It looks like Kerry is being Gored Are you stupid?: It looks like Kerry is being Gored

By Antigone on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:07 pm:

    Two candidates, two military records, two standards

    The gist is that the "Deserter" attacks on Bush were widely criticized by the media, while the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry are given a free pass. Media Matters breaks it down and does a fantastic job of backing up their arguments with facts and citations.

By Lapis on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:22 pm:

    Anything to please the big-budget pocketbook?

    I just read that and the article that it linked to. I don't really read much news so I had no idea how bad the situation is.

    Wow. Wow.

By spunky on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:05 am:

By Lapis on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:24 am:

    and what this graph means to me is?

    hello spunky. good to see you.

By Antigone on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:11 am:

    Well, the source is LexisNexis.

    And that site rates Fox as perfectly balanced in reporting on Bush? Who funds this site?

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:00 am:

    Actually, I think in some ways spunky is right. However, I think most of the 'pro-Kerry' coverage is actually just that theres too much stuff working against Bush. Abu Ghraib, Iraq, ongoing Halliburton stuff, etc. - the media IS repeating a lot of the "kerry is a flipflopper" stuff while ignoring Bushs major and obvious flipflops of his own, and at the same time saying Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate. It doesnt really make much sense how someone can take both sides of an issue and be an 'out of the mainstream' liberal.

    And really, the Swiftvet stuff is getting way more coverage than the stuff against Bush. the viciousness of the Swiftvet stuff isnt coming from the media but they aint helping by playing it over and over again.

    if Kerry loses because of this one thing it'll be a huge shame. Disagreeing on issues is one thing, but this attack on his record, the case by the Swiftvets just hasnt been made.

    And meanwhile Bush still wont answer why he didnt show up to his medical exam. They spent millions of dollars training him and he cant show up?

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:02 am:

    Tiggy you have to go in the site further:

    New York, August 25, 2004 - While media criticism of John Kerry‘s military service far outweighed his positive coverage, ABC, CBS and NBC and the Fox News Channel differed in how they voiced their criticism. On Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume, journalists were openly critical of John Kerry, the network reporters went for critical quotes from third parties in their account of the controversy.

    On Fox, the largest share of criticism of Kerry came from the show‘s journalists, who were responsible for 63% of the negative statements on Kerry’s military service. Interviews with voters and experts only served as a secondary source of criticism on the show.

    In the network's evening news broadcasts, the most frequent source of criticism of Kerry were interviews with individual voters, which accounted for 65% of the negative statements on Kerry’s military service. Journalists here were more reserved in tone, contributing only 27% of the total of negative statements.

    Making frequent use of the "man on the street" as a source may well have a greater impact on the audience, since such quotes may appear more genuinely representative of the electorate. Similarly, a comment by an ordinary individual may also be perceived as more credible than open criticism from a reporter.

    More information:

    Isadora Badi
    Media Tenor Institute

    aka opinion masquerading as news.

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:13 am:

    anti-Kerry vet sticks up for Kerrys record regardless

    Swiftboat Crewman: Kerry Boat Took Fire

    2 hours, 59 minutes ago

    By JOSEPH B. FRAZIER, Associated Press Writer

    PORTLAND, Ore. - A swiftboat crewman decorated in the 1969 Vietnam incident where John Kerry (news - web sites) won a Bronze Star says not only did they come under enemy fire but also that his own boat commander, who has challenged the official account, was too distracted to notice the gunfire.

    Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert, of Eagle Point, Ore., got a Bronze Star for pulling his boat commander — Lt. Larry Thurlow — out of the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Thurlow had jumped onto another swiftboat to aid sailors wounded by a mine explosion but fell off when the out-of-control boat ran aground.

    Thurlow, who has been prominent among a group of veterans challenging the Democratic presidential candidate's record, has said there was no enemy fire during the incident. Lambert, however, supports the Navy account that says all five swiftboats in the task force "came under small arms and automatic weapon fire from the river banks" when the mine detonated.

