BS: There is no terrorist threat

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

Old Guy--

1) Still waiting for your proof on the Kerry photo-----I have an idea it'll be a long wait

2) Note, it's not Kerry who's saying there's no terrorist thread--how many times do we have to beat this extremely deceased horse?

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM

Ron:

I am still waiting on some answers on my multiple choice post.

Here is the source you were looking for:
http://news.ttvnol.com/ttvnnews/topic/417456

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

Keep in mind that the world you see is the world you already believe in. That's why people of differing viewpoints tend to misinterpret what the other one says most of the time. If both people can actually grasp (I mean fully grasp) the other's viewpoint, then they will find they have much in agreement after all.

It isn't a question of scoring points, it's a question of finding a common understanding (except when I pounce on nasty people who unreasonably diss Bob Dylan, despite having precious little knowledge about him in the first place... heh!). Well, we all have our little indulgences. :-)

America will survive both George Bush and John Kerry, but probably not without a certain amount of collateral damage. That's my prediction. I have faith in Americans as a people. If only they would just watch a little less machine TV...you know, it's the hypnotist that sits in your living room and robs you of sentient life on a daily basis. Read, people, read!

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:05 PM

Old Guy--

If you know that's your source, let's have a direct quote from it.

I'm waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM

Dear Ron:

I can find any thing with a direct quote in it. I am sorrry I can't meet your standards.

I did however find this interesting story along the way. Perhaps you would like to debunk it for us:

"Judicial Watch, the nonpartisan public-interest group known recently for taking Vice President Dick Cheney and the Energy Task Force all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed serious charges against John Kerry with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy.

Judicial Watch investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse. And it believes that Kerry's actions may be unlawful.

"The crux of the case," said Chris Farrell, director of investigation and research at Judicial Watch, "focuses on Kerry's activities from January 1970 to July 1972." Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve in that period.

Traveling to Paris, Kerry met with the official delegations from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong). According to the Judicial Watch complaint, the Vietnamese Communists eagerly met Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory.

The Judicial Watch filing claims that these acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3).

"Additionally, (meeting with the communists) as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve," Farrell said, "Senator Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

If that weren't bad enough, when Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese communists, he held a press conference in Washington, D.C., at which he advocated a Vietnamese Communist "peace proposal" calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and "payment of war damage reparations" to the Communist North Vietnamese government. Kerry advocated on behalf of a foreign power with which we were at war, while holding a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

Could these allegations lead to serious consequences? Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 3, states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against (the United States) ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

And it doesn't help Kerry's cause that his picture was featured by the Vietnamese Communists in their War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a hero who helped them win the war against the U.S.

This ominous roll of thunder is drowning out such questions as how one receives three Purple Hearts without spending a night in a hospital, or whether the rice implanted in your butt after your own grenade blast constitutes enemy fire. Voters are asking: Who is John Kerry? An antiwar, self-professed war criminal? A self-made war hero? Or an exposed wartime turncoat?

As the skies open up, Kerry's campaign is paddling hard to save his presidential aspirations. But the mud is getting deeper, and one wonders if even his senatorial career may sink. Suddenly Kerry's 19-year Senate record of being anti-military, anti-intelligence and anti-national security seems like the least of his worries."

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/082704op_antrim

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:03 PM

Who is Tim Blair?

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM

I'd still like a description of the alleged photo depicting Kerry as a hero who helped win the war against the US. We Kerry supporters believe it was nothing of the kind, but rather the above-cited picture of negotiators. If this is so it calls into question the rest of your cited article.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:49 PM

The Examiner sure ain't the Chronicle. Looks more like the NY Post.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM

This is what I found on the Judicial Watch site:
______
Basing its requests on a recently published book, Unfit for Command, by former Navy officer John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D, and on news media interviews of other officers and sailors who served with Kerry, Judicial Watch notes that unresolved allegations against Kerry include: false official reports and statements; dishonorable conduct; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Code.

Judicial Watch requested an investigation into Kerry's awards and conduct by the Defense Department and the Navy in letters dated August 18 and September 8, 2004.

