BS: Kerry/Edwards

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 12:48 AM

bengi: "Do you think Edwards will ever make it to the Tonight Show with Sarah Palin?"

GfS: Nawww, nor will he ever make it WITH Sarah Palin. He'll probably get a book deal, be a commentator on MSNBC, and give the impression to Tiger Woods that he(Edwards) has absolutely no taste, whatsoever!!

Actually, as it turned out, and as I've said before....he's too stupid to be the president of anything!.....but, as things also turned out, he's got the moral integrity that the 'far left' liberal Democrats just love!...He's YOUR guy!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: bengi
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:58 PM

Do you think Edwards will ever make it to the Tonight Show with Sarah Palin?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:21 PM

He won't be VP.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: bengi
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:19 PM

How about that Edwards fellow?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,JLR
Date: 07 Aug 04 - 12:15 AM

I appreciated reading all of the previous threads.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Bush--I refuse to call him "President Bush", is in over his head. He does not have the mental capacity, charisma, or even sympathy, now, to pull this gig off.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 04:05 AM

DougR, many Americans invest in mutual funds that invest in foreign securities. Many financial advisors urge their clients, including small investors, to diversify their portolios by putting some money in international mutual funds, which are sponsored by U.S. fund companies, such as Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, and Vanguard. Does the fund you refer to fall in this category? If so, I don't see a contradiction.

Chanteyranger

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,GregT
Date: 02 Aug 04 - 01:27 AM

THE RAW DEAL: Desperate Measures: John Kerry Offers His Fifth Explanation For His Vote Against The Troops
"As a sign of John Kerry's mounting desperation to explain to Americans his vote against funding for our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq, John Kerry today called his tortured position 'complicated.' There's nothing complicated about funding troops with body armor, health care and supplies after you voted to send them to war."

- Steve Schmidt, Bush-Cheney '04 Spokesman
John Kerry Has Offered Five Positions On Supporting The Troops:
1.        Kerry Had Characterized A Vote Against The Funding As "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS, "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
2.        Kerry Voted Against $87 Billion War Supplemental. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
3.        Kerry Offered A Tortured Explanation Of His Vote Against The $87 Billion To Support Troops In Iraq. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Richard W. Stevenson and Adam Nagourney, "Bush's Campaign Emphasizes Role Of Leader In War," The New York Times, 3/17/04)
4.        Kerry Said He's "Proud" That He And Edwards Voted Against $87 Billion In Funding For U.S. Soldiers. "Here is the value that John Edwards and I will put in place. I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion when we knew the policy had to be changed." (John Kerry, Remarks at "Women's Voices: A Luncheon with John Kerry," Boston, MA, 7/12/04)
5.        Kerry Says His Vote Against Body Armor And Supplies For Troops Was "Complicated." Don Imus: "That's probably a longer answer than I would be able to give to, say, Senator Miller or Senator Hatch, but …" Sen. Kerry: "Well, you know, that's a problem. Some of these things are a little complicated. They like to simplify them and pretend to America. The pretending time is over." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04)
Kerry And Biden Differ On Vote:

Kerry Offers Biden Amendment As Defense Of His Vote. Sen. Kerry: "So Joe Biden and I, and I know you like Joe, Joe and I brought an amendment to say: Hey, America, rather than have a $690 billion tax cut for everybody over the next 10 years who's earning, you know, over $200,000 a year, why don't we just share the sacrifice and take $600 billion, and that way we could pay for the entire war right up front and not add to the deficit. Guess what? George Bush said no. The Republicans said no. And what they're doing is trying to, you know, once again mislead America, as they do so effectively, make a joke out of something that's serious. They've added that money to the deficit, they're burdening our children. John Edwards and I want to be fiscally responsible, put America back on track, and that's exactly what we're going do." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 7/15/04)

After His Admendment Was Defeated, Sen. Joseph Biden Voted For $87 Billion Iraq/Afghanistan War Supplemental. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Biden Voted Yea)

Biden Said Kerry Was "Dead Wrong" To Vote Against $87 Billion For Troops And Reconstruction In Iraq And Afghanistan. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) "He [Kerry] said first I voted for it, then I voted against it. How can he justify voting against that $87 billion?" Sen. Joseph Biden: "Well, I don't, I advised him to vote for it and I think by the way let's make clear what he meant when he voted for and against it. He didn't say it very well. I added an amendment saying it should be paid for out of the tax cut. He voted for that. So in a sense, had that passed he would have voted for the $87 billion. I think it's, look, I think what John Kerry ..." George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) "Even though it didn't you still voted for it." Sen. Joseph Biden: "I absolutely still voted for it and I think John was dead wrong." (ABC's "This Week," 3/21/04)