    "I thought we were under fire, I believed we were under fire," Lambert said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

    "Thurlow was far too distracted with rescue efforts to even realize he was under fire. He was concentrating on trying to save lives."

    The anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has been running television ads challenging the Navy account of the boats being under fire. Kerry has condemned the ads as a Republican smear campaign.

    A career military man, Lambert is no fan of Kerry's either. He doesn't like Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activity and doesn't plan to vote for him.

    "I don't like the man himself," Lambert said, "but I think what happened happened, and he was there."

    A March 1969 Navy report located by The Associated Press this week supports Lambert's version. The report twice mentions the incident and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

    Kerry's Bronze Star was awarded for his pulling Special Forces Lt. Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off the boat, out of the river. Rassmann, who is retired and lives in Florence, Ore., has said repeatedly that the boats were under fire, as have other witnesses. Lambert didn't see that rescue because Kerry was farther down the river and "I was busy pulling my own boat officer (Thurlow) out of the water."

    Thurlow could not be reached for comment about Lambert's recollections.

    But speaking for the Swift Boat Veterans group, Van Odell, who was in the task force that day, remembers it differently from Lambert.

    "When they're firing, you can hear the rounds hit the boat or buzz by your head. There was none of that," he said in a telephone interview from Katy, Texas, where he lives.

    On Thursday, the group released a 30-second Internet ad disputing Kerry's contention that his swiftboat crossed into Cambodia. Kerry's campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated, but that he does recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date.

    Lambert said the swiftboats were on their way out of the river when a mine exploded under one, PCF-3.

    "When they blew the 3-boat, everyone opened up on the banks with everything they had," he said. "That was the normal procedure. When they came after you, they came after you. Somebody on shore blew that mine."

    "There was always a firefight" after a mine detonation, he said.

    "Kerry was out in front of us, on down the river. He had to come back up the river to get to us."

    Lambert retired in 1978 as a chief petty officer with 22 years of service and three tours in Vietnam. He does not remember ever meeting Kerry.

By Nate on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 01:34 pm:


    ann coulter's favorite statistical obfuscation tool!

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:42 pm:

    kerry's lead is slipping away. in electoral votes just a few weeks back he was leading by over 100. now its only 12.

    the smear campaign is working

By C on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

    I thought Southerners were supposed to vote Democrat?

By spunky on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:52 pm:

    "Baseless allegations that Kerry has lied about his military record have gotten heavy media coverage in recent months -- but lies we know that Bush has told about his own military record have gone virtually unreported by the media."

    From the link in the original post.

    Not very unbiased, if you ask me.

By spunky on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 03:57 pm:

    Col. George E. "Bud" Day is the most decorated officer since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and was Senator John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton. In John McCain's book, "Faith of My Fathers," McCain credits Day with saving his life (pg. 200). Col. Day is also one of The University of South Dakota School of Law's most prominent alumni, and gave the keynote address to the law school's class of 2004. The tale behind his Medal of Honor decoration is awe-inspiring.

    Today, Col. Day weighed in on the controversy surrounding John Kerry and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, firmly on the side of the latter

    "The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam.

    Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers". A returned "war hero" said so

By dave. on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 04:51 pm:

    wait a minute, so they're saying that there were no war atrocities committed in vietnam?

    that quite a bit of revisionism they're trying to pull off there.

    it's not fair that soldiers were reviled when they returned from 'nam but it's not kerry's fault. it was the people against what he was doing, i.e. john o'neill, who turned what kerry was saying -- that the leaders in government were responsible for the policies that allowed the war atrocities to occur -- into john kerry is trying to say that all soldiers are rapists and baby killers. in trying to smear kerry, they actually smeared all vets. they did it to themselves.

    kerry was trying to make the leaders in government responsible for it, not the vets themselves. the government actually vilified the vets by denying any wrongdoing. much like the abu gahreff uhhh. . . . ss . . . situation, the government is doing everything it can to pin it on the guards.

    shame on the government.

By Antigone on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:35 pm:

    Kerry "cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans"?

    He was quoting from the Winter Soldier investigation. And don't try to post all sorts of freeper links about winter soldier. Try looking up the history yourself.