Admiral Route's letter only discusses the Navy IG's examination of process and procedure concerning Kerry's awards.  The letter claims existing documentation regarding Kerry's medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed.  No specific documentary examples were cited or offered as exhibits.
 
The Navy IG stated that "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over thirty years ago would not be productive."  Admiral Route also declined to investigate Kerry's conduct as a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, including his meeting with officials of the North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong.
_____

So all we know in the way of proof is that the Navy won't mess with it. This part sounds strange: "Basing its requests on a recently published book, Unfit for Command, by former Navy officer John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D…"

Does anybody know anything about O'Neill? Or Judicial Watch, for that matter? They don't seem overtly politically biased, but are they sound?

I'll look some more.
clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:45 AM

Found this in Disinfopedia: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O%27Neill
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____
O'Neill's enmity towards Kerry dates back to the Vietnam war days. A Houston Chronicle artcile reported that in 1971 Richard Nixon and top aide Charles W. Colson turned to O'Neill to discredit Kerry, the veteran turned leader of the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

In a key encounter, Kerry debated the U.S. role in Southeast Asia with O'Neill in a 90-minute televised forum on the Dick Cavett Show.[4]

Earlier this year the Houston Chronicle cited a June 15, 1971 memo from Colson that stated "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." [5]

The PBS program Frontline covered O'Neill's ongoing effort to discredit Kerry in an October 2004 report titled The Choice 2004.
_____

Makes O'Neill look not so good. Nixon/Colson's hitman

And there's a link to this:

Brian Williams, "Nixon targeted Kerry for anti-war views. White House tapes reveal then-president's attempt to discredit Kerry during 1971 war protests, Senate testimony," NBC News/MSNBC, March 16, 2004.

It looks like Nixon's boys would've found something at that time, if there was anything there. Maybe even if there wasn't.

If Nixon couldn't find anything at the time why is Judicial Watch raking it up now?

I'll look some more.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:00 AM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Neill lied about ties to Nixon White House

After Chris Matthews said to O'Neill, "You go back to the Nixon era, when [former President Richard] Nixon was looking for someone. [Chuck] Colson and those guys were looking for somebody to debunk the Kerry record, because all the records show they were scared to death of this guy. And you played that role," O'Neill replied, "That's just not true."

O'Neill was lying.

Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson has said that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 edition of the Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, edition of The Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration.

Details: http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004 and http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010

Photo, from left to right: John O'Neill, Richard Nixon, and Charles Colson:
____

So it looks like O'Neill is discredited, but Judicial Watch doesn't seem to have an ax to grind; why'd they base their charges on O'Neill's book?

Gotta go. Will check further tomorrow. Debunking this crap sure takes time away from real life.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:14 AM

Ron:

1) Still waiting for your proof on the Kerry photo

If you want to see the photo go to ttp://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/image003.jpg

Kerry is in it plus some other people but no other Americans are in the photo.

It is in the war protesters section of the museum.

This thread is about something Michael Moore is saying at his speeches all around the country and the college kids cheer when he says it.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:19 AM

clint,

So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here.

If you want to address the facts that are presented, that is fine- but it stinks of SRS closed-mindedness to attack the facts as invalid because of who is presenting them.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:53 AM

As for [Michael] Moore – the man damn well knows his slackers: check out his 2004 Slacker Oath: "Pick nose! Pick Butt! Pick Kerry!"

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29079%257E2462599,00.html

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:18 PM

Look, anyone who opposed that war and wanted to get the USA out of Vietnam ASAP ought to be given a medal. You Americans are living in a fantasyland entirely of your own creation. The USA was WRONG in that war, and had no business being there at all. All the USA did in Vietnam was take over as a colonial power from the French, prevent national unification and national elections after the French left, create a totally corrupt and phony puppet government in the South and kill a couple of million people uselessly while delaying the inevitable.

The fact that Kerry opposed that war, as did Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and various other Americans of above average intelligence is the best damn thing anyone can say about Kerry.

Your political BS is really something sickening to watch from outside your hallowed borders of grand illusion. The very people you routinely damn and spit upon in your ludicrous war-mad propaganda are the best and freest thinkers among you. They are the ones who have the guts not to live like sheep and just follow orders.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:39 PM

Why did Jane Fonda apologize?

