characterized by lots of wrongful deaths, lots of money and resources wasted, unnecessary tax increases for our children and grandchildren and the unnecessary destruction of various social programs that good decent people count on. Thanks to bush and his power hungry cabinet who all want to control congress, the senate & the supreme court, the USA is now a third world country hiding under the disguise of prosperity. Now that the USA owes all these hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like China, Germany, Russia & Japan, I wonder which language I need to learn for the day when these countries come to collect…
Posted by: Gman at July 29, 2005 12:21 PM