    And, talk about a smear on vets. The swift boat yahoos are calling into doubt every medal won by every vet. If Kerry can fake the records of his own medals, even the after action reports and the like, couldn't that be said of any soldier's medals?

By Antigone on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:45 pm:

    LexisNexis can be a tool for good and evil, Nate.

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:55 pm:

    "Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance."

    the quote the Swifties use in their add wasnt Kerry talking about what he saw personally. it was him speaking as a representative of others, reading testimony from others. No perjury whatsoever.

    One of the Swifties was on Hannity the other night and said frankly that there were atrocities there and he knew people firsthand who committed "unspeakable atrocities". Then when asked why then they're attacking kerry, he said basically "duh he made us look bad"

    thats not a very good case. So whats gonna happen in 20 years? An Iraq War whistleblower vet runs for office and "Abu Ghraib Prison Guards for Truth" yells and screams that his testimony demoralized the troops? Thats not much of an argument. The buck stops at the leadership. Kerrys testimony in the 70s put it on the leaders, NOT on the troops, just as today he's not blaming the US troops for Ghraib, he blames the leaders and calls for Rumsfeld to resign. completely consistent.

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 05:57 pm:

    Seriously, the swiftvets have no idea what a smear they've put on the Navy by doing this.

    And I think its hilarious that Thurlow basically found out through all this that if he's telling the truth that "there was no enemy fire", that means the medals he got, he diddnt deserve. think he'd give them up?

    One day one Swiftvet says Kerry shot a VC child in a loincloth, the next this other guy, Tom somethingorother, says that Kerry never shot the VC, it was him. No consistency whatsoever.

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:01 pm:

    Oregon City - The Clackamas County Prosecutor who appeared in an ad against John Kerry has been suspended from his job, but not for speaking out. Al French has been the target of local protests after his appearance in a political ad questioning the the Democratic candidate's war record.

    On Thursday he was placed on leave by the Clackamas County District Attorney's office. It wasn't for his statements against Kerry, but for lying about an extra-marital affair. Reports say French misled his former boss ten years ago to avoid getting fired.

    French has faced a great deal of scrutiny since the ad first aired, with veterans calling for his resignation. He said in the spot that he had served with John Kerry, and that Kerry exaggerated his war record. He also signed an affidavit, swearing to tell the truth during the taping. French later admitted he had not served with Kerry, but relied on accounts from his friends.

    That irked local veterans, who complained to the Oregon Bar Association. They say French violated his duty as a state official by lying on the affidavit, and can no longer be trusted.

    I think some site needs to keep a 'body count' of the number of Swifties now discredited. So many hav either been completely discredited, mainly by their own words against them. Several others have 'quit' the group, not showing up to planned rallies saying O'Neill and others lied to them in putting the group together.

By Antigone on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:06 pm:

    Thurlow basically threw his own bronze star away, saying it was invalid, so he could smear Kerry. Isn't that ironic given how much shit Kerry's gotten for symbolically throwing his own medals away?

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:09 pm:

    actually Thurlow didnt. He didnt know it was 'invalid' till someone called him on it. He had no idea he got it for the same action as Kerry. He even said he never looked at his citation for it, having lost it decades ago.

    he really made a fool of himself.

By Antigone on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:34 pm:

    Jeez. World Net Daily is even trashing the swift boat vets. Amazing.

By dave. on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 06:36 pm:

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 09:08 pm:

    its in the Republicans interest to disavow themselve s of the Swiftvet ads. McCain is a huge hope for the RNC and rightly so for the future. Putting this stuff out there hurts McCain and could hurt him again in the future. It could help Bush get reelected, but i think the smarter Republicans are thinking further ahead.

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:16 pm:

By Rowlfe on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 11:23 pm:

By spunky on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:04 am:

    rowlfe, that was an editorial.

    WND's Homepage splashes this: Admiral comes forward
    to dispute Kerry medal
    Insists he was in boat with future senator,
    wound self-inflicted, not from enemy fire

    and this:
    "Speaking at a Martin Luther King Day celebration last year, presidential candidate John F. Kerry told a Virginia audience that he remembered hearing the tragic news of the assassination while serving in Vietnam – though he did not begin his four-month tour of duty for at least seven months after the shooting."