Senators Kerry And Edwards Are Two Of Only Four US Senators Who Voted For The Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq And Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops.
•        Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided "Extra Money For Body Armor For Soldiers …" (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03)
•        Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Increased Combat Pay For Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03)
•        Supplemental Funding Bill Kerry And Edwards Voted Against Provided Health Benefits For Reservists And Guardsmen Called To Active Duty, As Well As Support For Their Families. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03; S. Rept. 108-160, Conference Report On S. 1689, 10/2/03; "FY 2004 Supplemental Request For Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), And Operation Noble Eagle (ONE)," U.S. Department Of Defense, 9/03)

Wake up people, these guys Kerry/Edwards would put our troops at greater risk (aid and comfort to our enemies) in order to gain power.

You can't possibly believe what they say, after seeing what they have done. Besides, Bush is the closest thing to a Democrat to ever run on a Republican ticket. Why do you think they hate Bush so much?

Kerry gave the same speech Bush did in 2000 just last week, if you believe Kerry was being truthful in his acceptance speech last Thursday, you will be voting to put a Republican in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 05:52 PM

"Kerry said he had no respect for Edwards when he couldn't even win his home state."

Kerry at no time said he didn't have respect for Edwards. I believe this is right-wing propaganda.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 05:48 PM

Hi doug,

I have read Kristov's articles many times. He is an op-ed columnist and his views are often simply based on opinion rather than facts.
Of course this is true with most op-ed columns.

We need more reliable facts to determine that Edwards has invested in the companies that he decries. I doubt he has stock in Haliburton. There are some companies who deal with alternative energy sources. There are companies and companies. Again, we need more concrete facts and not just Kristov op-ed opinions.

This doesn't vitiate his stand that there are two Americas and that the lower classes are catching hell these days.

If this opens me to charge the label of "class warrior" I have to say that I didn't start anything. If there is a class war, it was started by those who exploit the poor.

We need facts and proof. Kristov often takes liberty with the truth.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 04:49 PM

Larry.... there is a subtle difference between the war in Iraq and 9/11,or any of the other atrocities that you mention.

While we are not #directly# responsible for suicide bombings, the World Trade Centre tragedy,or other "terrorist" action, remember the Iraq war was instigated in your name and in my name.
As the war was illegal, and based on false information, that makes you and I as culpable as Bush and Blair.

Now that might not worry a Conservative like you ,but it sure as hell worries me The one redeeming feature in my case is that I was one of those who demonstrated their opposition on Feb 15, and have done so ever since.....Sleep well.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 04:21 PM

Accident? I think not! These folks will stop at nothing to achieve one party rule with no dissent allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jul 04 - 01:46 PM

Gov't Search Engines Link to Kerry Critics

July 14, 2004 08:05 AM EDT

WASHINGTON - Searching for "Kerry" on the Department of Homeland Security's Web site Tuesday afternoon turned up an unexpected top hit: a Republican attack on the Democratic presidential candidate.

A similar search on the Web site of the Department of Health and Human Services brought up the same link at the top - a news release from conservative Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, that said a John Kerry administration "would embolden environmental extremists to press an aggressive agenda of restricting access and responsible use of public lands."

The statement is posted on the Web site of the House Republican Conference, www.gop.gov.

Made aware by The Associated Press of the political content that appears through his agency's search engine, HHS spokesman Bill Hall was not amused.

"That is not supposed to be there and we are quite upset," Hall said.

Both agencies pointed the finger at the government's official Web portal, Firstgov.gov, which maintains their search engines.

The second and third picks on the "Kerry" HHS search - his testimony before a Senate panel in 1999 and his own Senate site - should also not be there, Hall said, since the pages do not come from the HHS family of agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration. He said HHS had provided Firstgov.gov a list of URLs to include and that Senate Web sites should not be among them.

Firstgov.gov, for its part, blamed the error on a technical glitch.

"We thank the AP for pointing out this unintended result and are working to have it corrected by tomorrow," said Viki Reath, spokeswoman for the General Services Association, which administers Firstgov.gov.

By 5:30 p.m. Tuesday the links in question no longer appeared on the HHS and DHS sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 10:07 PM

Doug's post seems to indicate that, like many Americans attacked as "liberals", Edwards would be a fairly right-wing member of the Conservative Party, if he lived in England. Nothing much to worry about there, surely, Doug, even if Bush gets given the push?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:41 PM

DougR - I did read it, and I was just needling you. sorry if I pissed you off or anything (sincerely).

