hank_rearden

It's offical- 4 more years. This is now 20 of the past 28 years of Republicans in the highest office. A huge change has happened in American politics, Democrats are not the party of the majority. The only person to break this stranglehold was Clinton, who seemed much more like a slightly liberal Republican than a true Democrat. Despite a massive turnout effort, groups such as moveon.org, and huge protest campaigns, the GOP once again swept the elections. Unless the Dems admit that something is seriously wrong with their message and act to change it, they can expect more of the same in the future.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103794/?GT1=4244

the above article references bill cosbys outburst regarding the black communities lack of responsibility, i find it interesting that to a degree this article seems to criticize Cosby for his "anti-black" views, it also seems to imply that since bill cosby is black he is allowed to be a model for the black community, rather then a model for all people who are tired of degenerates dragging society down???????
BUCK

John Kerry seems to have two stances on every issue put before him. the following
In no particular order:

In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. “Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we’re going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 10/23/03)

Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. “We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty.” (MSNBC’s “News Live,” 7/31/03)

But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yea)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. “Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. “We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03

Kerry Took BOTH Sides In First Gulf War In Separate Letters To Same Constituent. “Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04)

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. “Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts … said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ‘It’s what you owe the troops,’ said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ‘I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won’t speak a word without measuring how it’ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they’re listening to their radios in the desert.’” (Glen Johnson, “Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,” The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. “‘What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,’ Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ‘Regime Change,’” The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

there are plenty more where those came from on:
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439



THOUGHTS????
COMMENTS?????
BUCK

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.bush.html

I felt it'd be interesting to post a link to Bush's views to see what comments we'd receive.
JACK

Wonder why this story isn't getting more coverage: Weapons would have caused "Unforseeable Damage"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_re_eu/poland_iraq_sarin_2

javascript: rs("ss","http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/wl/070204cyclosarin&e=1&tmpl=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1088796700",750,580);

Thoughts?

-DLo

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/01/cosby.comments.ap/index.html

Recently I read the above article from bill cosby, he is ranting about how the black community is basically shooting themselves in the foot and pissing away all of the opportunities that the civil rights movement gave them.

They think they're hip," the entertainer said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
-Bill Cosby

"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said then. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads.
-Bill Cosby

i recently wrote a rant responding to Michael moores most recent movie and his thoughts on minorities going into the armed services. What bill cosby says above is part of what i was thinking and wanted to write i am glad that a prominent africian american has decided to call out his people on their ignorance and udder disregard for themselves and others around them. cosby also references the attitude of shoulda coulda woulda that seems to be rampant in the black community. All of the points made by cosby in this article are valid, and in response to the person named

BRAVO who wrote:
The thing you don't mention however is that good ol' Uncle Sam does not improve the neighborhoods of such lower class economies. He is quick to send these LOWER CLASS people out to fight wars and educate them in doing so... but UNCLE SAM sure is not quick enough to offer better SCHOOLING at ALL GRADE LEVELS in such RURAL AREAS. I would find bettering one's life through the education they really need, learning how to fight and kill is not the education these people need..."


I don’t think that better education would change any of these children’s or parents outlooks until their mindset of being constantly oppressed changes, they are walking around bitching and moaning about how bad they have it and in the same stroke they are solidifying their and their families presence in the lower class, and as bill cosby states it is the family that needs to be changed in order for everything else to be changed. When you have families who have passed down from generation to generation these ideas that 'we are oppressed therefore we deserve to be given this and that and the other' it is a never ending cycle. I know plenty of people who have come from less then ideal situations yet have excelled in school, excelled in college and are now out and doing well. I am sick and tired of hearing fucking minorities bitch and moan about this equal treatment, it is god damn bullshit it is to the point where when applying for aide for school you are fucked unless you are a minority. prime example, my younger sister when she applied for aide she got nothing she had to write essay after essay in order to get funding. She is now on her way to graduate school and is facing the same situation. We are an Irish catholic family, my mother raised the two of us on her own after my dad cheated and left the home. after the divorce my mom worked 3 jobs to pay for our private school, she also was putting herself through school, so for these god damned people to bitch and moan about how they have had a rough life or they have come from a home w/ low income and that automatically qualifies them for special treatment, give me a fucking break,