    As for the link you provided for Bill Press:

    Bill Press' latest book is now available from ShopNetDaily! Get your copy of "Bush Must Go: The Top Ten Reasons Why George Bush Doesn't Deserve a Second Term" before you vote.

    Bill Press is a political analyst for MSNBC, a syndicated columnist, and the author of "Spin This!""

    Not that any of this really matters.

    The only thing, if anything, that will get Kerry into office is his one claim he can make that cannot be refuted. He's not Bush.

    Just one last thought on this:

    Kerry has chosen to make the battleground his time in Vietnam. As others have pointed out, he himself has chosen not to say one word about the time between Vietnam and now.

    Not one word about Winter Soldier.
    Not one word about his time as a prosecutor (what major cases?).
    Not one word as LT Governor (not that most LTGovs have that much to boast about).
    Not one word as Senator.

    To suggest that the other side is somehow supposed to give that chosen battleground a pass is odd, at best, and disingenuous at worst. Kerry should raise high his banners of prosecutor, of lieutenant governor. I suspect that the GOP would be forced to then contend with that, especially if he has a rock-solid record.

    One can hardly fault the opposition for taking up the cudgel on ground of your choosing.

By Nate on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:47 am:

    " He's not Bush. "

    good enough. at the moment.

    first you clear the debris. you can worry about washing windows when you've replaced the glass.

    fuck all, i gave that bastard the benefit of the doubt for a long time. this shit is freaking me out.

    if not bush himself, the lack of elephant spine.

    where are the conservatives?

By dave. on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:57 am:

    have ya noticed there are no terror warnings now that they've drawn kerry blood with this issue? wouldn't want to draw attention away from that, would we?

    i mean, c'mon. we got a convention and demonstrations to look forward to next week. perfect time to play the threat card and go martial law on manhattan. except that it would also take away from the swift vet thing.

    i bet 5 bucks the minute kerry gets his act together and strikes back (what the fuck are they waiting for?) we get another very credible, non-specific threat warning.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 01:44 am:

    "rowlfe, that was an editorial...etc...etc"

    I didnt post the link.

    "The only thing, if anything, that will get Kerry into office is his one claim he can make that cannot be refuted. He's not Bush."

    I dont agree with Kerry on a lot of things, but theres some things that are very respectable about him. He's knowledgable and articulate. he answers questions. In this respects he is like Clinton, who was at least better than Bush.

    "Kerry has chosen to make the battleground his time in Vietnam. As others have pointed out, he himself has chosen not to say one word about the time between Vietnam and now."

    You're confusing, are you saying he never talked about vietnam between 70-today, or are you saying he hasnt said the following:

    "Not one word about Winter Soldier.
    Not one word about his time as a prosecutor (what major cases?).
    Not one word as LT Governor (not that most LTGovs have that much to boast about).
    Not one word as Senator."

    Well you know thats not true and just hyperbole, this 'not one word' crap. Its not at the forefront in the media, but its been out there. ANd I doubt you read his website. In his convention speech he didnt, you'r eright. the spin on that was the election was about 'the future'. I can see past that but if you're gonna be like Hannity and count the number of words about his past in his speech, you have to know that Bush spoke even HALF AS MUCH about his than that in his 2000 convention speech. And I dont think he's got a lot of record to crow about at this next one. Be sure most of it will also be about the future with buzzwords and "moving forward" and blah.

    "To suggest that the other side is somehow supposed to give that chosen battleground a pass is odd, at best, and disingenuous at worst."

    Bob Dole's record was not attacked in 96. The book 'fortunate son' in 2000 about Bush was tackled by the media and never received any SWBFT type notoriety. Bush 41 spoke a lot about his war record and wasnt attacked. The way you worded this sentence seems like someone else wrote it. Its not 'you'.

    "Kerry should raise high his banners of prosecutor, of lieutenant governor. I suspect that the GOP would be forced to then contend with that, especially if he has a rock-solid record."