The fight in Vietnam was against Communisim. Communisim is not gone but it has evolved into something different (except in Cuba and N Korea) due to the efforts of the US and it's allies.

Now the fight is against terrorisim.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:39 PM

Every sane person (which excludes Michael Moore) should fear terrorism.    Terrorism will exist after the election no matter who wins the recount.    It did not start with Bush, it will not end with Bush.   During the Clinton administration we had:

1st world trade center bombing
Kobar towers
Sudan
Embassy bombings in Africa
US Cole
Somalia (blawk hawk down)
Maybe ever the TWA flight

In the past two years we have had
Russian terrorism and massacre
Train bombings in Spain (The trains in Spain cause terrorists to gain)

Al Queda has declared war on the US on three separate occations.   The biggest difference between the parties:

Democrats want to wait until were attacked and many killed before we respond

Republicans want to respond first to prevent people in the US from being killed.

History will decide who was right.    History has decided that 70 years ago appeasement was the wrong choice.   However, I would be happy to give the terrorists hollywood in a negotiation.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM

Little Hawk is right. And it's pretty amazing the transformation that the legacy of Vietnam War has undergone in the last half-dozen years or so. My mother told my brother "you're going to Calgary to live with your Aunt if the war is still going when you turn 18." Lucky for him it ended before his 18th birthday. I have friends who were prepared to go to prison rather than go into the military, and have friends and cousins who were lucky to get those deferments. Going to college was one good way to avoid Vietnam, at least for a time. I also have friends who came back changed, wounded people from time in Vietnam. Now we're plunged into a war as equally divisive as Vietnam, and that was totally preventable (the U.N. was prepared to continue to monitor conditions in Iraq for many years to come).

In a lot of ways, what Dubya did was what many young men wanted to do back then, find a way to serve without having to get emeshed in the immoral war that was in Vietnam. Others did their time and lived to tell about it. Bush wants his cake and wants to eat it to. In this new era of hyper patriotism and arcade game warrior mentality, Dubya wants to be a war hero, though he was always safe away from the fighting and his record of attendance is marginal at best, and bits of it are still missing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM

Beardedbruce, find some other way to confront people you don't agree with than to use my name in your nasty attacks. I refuse to be your golem.

Meanwhile, this "Kerry photo" site doesn't pass ANYONE's "stink test." It took some digging, but here is the guy who runs the site where a photo of Kerry speaking with Asian men is posted. The photo tells us nothing useful, there are Asian men everywhere in the world, and there is no context in this photo. The site where it is posted is highly partial. The site's owner, Scott Swett, is part of the Swift Boat Veterans to Slam Kerry crew. His bio is buried on the speakers page.

Scott Swett is chairman of the Free Republic Network, an Internet-based non-profit that supports grassroots conservative activism. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq last spring, the FR Network helped coordinate "support the troops" rallies in hundreds of locations across the country. Mr. Swett represented this effort during an April 1, 2003 appearance on Fox & Friends, noting that an overwhelming majority of media coverage was given to anti-war protests -- which he termed "peace riots" -- while ignoring the 150,000 people who had attended pro-America rallies the previous weekend.

Early this year, Mr. Swett began researching the "war crimes" propaganda campaign that successfully undermined public support for America's defense of South Vietnam. The result of this work is WinterSoldier.com, a web site designed as a central repository of information for writers and researchers investigating the actions of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and others during the Vietnam era. The site quickly attracted the interest of Vietnam veterans, hundreds of whom have written in to share their own experiences. Other researchers have now joined the effort, and continue to provide new material and opinion articles. Mr. Swett is also webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth web site at SwiftVets.com.

The argument about this photo is not one I've paid much attention to, actually. I just went looking to see who posted it out of curiosity. I have my answer. The rest of you resume your discussion of this matter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM

Jane Fonda apologized because she lives in a mind-controlled semi-dictatorship of a society, and she figured she couldn't get on with an effective professional career there without publicly kissing Uncle Sam's patriotic tush. (Anyway, I suspect what Jane was really apologizing for was some intemperate statements she made in moments of youthful idealism...we have all made such statements from time to time, but most of them are not on public record.) Joan Baez did not apologize, because she doesn't give a damn whether or not the big marketing system is interested in promoting her career.