OK SO THIS HAS NOW JUST GONE INTO A BLANKET RANT ABOUT THINGS THAT PISS ME OFF (ENJOY)

i was watching some tv show a few weeks back that dealt with these kids who came from a lower class area and their "struggle" to pay for college, i was watching this and was just outraged that these fucking pussies, i mean come the fuck on they were working at a fucking minimum wage job bitching and moaning about how they couldn’t get money to pay for school. and these were fucking minority kids, i am fucking Irish catholic, and don’t get a fucking dime of free money for school, i have worked 40+ hours a week my entire college career, and recently when was deciding to move out on my own did i bitch and moan about how i couldn’t make enough because the man was keeping me down or because the government wouldn’t give me enough money to help the school costs. NO i fucking went out found a new job that would cover the costs of my expenses the point is that these kids in these lower class neighborhoods want every fucking thing handed to them, so i don’t give a fuck if we send them to the best schools in the country when they leave and go home they will still be exposed to this idea of something for nothing that their parents.

and this fucking liberal fuck john kerry wanting to give more and more money to kids for college, college is not a fucking birthright it is a privilege and one that you have to work hard at. if you want to go to college get your ass out there and work, save money, do whatever you have to do don’t fucking relay on the government to provide you with the money. some will say ooh George bush is giving tax cuts to the wealthy that in turn keeps the lower class down because they cant get ahead i will quote my friend JACK
"Since poor don't provide job growth or hold money in banks to increase cash withholdings essentially increasing the stored money supply for investments (in the form of businesses), it only makes sense that their tax cuts represent a "revenue enhancer" to boost their annual disposable income."

so the old saying you need money to make money is correct, ooh now some of you liberals are going to be whining about ooh well we don’t have any money and if we don’t get the tax breaks or whatever how can we get ahead? Fucking hard work and sacrifice that’s how bitches. My mom did it to put my sister and I through private school and her self through college, I am doing it to put myself through school.

In conclusion all of you whining liberals/minorities who want something for nothing quit your fucking bitching and get to work.

BUCK

http://w1.461.telia.com/~u46103335/euro11.html

This clears everything up...

THE FOLLOWING ARE JUST SOME THOUGHTS ON DIFFERENT ASPECTS FROM FAIRENHEIT 9/11
In response to the criticism of President Bush’s response or lack there of in the 7 minutes following the plane striking the 2nd twin tower, is there a handbook that I am unaware of that has directions on how to act when your country is being attacked? This criticism of his solemn ness is ludicrous. I had the same reaction sitting in my home viewing this planes on television, I was in shock, disbelief, some people I know were automatically outraged, some cried, are any of these reactions incorrect? Should I have jumped off the bed and grabbed my rifle and headed for the nearest recruiters office? Or should I have started sobbing and mourning? The point is there is no correct response; President Bush is a human being just as the rest of us are, we are diverse and all have varying reactions to tragedy.

In response to Michael Moore asking senators if they would send their sons and daughters into war was ridiculous, these senators have no more authority to send their children into war then do anyone else’s parents. Furthermore what is one supposed to say to that question? “Ok sure Michael I will go grab my kid and force them to go fight” it is a choice that is up to the individual, not their parents. If someone joins the armed services they know they run the risk of possibly going into war.

Another antic of Michael Moore’s is when he is following around the armed services recruiters, and inferring that they are praying on the lower class kids by heading to the urban mall versus the suburban mall etc….well the kids in the urban areas may have fewer opportunities to improve their quality of life, they may not have the means to attend college and the military may be their only option in getting out of their impoverished neighborhood. When the armed service recruiters came to my school, I and many I know passed them by, why, well because we fortunately had options to advance our lives other than risking our lives, so this makes sense for the recruiters to go to areas where the kids have fewer options, The military is a business; the soldiers in the armed services are employees of the government. These recruiters jobs are to essentially be headhunters ( the same that a fortune 500 company would have to lure top executives) the recruiters felt they have a higher pool to draw from in the lower class neighborhood due to lack of options for the inhabitants. They make the choice to sign on in hopes of ultimately bettering their lives. I think it is a slap in the face of all who choose a military life weather it be because they have no other option or because of a love for their country and service for Michael Moore to claim that it is a duty for the poor, I believe that he attempts to discredit the job our armed services to for our country.
buck