    I guess you're not really listening. I dont put my ear out that often to hear what Kerry himself has to say, but I still found out all about the selfless lawyer stuff, the bipartisan workings on POW and all that stuff.

    "One can hardly fault the opposition for taking up the cudgel on ground of your choosing."

    Cudgel? That aint a spunky word or a spunky phrase. I cry foul here.

    You copied this opinion from "Dean Esmay" from the link below as well as from the Swiftvets message baord ---- unless thats your email there spunk - I doubt it.
    I suppose if I want I could email him and find out?

    next on the Swiftvets discussion thread!

    Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"

    • Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"

    • Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"

    • Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"

    • Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

By Antigone on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 01:54 am:

    "...he himself has chosen not to say one word about the time between Vietnam and now."

    Right, kind of like Bush hasn't talked much about his activities in that same time. Lessee...he was...choosing to not go to word about the physical exams for the air national guard he word about the failed businesses he "ran" word about the drunk driving word about Harkin energy...

    So, at the same time Bush was doing... what? ...Kerry was getting a law degree, being a prosecutor, being a Lt Govenor, and being a Senator. I think that speaks for itself.

By Antigone on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 02:10 am:

    Ah, Rowlfe, I can always count on you to hit Google. :)

    Oh, and about the Kerry/MLK thing: Kerry WAS in Vietnam then.

    I can cut 'n' paste too: from MediaMatters

    "A timeline of Kerry's Vietnam service on his website shows that Kerry began serving on the U.S.S. Gridley in June 1967, and the ship departed for the western Pacific on February 9, 1968, 'to engage in operations in support of the Vietnam War. According to the timeline, 'the ship spen[t] time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, at Subic Bay in the Philippines and in Wellington, New Zealand.' Kerry remained on the ship until June 20, 1968, when Kerry left to begin 'specialized training' in preparation for his service as a swift boat commander on the rivers of mainland Vietnam, which he began on November 17."

    Spunk, you won't question anything as long as it backs up your beliefs. That's pathetic.

By Antigone on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 02:38 am:

By dave. on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 02:51 am:

    rowlf, you da dawg.

    spunky, use your words. paraphrase or whatever but, dude, that's fucking weak. i kinda understand as i'm a lousy communicator too, and every day i find examples of people who express my feelings better than i could express them. but at least say something like, "this guy expresses my feelings better than i can when he says . . .". then it isn't plagarism.


By patrick on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 04:37 pm:

    the whole matter of Kerry's service is rather stupid. and thats the point. the bush camp has nothing to tout otherwise.

    anybody but Bush.

    as nate says.

    we'll sort it out later.

    first order of business is get that dangerous motherfucker out.

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:12 am:

    did anyone see Bush and his "War on terrorism is not winnable" quote?

    Now I actually agree with him on this, but talk about your ULTIMATE flip-flop

By dave. on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:27 am:

    my farts are so smelly. i made a batch of texas style chili this weekend it was DELICIOUS! but it also fucked me up. apparently, i've become too feeble to handle large amounts of cumin and chili powder.

    first time i've ever had to eat tums.

    so now, i debate either giving it up or stocking up on antacids. the latter seems less pussy. i am not a pussy (nate).

By Antigone on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:37 am:

    My farts have also been similarly smelly lately. Not sure why. Might be all the blueberry pie. (Been making it from scratch.)

By dave. on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 02:54 am:

    do you think it's the blueberries or the pectin?

    for me, it feels like stomach acid up into my throat. the chili was really good. i followed a recipe that won a championship except that it called for a tbsp of msg and 2 cups of water. i split the difference and added an extra can of crushed tomatos in lieu of msg.

    i love how all of the champion recipes owe so little to gourmet and so much to white trash.

By dave. on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 03:10 am:

    i used the second recipe with the 4 drops.

    anyway, we can uncover all the dirt, all the hypocrisy. it won't matter unless the professionals get it into play like the swift vets did. rest assured, the moment they do, we go nationwide red alert. these bastards will not fail to exploit the power of incumbency and squander tax revenues to preserve their hegemony.

    george bush would personally fuck pre-adolescent children if he thought it would assure his re-election.