Actually, it's darn hard to invest in anything without ultimately investing in foreign firms. For my business, we use equipment built in the USA, from suppliers in the USA. Guess where the parent companies of both are - Japan. And, remember when Rumsfeld was trying to piss on the French, and yanked the US Army MRE contract from the French company Sedexo (sp?)? Several thousand people in Georgia were about to lose their jobs, so he backed down. Call the Bush-Cheney campaign, and guess where the phone rings - India. Can't get to worked up about Edwards' "foreign investments".

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 08:02 PM

SRS, TIA, and Amos:how any of you could read into my last message that I object to people becoming wealthy is beyond me.

I was merely pointing out that John Edwards, about whom this thread is about, may be misrepresenting himself. Read the article I referred you to. It wasn't written by a Republican. It was written by a LA Times columnist. And for those of you who do not know, The Los Angeles Times could NEVER be accused of being a voice of conservatism.

Amos you asked me to name corporation he invests in:the article's, writer states that "in last Wednesday's USA Today, on page 5 of the paper is a list of Edwards' assets, (obtained through the senator's 2003 Senate disclosure forms). It lists a holding worth between $1 million and $5 milliion in American EuroPacific Growth Fund." The column continues, "the prospectus for the fund states that normally the fund will invest at least 80% of its assets in securties of issuers located in Europe and the Pacific Basin. On page 10 of the Fund's prospectus we see a list of the fund's holdings by country:Japan accounts for 21.5% of its assets followed by the United Kingdom at 13.4%. And speciffically what companies are involved: The top five listed are Astra-Zeneca, Vodafone, KPN, Mitsui Sumitomor Insurance, and Nestle --foreign countries all.

"Is this populism", the writer asks. "Is that what a 'man of the people' does with his money? He suggests that Edwards should be asked:"Senator Edwards, when will yhou divest your holdings in the EuroPacific Growth Fund? And in all other investments that create jobs overseas?

The writer closes the column as follows: "Edwards is a hypocrite who got caught in a contridiction. Now it's a test of the news media, as well as the public. Will he be able to get away with preaching job creation here at home while practicing job creation abroad?"

It appears so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 07:39 PM

It's sounds like DougR is gullible enough to believe the propaganda being put out by wealthy republicans. Like they speak for the middle class, right?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 06:54 PM

DougR! It sounds like you hate the wealthy!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 05:51 PM

What big foreign corporations are you talking about, then, DougR -- and why is it you think someone shouldn't invest money -- if he has enough to invest -- in them? SOunds like your smear-team is scraping hard at anything they can find, while supporting a group that has committed major crimes, up to and including fraud and murder.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 05:25 PM

Ake: my religion is my business. I will say, however, that I am not a Muslim. You, like so many liberals, enjoy personal attacks on those who do not agree with you. You're no fun to argue with.

No one takes great delight in anyone, man, woman or child, being killed.

There was an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday regarding your hero, John Edwards. It was written by James Pinkerton, who did some research on Mr. Edwards own financial dealings. Since so many of you are convinced that Edwards is the champion of the middle class/have nots, I think it would be worth your time to read it. I've never mastered the art of creating "blue clickies" else I would provide one for you. The title of the column is, "Man of what people?" At least that was the headline in our newspaper for the story.

For those who will not bother to look up the story, I'll give you a taste. "Writing in the New York Times last week, Nicholas Kristof enthused, 'Hell help with the Democrats most crucial task:reconneting the party to Middler American Voters. The Washington Post's David Broder praised Edwards stump speech a 'a thing of beauty - a populist depiction of 'two Americas' divided between the privileged and the working people" Pinkerton continues, "But a look elsewhere in the newspapers shows a different Edwards. It reveals where Edwards put his money, as opposed to his mouth. It shows an Edwards connecting with multinational companies to create jobs offshore. It shows an Edwards who divides himself between his political ambitions here at home and his financial ambitions overseas. It shows that his tongue isn't so much golden, as it is forked. The article continues, "In 2003, as he sought the presidency, Edwards pledged to take the fight to 'big corporations, pharmaceutal commpanies, big insurance companies, big HMOs. But what he didn't tell his audiences is that at the same time he was investing his own money in big, foreign corporations."

Nothing hypocritical about that, right?