The "mockumentary" released last weekend was simply a series of facts with a series of presumptions following as conclusions. Nearly all the chains drawn by Moore (such as linking Bush to Osama bin Laden through x number of people nearly putting me to sleep) have no significance and can't be proven at all. Yes, the people that Bush dealt with during his former years were appointed to positions in the government, but Moore has no backing for the statements he made. Rather, he begins many of his conclusions with words of uncertainty, such as, wouldn't and doesn't it seem. As in, "Bowling for Columbine", he attempts to draw parallels which he can't prove, and he does so by exploiting people to draw to the emotions of the viewers. His comments regarding the upcoming election and not wanting to change the minds of the populace is a bit absurd after the images he portrays. Specifically, Moore uses a woman who is a supporter of Bush, and what the administration is doing in the Middle East, praising of her children as being, "gifts to the military". Minutes later, the woman can be found crying and speaking of Bush and the military in disgust. People who are emotional, and we know the majority of people think with emotion rather than logic, are easily influence by such garbage as Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore knew what he was doing and wasn't presenting anything relatively close to a documentary on what Bush was doing. Many of his "facts" have already been retracted by the White House in statements released the following weekend.
His potrayal of the army is also disgusting. As a man wanting what's best for the people and fair for the people, he certainly feels one-sided about the army. All of the footage shown shows our soldiers either killing civilians, or talking about what music they like to, "kill to". Since we have such a large group of unqualified, savages of soldiers in the Middle East, why not portray them as what they really are? Or so he'd like to make us think. The reasoning is to make people think that's what they are and try to influence them through such imagery.
After seeing that movie, I'm reminded of such propaganda films shown to the United States Army prior to fighting the Japanese showing their soldiers as animals; giving the soldiers the sentiment they had.
When Moore can produce a movie without using half-truths to draw conclusions, and attempting to grasp people's emotions through other people's misfortune, he might get full credit for his ability. In the meantime, the media is portraying him as the person he is; a curmudgeon out to get George Bush by using whatever means he can.

Plus, our good boy MM implies that people drawn into the military are both poor and black, but the next scene implies that they are both white and racist. Clearly, both can not be the case. MM needs to choose one stance or the other, and either portray our military as a refuge for the poor and broken down, or as a safe house for white supremacists. Clearly both can not be true.

Jack, with a conclusion by DLo.

Ok, here's a thought for you readers today. Our good president GW seems to be caught in a double bind. On the one hand, liberal critics argue that Bush spends too little money on certain programs, but then in THE SAME SENTENCE criticize him for running up budget deficits. What, oh all-knowing liberals, is a president to do? It seems like to spend money is terrible, but not spending money is also terrible. News flash: you can't have it both ways. Either advocate increased government spending or advocate fiscal restraint. Additionally, these liberal critics don't differentiate between types of spending, such as defense or social. The increases in spending under Bush have come from traditionally liberal programs, such as health care and education, not from defense. The increases in defense spending have come post 9-11, when the need to increase homeland security became apparent, following eight years of cuts in the same programs under Democratic leadership.

Another issue in this whole "balanced budget" debate is that under Clinton, the social security surplus was included as part of the general surplus, while under Bush, the social security budget is considered separate. As a result, Clinton's budget seems far superior to Bush's, when in reality the only difference is due to seasonal fluctuations in tax revenue. Yet another distortion of the figures that makes our budget deficit seem worse than it is, not that budget deficits are bad (another rant for another time). So, the lessons to take away from this are that figures aren't always as they seem, budget cuts in one period can impact another period, and most importantly, you have to pick a position! Either be for low spending, or be for high spending. Don't criticize someone for spending too much, but at the same time say he/she's not spending enough. -DLO