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 12:27 pm:

By Nate on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:01 pm:

    wtf is up with bush saying we can't win the war on terror one day, and then saying we will win the war on terror the next day.

    i just don't understand how half the country is caught up in this guy.

    i see guiliani and mccain standing up for him and i can't figure out why.

    what am i missing?

By dave. on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 06:09 pm:

    what choice do they have? they didn't even have primaries this time around. they're betting the farm on dubya.

By Antigone on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 07:00 pm:

    Check out the media bias on the Bush flip-flop. How much you wanna bet there'll be little fuss over it, but they'll keep repeating the "Kerry is a flip-flopper" line.

By patrick on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 07:42 pm:

    the republicans didnt have any choice but to have bush get a redo on that one. its so absurd because they do otherwise.

    they could have left it alone and let the dems flap about it but it would be quite damaging or they can do an obvious flip about it, look stupid for a while and at the same saying "no no, he was wrong, see? he said the right thing the next day."

    i still maintain the biggest concern this country has is its education system. it doesnt get any more obvious.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 02:05 am:

    I was watching a townhall thing on CNN, and the crowd had been going for the RNC representative for most of the show, but then they talked about education, the RNC shill says Bush has a great education record, and the whole place, the WHOLE place, BOOED the living hell out of him. Never seen anything like it.

    I havent been watching the Repub Convention. But I'm looking to see this Bush daughter speech. Heard it was a train wreck.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 02:29 am:

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 02:39 am:

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 04:11 am:

    reading transcripts

    bizarre little thing I noticed.

    Arnold said in his speech he became a Republican after seeing Humphrey debate Nixon.

    Nixon and Humphrey never debated. WTF?

By semillama on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 12:54 pm:

    It's a clear choice Spunky.

    Just on the environmental records alone. Kerry has a 92% lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation voters, who are fairly non-partisan (They endorse politicians based solely on their voting records, so I've actually seen a decent number of environmentally friendly republicans get a nod from them). Bush's environmental record, well, it would take a long time to list all the really awful things, so how about this one especially for you, Spunky:

    Instead of simply enforcing the Clean Air Act, Bush's EPA wants to allow three times more mercury in the air than is currently allowed under the act. This is despite EPA findings that discovered the health threat of mercury to Americans is much higher than was thought. One in six women have blood mercury levels high enough to adversely effect fetal development.

    Now, to bring that to a personal level, that means there is a one in six chance that Eri is one of those women. The same odds for your daughters.

    Bush thinks that's ok.

    Do you think that's ok?

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 02:08 pm:

    Check this out: Bush wearing a military ribbon he wasn't awarded.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 04:22 pm:

By patrick on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 04:23 pm:

    did you hear at the convention, they are handing out little band aides that poke fun at Kerry's war wounds?


By dave. on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 04:31 pm:

    stave it off
    1 2 3
    and now you can
    count to 3

By dave. on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 04:35 pm:

    i read buzzflash every day, i listen to air america.


    i'm not the one who needs any more convincing.

    what am i getting out of all this? it's fucking ridiculous.

By patrick on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 08:07 pm:

    Re; Kerry's anti-Vietnam Congressional testimony

    "It was a period of intense feeling on both sides for and against the war, but I think that was painting with far too broad a brush to tarnish the records and service of people who were defending our country and fighting communism and doing what they thought was right,"
    Karl Rove

    hey asshole, incase you forget many soldiers who to Vietnam were forced to go by a thing called the draft, remember? Many sodliers did what was "right" because they had little choice you fuck.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 09:48 pm:

By semillama on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 10:21 am:

    Totally intentional.

By Antigone on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 11:49 am:

    Completely. If I didn't know it was at the convention I'd say it was an altar.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 01:12 pm:

    Even that asshole Andrew Sullivan has had enough now:

    THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

    THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:

    Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

    That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

By Antigone on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:15 pm:

    The Miller speech is a prime example of the core Republican strategy: accuse your opponent of doing something while doing it yourself. Accuse your opponent of doing the nasty shit that you've been doing yourself. That way, the response sounds a lot like, "I know what you are, but what am I?"