As Bobert is won't to say, hmmmmm?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 04:29 PM

How do we stop this from happening in the future, Larry? By making sure the U.S. stops acting like a horse's ass in world affairs. Stops tinkering with systems that work in favor of the industrial and military complex emanating from the U.S. that wants to influence the world to get rich off of other people's grief. I don't know if Kerry can or will accomplish that. He'll have his hands full just cleaning up the shit Dubya is leaving behind.

Interesting that you "feel bad" about things that are actually happening now to real people in this world, but you put your eggs in the basket of "maybe sometime in the future this nasty thing might happen here to me." Same thing Dubya is doing. It doesn't work. Things will be a lot more stable here in the future if the rest of the world is healthy and comfortable.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 02:26 PM

The "bounce in the polls" thing is a very clever Roveian trick. The Bush folks got Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Gallagher, Scarborough, et al., to say that there should be a bounce (who says so? give me a statistically significant sampling of precedents please), so they could, over the next days (and now weeks) rant on about how surprising and ominous it is that there was no bounce. It was predicted by, and only by, them so they could later make it out as a sign of weakness when it didn't happen. It is really the same "expectation management" that they practice constantly -- Bush comes off as an idiot in debates, so they predict ahead of time that he will look like an incredible idiot, so when he only looks like an idiot, people say "he did a great job". We're still millions of jobs in the hole from the start of his presidency, but they crow like heck over each incremental gain. These folks are master manipulators, and roughly 50% of Americans eat it up. Doesn't sh_t taste good?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 13 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM

A full week after the announcement and absolutely no bounce in the polls.   Not a good sign.    Everybody says that Edwards will help Kerry in the south.   If Edwards couldn't beat Kerry in North Carolina, how is he going to beat Bush.   At the time, Kerry said he had no respect for Edwards when he couldn't even win his home state.

It is still a long way to go and anything can happen.   I am sure that Ron Regan Jr. will be riveting talking about stem cell research.

Yes- as a conservative I feel bad for all the people who were killed and wounded in Iraq.   I also feel bad for all the peopel that were killed in 9/11.   I also feel bad for all the people that were killed in the 8 terrorist attacks on the USA prior to 9/11.   I also feel bad for all the other people in the world that were killed in terrorist attacks.   I also feel bad for all the people murdered and tortured by Sadaam.    The real question is how do we stop these from happening in the future.   hint- anyone who says let the UN handle it will be sent to Sudan to see first hand just how well they handle it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 05:39 PM

Don:

Thanks for the report -- it is the first reassuring news I have had on the political front in many moons!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 04:43 PM

I saw Kerry and Edwards together on 60 Minutes last night, being interviewed by Lesley Stahl. They make a good team. A couple of times Lesley Stahl tried to go for the throat, and despite her repeated and annoying attempts to rile them by asking for black-and-white answers to fuzzily framed questions (and her expressions of annoyance when they answered, but didn't give her the pat, unqualified answers she seemed to be trying to elicit), the general good feeling that flowed between and from these two men completely overpowered her attempts. Their reasoned answers made her simplistic questions look like the manipulative traps that they were.

Later, she interviewed them together with their wives. There is a lot of really good synergy among the four of them. Here again, Stahl tried to probe for weaknesses, and at one point, when Kerry commented that if he ever strayed from his beliefs and principles, he relied on Teresa to put him back on track, Stahl tried to make hay out of the possibility of his not sticking to his principles. In the discussion that ensued, both women pointed out that this was one of the things that marriage is all about: for each to point out to other when they might be veering from their goals and principles. It became clear that between Kerry and Teresa and Edwards and Elizabeth, there was little likelihood of that ever happening. They wouldn't just be sitting there in the audience and looking vacuously adoring whenever their husbands gave a speech.

Regarding the charges from the Bush administration that Edwards lacks experience, Kerry pointed out that Edwards, a Senator serving on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has considerably more experience in national government and foreign affairs right now than Bush had when he took office.

The Kerry-Edwards team radiates intelligence, ability, and efficiency as well as optimism and good cheer (contrary to the Bush charge that Kerry is a pessimist, full of gloom and doom because he finds much to criticize in the Bush administration). By comparison, the Bush-Cheney team (and the rest of the cabal) seem like a dull-witted, dreary, unprincipled collection of self-serving stumble-bums.

Kerry and Edwards look good. I feel optimistic about this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:43 PM

"us Republicans do not object to folks being wealthy!"

I've never understood how the "religious right" can be so remarkably comfortable about extreme personal wealth, given that according to the Gospels, rich people have as much chance of getting to heaven as a camel has of getting through the eye of a needle.