And I imagine Marlene Dietrich might just as well have been persuaded to apologize to Der Fuhrer if the Germans had won World War II.

The Vietnam War was not essentially about Communism, it was about Vietnam casting off foreign colonial control (by France/Japan/France/USA-in that order) and achieving national sovereignty at the cost of countless lives and terrible suffering. The USA ought to pay Vietnam the biggest war reparations in history adn apologize to the whole World for what happened there. The USA doesn't care a hoot about anyone else's national sovereignty, so as far as the USA goes I can well believe that they thought the war was about Communism. What else would they think? Experience has shown that the USA sees everything in those black and white terms, quite regardless of local conditions and realities in a country.

Communism in itself, like capitalism, is neither good nor evil...but it can be turned to evil purposes...just like money can. You can have a good or a bad administration under either system. A good administration is one that consciously serves the public. A bad administration is one that serves itself and a privileged elite at the expense of the public. Most societies are a compromise between those two extremes. It is fatuous to define either communism or capitalism as intrinsically evil...it is how they are put into practice and the intentions of those in power that determines their moral legitimacy.

The Cold War was an unnecessary conflict between two power blocs that might just as well have decided to "live and let live" instead of engaging in a "winner takes all" philosophy. But that wouldn't sell arms, would it? And it wouldn't serve those who amass power by spreading fear.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM

Old Guy,
Have you noticed that when Bush racks up his "terror" spiel, his poll numbers go up? He has learned how to politicize fear by language. It used to be "communist" and now it's "terrorist". The Domino Theory has been discredited and someday a similar theory will be discredited about the boogie man of "terror".

The problem is that Bush doesn't know who he is calling his enemy. He doesn't even know who stole that explosive stockpile in Iraq. Can you feel safe with this guy at the helm?

As to Kerry and the atrocities, Nixon and Colson couldn't find anything on Kerry. That's why they employed the stooge John O'Neil for their poltical purposes. He is a leader in the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:59 PM

Larry K---

1) Good pun on the Rain in Spain

2) "Democrats want to wait...."----

Does the term "false dichotomy" ring a bell?

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:20 PM

Old Guy----


1) The photo you mention appears to be on a blatantly anti-Kerry site. Or do you think SRS is lying too?
2) There is no caption or context--can't even tell who the Asian men are.
3) You have provided no direct quote.
4) "Judicial Watch" is also discredited---see Clint's postings
5) Bush's own Navy IG stated that "conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive".

Admiral Route, the officer with jurisdiction, "also declined to investigate Kerry's conduct as a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve".

Sounds as if Bush's own administration doesn't believe you have a case.

You may resume tearing the last strands of your hair out.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

SRS

Yeah, the cowards that went to prison got treated better than the Vets after Kerry got through doing his heroic thing.

Ron:

Where are your pro-bush sources?

Where are your direct quotes?

You are hereby discredited.

Here is a direct quote for you:

In 1988 in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20, Jane Fonda talked about her Vietnam visit and issued what some feel was an apology but which her critics say was not enough. Fonda said,

"I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of the things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm...very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1328&catcode=11
Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM

Old Guy--

Not good enough-----we're talking about your case against Kerry, which now lies in ruins.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:58 PM

Old Guy---

Specifically, regarding the photo (remember the photo?) and (Non)Judicial Watch

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM

bb:
"So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here."

I did not say "O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind" You're putting words in my mouth. I said "So it looks like O'Neill is discredited, but Judicial Watch doesn't seem to have an ax to grind…"

I meant "Why would Judicial Watch pay attention to the words of a discredited person when it seems they don't have an ax to grind?" It was something I wondered about.

This is not about Moore, nor about my prejudices. Whether Moore is the AntiChrist or a bunny has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and my opinion of Moore has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and neither does your opinion of me or Moore or does your opinion of Britney Spears.

Nixon and all his machine couldn't substantiate O'Neill's accusations when they were new and any evidence would be fresh and Nixon badly wanted to. Why tread over the ground now? And this seems to be essentially the Navy's position, and largely why I said O'Neill is discredited.