    I dunno. I know this is cliche, but if Bush wins again I may have to move out of the US. At the very least I'll have to move out of Texas. Sweden looks nice. (It's my ancestral home, and you can get 10Mbit broadband to your home for cheap...)

By dave. on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:23 pm:

    the liberals still aren't learning. if anyone delivered a speech like that against bush, they'd be instantly cast by every right-winger with a mic, a camera or a blog as wild-eyed, unhinged, shrill, shrieking, etc. i have not heard, seen or read any such coordinated response from the kerry campaign or the dnc. i've read a lot of criticism but nothing coordinated. hey, guys. coordination works. give it a try sometime.

    a couple days ago, bush handed us a perfect flip-flop. last night, we got a dose of classic, right-wing fear and hate mongering, lies and intolerance.

    it's time to wake the fuck up.

By patrick on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:27 pm:

    maybe so, but im seeing the stories and images from the brothers and sisters in NYC protests.

    it looks to be some of the most organized, flamboyant and surreal protests in recent years. i just wish i was there.

By dave. on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    i don't mean that kind of organized. where the fuck is james carville? goddamit, the republicans should be begging for mercy by now. they should be laying on the ground in a fetal position with a wedgie and a swirlie, crying for their momma to take the pain away.

    fuck the protestors.

By Antigone on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    "a couple days ago, bush handed us a perfect flip-flop."

    Yeah, I mean I just read on Salon someone commenting that there was more media coverage of the "shove it" from Kerry's wife than the president of the united states saying we can't win the war on terror.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 02:55 pm:

By patrick on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:01 pm:

    i know you didnt dave. before i even read your comments i was intent on posting about the protestors.

    personally id rather see cute hippy-like chicks and choppy bull dykes on the street in face paint beating pots and pans that assholes like James Carvel spitting on the camera lens, but thats just me.

    Did anyone see that bit on John Stewart last night about "Words Speak Louder Than Actions" ?

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:05 pm:

    I cant believe this shit.

    It can actually be said that the RNC convention has been nothing more than "kerry sucks kerry sucks 9/11 9/11 terror terror"

    Where are the policies? Is there any plan at all... for ANYTHING? People are gonna give Bush a blank check?

By semillama on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:21 pm:

    I scanned over the RNC platform.

    Basically, it's a bunch of utter bullshit (no surprise). Lots of lies and euphemisms. One thing I found ironic was a statement early on about their commitment to women's health and all they've done for women's health, while later on they state they want a constitutional amendment banning abortion.


    Anyone seen that Salon article about what Bush was really doing in 1972? He wasn't at the Guard.

    AWOL, anyone?

By dave. on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:28 pm:

    i'd rather see the republicans getting the political shit kicked out of them. it pisses me off that the liberal activists choose to expend their efforts by dancing in the streets. it's pure, self-absorbed fantasy to think that doing the hippy dance and waving signs and shit in nyc is going to sway undecideds in ohio.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:32 pm:

    I think the problem with protesting is that theres not a whole lot you can do.
    Walking, slogans, signs, dancing... uh... stuff...

    not much. The only real purpose of a protest as far as changing anyones mind is to just ASSEMBLE in numbers. whether or not you move, a nice aerial shot of hundreds of thousands of people might make a difference. In that sense the protest is a success.

By Antigone on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:47 pm:

    "Where are the policies? Is there any plan at all..."

    Apparently Bush is going to highlight many domestic programs in his speech tonight. Like the Swift Boats shit, he's letting people around him do the attacking while he talks like a moderate.

By wisper on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 03:56 pm:

    "it added whole universes to the word crude."

    great line.

    And that "Words" thing on the daily show was magic.
    In a just world, I should bee seeing that montage on every news channel on earth right now.

By Nate on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 04:09 pm:

    sister Doro ?

By Anitgone on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 05:01 pm:

    Well, whaddya know...