In the light of the Gospels, stringent taxation of rich people seems like a fairly self-evident aspect of Christian duty towards our brothers and sisters who are unfortunate enough to have been saddled with too much worldy wealth.

Les Barker, of course, has suggested that one way to get a camel through a needle is to put it through a liquidiser first. Which I suppose amounts to the same thing, metaphorically speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:28 PM

"I wonder if these people ever wake up in the night and ask forgivness from their God"

No. Their sleep is only disturbed when they are worried about not being re-elected. Hopefully Bush is having a few sleepless nights. Blair's time will come too.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:23 PM

It has little to do with forgiveness from a god, IMHO. They will have to start by finding some path toward forgiveness of themselves. But to do that they would have to face fully and fearlessly the nature of their offenses. Face them squarely, as it were.

Ain't about to happen anytime soon, Ake. Sorry.

That's my opinion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM

Yes ...Sorry Bobert..And Doug.
Sometimes I get impatient with people like Doug, who seem to have lost touch with reality concerning suffering.
I was in tears as I watched these children,comdembed to a "living death",while Doug seemed more concerned with a comfortable retirement for the criminals.
This is the tragedy, Bush Blair and co can just shrug their shoulders and walk away from the carnage they have created.
I wonder if these people ever wake up in the night and ask forgivness from their God....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 11:37 PM

Yo, akenaton....

While I like to mess with Dougie, I think you were a tad on the rough side with him...

He don't know of what he speaks sometimes. He don't really know about kids getting messed up in Iraq. I wish he did 'cause then he'd quit Bush like Bush was radiation, but he don't...

I mean like no one ever said that Dougie was enlightened. He's an aging Republican, fir gosh sakes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: GUEST,AD
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM

We need 2 Johns to flush the crap out of the White House!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 04:43 PM

Doug.... Im glad that you wish for a happy retirement for Bush and Cheney.

Do you give any thought to the future in store for the armless legless and sightless children of Iraq, that I saw on TV last night??    Victims of your heros' criminal war.

Are you by any chance a "Christian", Doug?










Are you by any chance a "Christian", Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jul 04 - 03:18 PM

Bobert: us Republicans do not object to folks being wealthy! I think it's wonderful that Kerry and Edwards won't have to resort to begging on the streets, or even worse going on the Dole, when the election is over. If they can "sell" the American people that they represent the "common" man in America, they could make another fortune as salesmen!

Bush can always go back to his ranch in Texas and I think he would be happy as a Lark. Cheany can probably find another good job in American Industry. I don't worry about them if, by some fluke, they were to lose the election.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 10:59 PM

Kerry is wealthy, but it's his wife Teresa who is rich. I would expect that her fortune is tied up with the company and her three children from her first marriage.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 11:26 PM

Doug:

I seriuosly doubt that Kerry and Edwards will loose the election... I am concerned, however, about the selection since Diebold, who will be doing the counting with *NO* paper trail, has promised to deliver the election to Bush...

Speaking of rich, just what do you think both Bush and Cheney are? Heck, Cheney gets $1.4M a year from Halliburton as a sitting VP...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:50 PM

JFK was rich too, and we were fans of his....

LOTS of Republicans are rich, and I don't see them treating it as a negative....but they are sure gonna take every aspect of Kerry & Edwards life and try to paint it as a danger to freedom.

"oh, look, they are lawyers....and they eat seafood on TUESDAYS...and they once voted the same way as some Republicans! Sinister!"

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:01 PM

Well, at least when they lose the election Kerry and Edwards will have nice homes to return to. I never knew so many Mudcatters were fans of rich folks.

I still think Nader is the way to go. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:09 PM

'Kerry Edwards' Site Belongs to Bondsman

July 9, 2004 01:08 PM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS - The Web site Kerry Edwards started two years ago to show the world photos of his toddler son has suddenly become hot property. The phones at the bail bonds business Edwards owns started ringing with calls from people and groups wanting his kerryedwards.com Web address even before Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry announced John Edwards as his running mate Tuesday. That day, the Web site also received more than 51,000 hits.

One of the first calls was from the Kerry campaign, asking Edwards to donate the domain name to the campaign. But the 34-year-old Indianapolis man said he won't be giving it away because he's gotten some offers of up to $30,000 for the name. He said the callers have included an advertising company, a Wisconsin investment group and a Republican in Texas promising to pay more than the highest bidder to keep the site out of Democrats' hands.