One more time: This is NOT about Moore, NOR about my prejudices.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM

Ron:

I thought you wanted to see the photo.

Do you want to see the site where a veteran was sent to the museum and held up a newspaper next to the photo and took a photo to prove the date the photo of the photo was taken?

The vets name is there. You could call him up and tell him he is a liar, ask him where his pro Kerry sources and direct quotes are.

Have you discredited the Jane Fonda apology yet? Have you submitted it to a global test?

How about the phony lawsuit filed by the Democrats in Missouri? It's over in the Kerry concedes Mussouri thread. Have you discredited that yet?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM

That Jane Fonda quote does not in any way discredit her anti-war stance, Old Guy...it just gives recognition to the emotional feelings of veterans who may have been upset by her stance. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for her to say. I have said similar things in regards to people I have upset with my outspoken views...not because I felt that I had spoken wrongly in substance, but that I had done it in a way that would seem hurtful to some people.

"there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it"

Well, yeah. We all are sometimes thoughtless and careless about how we say things when we become vehement over an issue.

She was not repudiating her anti-war stance, simply apologizing for her insensitivity to some in how she expressed it.

How does this equate to apologizing for being against the war? Answer: it doesn't.

She was dead right to oppose that war. She was at times undiplomatic about how she expressed herself. George Bush is at times undiplomatic about how he expresses himself too. That's not what really worries me. What worries me is his actual policies, quite apart from his manner.

The Vietnamese would naturally regard ANY American who protested against that war to have done something good and worthwhile from their point of view. How does that indicate that the American is a "traitor" (in, I assume, your view) when the war was WRONG for both America AND Vietnam? Such people are not traitors, they are patriots to a greater truth than mere nationalism. Would you consider an Englishman who had protested the actions of British troops in the North American colonies in 1777 to be brutal and wrongful...would you consider that Virginian a traitor? No, but the British Crown would have probably considered him to be one (because their interests were threatened by his use of free speech)! You are taking the same position on this matter as the British Crown would have then. It's nothing to be proud of.

Free speech means: having the right to say things that are not necessarily sanctioned by "the powers that be" at any given time. Be glad you still have it.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:52 AM

Well said, LH

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:51 PM

You know the sad thing about all of this? "Terror" as a propaganda tool to make people want to lean on a false sense of security, a sabre-rattling Bush.
The real sad thing for Bush supporters who are not making money is that Bush doesn't care about you unless you are rich. In his view, there is something inferior and inadequate about not making enough money. I don't know how many of you who support Bush are rich, but if you have other values than just making money or acquiring power, these are not interesting to the Bush Dynasty. I am not afraid of a policy that will put our country back in world esteem, compassion for those not making the minimum wage and the working poor, the reclaiming of the middle class and the funding for all of the programs that we need. I feel badly that the poor folks who believe that Bush cares about them are so vehemently in defense of his anti-social policies. I am confident that if we are "nuanced' and not hot-headed in a knee-jerk reaction to Al Quaeda, we can defeat them. We certainly can't do it in Iraq. Bush has lost that war. But we can defeat Al Quaeda not by becoming like them but affirming our American ideals of civil liberty, justice through the voting booth, and generosity. BTW, the synonym for generous is Liberal.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM

Old Guy---


You may as well give up---if the Bush administration doesn't think it's worth pursuing---and they don't---- you can kiss it goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:08 PM

So, Ron:


Can I quote you, that the Bush Administration is correct in something?


I wanted to check and make sure you did not want to change your last post to remain ideologically pure...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM

That's right BB---the Bush admin is correct they have no case against Kerry, much to Old Guy's distress, and probably fatal to his last strands of hair.

Thanks for bringing it up again.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM

New thread- RON SAYS BUSH CORRECT!

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM

Newer thread- BUSH SAYS RON CORRECT!

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM

That is unlikely...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Old Guy
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM

Ron:

You are on the side that gives up.
The side that wimps out on terrorisim.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM

Sorry, Old Guy--you misphrased that.

In fact, I, a Republican and veteran, am on the side that thinks----and has realized that Bush is creating far more terrorists than he is killing.