Edwards, who pays about $25 a year for the domain, said he would probably post it for sale on eBay. "I'll sell it if the price is right, that's for sure," Edwards said.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Washington, said he knew of no plans to make an offer for the site. He said johnkerry.com would continue as the campaign's official Web site. On Thursday, the only thing posted on Edwards' Web site was a photo of him smiling and the message: "I'm Kerry, I wasn't on MSNBC last night."

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:25 PM

Wow, Bill D. My eyes really are going bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:13 PM

silly old fellow that I am, what *I* notice is how many posts keep spelling 'bengi' as 'benji'...which was a movie about a dog. People see what they expect to see, usually.

(and beardedbruce...you see, I presume, what a fat lot of good it does to be prophetic *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 02:55 PM

For a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker, go to:

http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/bumper_KE.php Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 12:32 PM

I think Kerry and Edwards look good and sound good, and seem to work well together. They both appear to have some kind of moral code, which would be a refreshing difference. Bush is a self-serving leech on the backside of the United States.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 12:21 PM

Whatever bengi generated, he certainly derailed the thread.

I'm glad to hear that a Kerry running-mate has been selected so we can move forward in the vital task of booting Dubya out of the White House. The world can't take much more of his kind of administration.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:58 AM

Oh, like this?

Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that Bengi expresses a shameless nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed. What's far more relevant is that Bengi's supporters can be stereotyped as primitive tools of prepackaged political ideology and horny opportunists to boot. One of my objectives is to fight the good fight. Whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that all he has managed to attain with his ethics is a jab at hardworking individuals. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. It has been proven time and time again that I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that despite his protestations and rhetoric, the facts do not support Bengi's claims. That's the sort of statement that some people contend is self-pitying, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because to Bengi, sectarianism is a kind of religion. More than that, Bengi holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who abridge our basic civil liberties.

If revanchism were an Olympic sport, Bengi would clinch the gold medal. There's a lot of talk nowadays about his intemperate anecdotes, but not much action. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to his stingy excuses is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: If everyone does his own, small part, together we can take action. The end.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 10:12 AM

It's not supposed to mean anything:

Complaint Generator

I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this letter, but I have found it is the only way to vent the ineffable anger that possessed me when I heard Ralph Nader say that the worst kinds of disreputable self-indulgent-types there are are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I put an end to his evildoing. If he can one day lock people up for reading the "wrong" sorts of books or listening to the "wrong" types of music, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to his vainglorious hijinks is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: He seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, mumpish anthropophagi of one sort or another. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how Ralph wants to conspire with evil. Who does he think he is? I mean, I find that some of his choices of words in his objectives would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "misinformed" for "tetraiodophenolphthalein" and "savage" for "nondeterministic."

If he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "auriculoventricular", for example, and expect us to be scared. I believe, way deep down, that to Ralph's mind, censorship could benefit us. So that means that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom, right? No, not right. The truth is that under the guise of "fighting gangsterism," Ralph will undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Ralph is so intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices that his perception of reality is totally warped. Some people have compared sanctimonious manipulators of the public mind to what I call unsympathetic ragamuffins. I would like to take the comparison one step further. Did it ever occur to Ralph that maybe his criticisms are intellectually and morally indefensible? Dream on. In closing, unregenerate violent-types who diminish society's inducements to good behavior will, hopefully, eventually be replaced by people who believe in freedom, justice, and the pursuit of personal growth.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Janie
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:01 AM

This Tarheel thinks Edwards was a good choice strategically. It is unfortunate that Kerry had to go for style over substance.

Misophist--ain't it the truth!

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 08:15 AM

lets acknowledge the following post...

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/_____________???.....
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM

everyone has been speculating for several weeks that Edwards is an obvious choice, and no one has tried to deny it....it will come down to negetiations and best guesses as to practicality.

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 08:12 AM

benji, I have a brother who drinks to excess. Does that make me unfit to seek public office?

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:31 AM

Lonesome EJ - 07 Jul 04 - 12:46 AM,

To hell with the snapshots - get an invite to the next party!

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:59 AM

Yer barkin up the wrong tree, benji... Now stop makin all that racket (pun intended) and organize yer 'conthpeerathy theewees' patently around the dog ends you so joyously userp...

Kerry has all the best qualities of Bush... but he's actually a likeable guy, and can relate to people with charm and sympaticoziness...

Oh! ...and did I mention his intellect?

Cheers!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry/Edwards
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:08 AM

Yeah, but what the fuck did Bengi SAY?