You might try thinking some time---hope it isn't too much strain.




Sorry you're not getting enough sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

ABC Airs Videotape of Man Making Al Qaeda Threat
"After decades of American tyranny and oppression now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America shall run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims,"

Arnie

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:27 PM

Note, Old Guy, that I talked about the terrorists Bush was creating through "collateral damage" (his term) BEFORE the news of the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed came out.

Even if you don't care at all about 100,000 dead Iraqis (which, if true of you, is revolting,) you should care about the fact that, as I've said over and over, Bush's policies are creating a bottomless supply of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:24 AM

Arnie--

I got an ad the other day for a "conservative" book club. On the outside of the flyer they had a quote from Ann Coulter with her picture. The quote was

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Speaking of Moslems, of course.

I figure to a Moslem that sounds the same as "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Islam." sounds to you.

People like her are recruiting for Al Qaeda.

clint

and five will get you ten Arnie & OG & that crowd don't understand that. Or won't.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Burger Meister
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:11 AM

Ron Davies:

"we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc
Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? "

"Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page

Amid the controversy over "Unfit for Command" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it's worth noting that John Kerry's surrogates continue to overstate their man's Vietnam record...
"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005516
BM

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:15 AM

"As indicated, Kerry's misplaced sympathy for the Vietnamese Communists has not been just a "youthful indiscretion", but has been a consistent posture throughout his political career, up to today, when he has blocked a human rights initiative for the Vietnamese and has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum."

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=20588

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

"Kerry… has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum."

Haven't we waded through this horse hockey enough by now?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:08 PM

Why would anyone NOT feel sympathy for a Vietnamese national struggle to achieve indenpendence and self-governance under the heel of first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the U.S. of A....???? For this you object to Kerry?

It makes not one damn bit of difference whether or not they were Communist. They had no friggin' choice about it, given the situation in the World at that time. When you fought for independence against the USA in the 50's and 60's you had better be Communist, because otherwise no one would help you, and where the hell would you get the weapons to fight them?

To be Communist, for the Vietnamese, was the only game in town at that time. What they were fighting for was not Communism...they were fighting for their own national sovereignty.

Do you note that the South Vietnamese administration needed 500,000 foreign soldiers on the ground and the biggest airforce in the World to prop it up and still couldn't win? The North Vietnamese won without 500,000 foreign troops helping them. That tells you just how legit that puppet regime in the South was. It was basically run by the Catholic minority in South Vietnam, who were the same people who had cooperated with the French colonial administration. The Vietnamese population was mostly Buddhist. That should tell you the whole story in a nutshell. The South Vietnamese government which the USA created after the French left was a puppet on strings, and it did not represent the will of the vast majority of the Vietnamese population. Accordingly, its army couldn't fight worth a damn and it folded up like an accordion after the USA pulled out.

That fight was not about Communism, it was about foreign colonial control of a small Asian country. "Communism" is a word you hypnotize yourself with in order to avoid actually thinking about anything in real terms. Another such word is "Anti-semitism" and another is "liberal". It's knee-jerk BS that relieves you of the need to ever analyze or understand anything.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:14 PM

LH

You forgot some of the other words... "neocon", "Republican", "Bushite", and so on-
They are just as much used to let people avoid thinking about something in real terms...

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Amos
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:35 PM

LH:

Be fair, now. The VC had plenty of help from t he Noath.

A

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM

Burgermeister---

Do you ever read anything in the Wall St. Journal but the editorials?

I'm very aware the editorial policy is Neanderthal (no offense to Neanderthals). So you can easily tell the Bushite line on an issue by reading it.

That very fact establishes that it's not a left-leaning newspaper---ever heard of sarcasm? You may possibly run into it here---watch out!

Since the Journal is not left of center, I can quote freely from it in attacking Bush----and if you were to read the rest of it, in detail, as I do, it undercuts Bush at every turn-----by the amazing device of telling the truth---imagine that.

Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:39 PM

Sorry LH---

I part company with you here----words do mean something intelligible. If we're not happy to be called "liberal" or "conservative", I suppose we could be called "middle of the road"--but what does that mean?

If you mean they're loaded terms, them's the breaks, especially in politics.