By dave. on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 05:02 pm:


    i just now saw that bush twins/aphex twin comparison.

    i love the windowlicker video.

By Nate on Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 05:15 pm:

By Antigone on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 01:22 am:

    I'm watching Kerry speak in Springfield, OH.


    He is tearing Bush a new asshole.

    Check out this excerpt:

    "We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

    "The vice president even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.

    "Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America."

By dave. on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 01:53 am:

    fuck. i missed it. maybe they'll replay it this weekend.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 02:43 am:

    Wow. Kerry certainly stole Bush's thunder.

    It was better than his convention speech. in fact it was the best speech I've seen him do to date.

    Say what you want about Kerry, contrast his detail and articulation to Bush's vagueness and repetition, and theres just no contest.

    Now can he keep it up?

By agatha on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 02:53 am:

    Protesting does more than talking about politics on a website.

By dave. on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 03:39 am:

    "protest" is just another name for "theme party downtown: bring props".

By wisper on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 03:42 am:

    OH SNAP!

By wisper on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 03:43 am:

    (to agatha)

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 11:48 am:

By semillama on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 02:14 pm:

    Clinton is undergoing bypass surgery tomorrow.

    Already the Freepers are saying he did it on purpose to distract from the Bu$h campaign trying to capitalize on a post-convention bounce.

By Antigone on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 03:11 pm:

    I wouldn't put it past him. I mean, the symptoms leading to quadruple bypass don't just start up instantly.

    Of course, the flip side is this: isn't it odd that a major Democratic politician has gotten seriously ill or died just before the last three elections?

By semillama on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 05:09 pm:

    That's not quite true. Lots of folks go in for check ups on their hearts and end up with bypass surgery. That's what happened to Letterman.

    The three politicians are Wellstone, Carnahan, but who's the third?

    Did you know Ted Kennedy was supposed to be on the Wellstone plane?

By Antigone on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 05:39 pm:

    Clinton would be the third.

    Maybe the South Beach Diet did it to him. :)

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 06:49 pm:

    Yet another connection between Bush and the Swiftvets

    Presidential Elections - AP
    Two Anti-Kerry Vets Tapped for VA Panel

    30 minutes ago

    By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - Two former Vietnam prisoners of war who appear in ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) were appointed by the Bush administration to a panel advising the Department of Veterans Affairs (news - web sites).

    The former POWs in the ad, Kenneth Cordier and Paul Galanti, serve on the VA's 12-member Former POW Advisory Committee. VA Secretary Anthony Principi appointed Cordier in 2002 and Galanti in 2003.

    Cordier said the VA panel has nothing to do with the Bush campaign or the anti-Kerry group. "It's totally apolitical, and we meet twice a year to bring to the secretary's attention problems from around the country in VA hospitals," he said.

    Cordier and Galanti appear in an anti-Kerry ad saying their Vietnamese captors used news of anti-war protests, such as ones Kerry organized, to taunt the prisoners. Cordier also was a member of a Bush campaign veterans' committee but quit earlier this month after that role was revealed.

    VA spokesman Phil Budahn said Principi did not know about or encourage the veterans' appearance in the anti-Kerry ad. Budahn said federal regulations bar advisory committee members from engaging in political activity while performing their committee duties, but there are no other restrictions on their activities when not working on committee business.

    Kerry has labeled the group running the ads, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a front for the Bush campaign. Kerry's campaign complained to the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) that the veterans' group was illegally coordinating its attacks with the Bush campaign.

    More than $100,000 of the group's initial funding came from Houston-area homebuilder Bob J. Perry, a longtime donor to Bush and other Texas Republicans. A Bush campaign lawyer also advised the Swift boat group and was dropped from the campaign staff after his role became public.

    Bush and his campaign have denied any coordination with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

    Cordier said he got involved with the group because of his continuing outrage over anti-Vietnam war activists like Kerry. He said he got in touch with one of its leaders, John O'Neill, who later commanded the same Swift boat Kerry had overseen.

    Cordier said he doesn't remember his Vietnamese captors specifically mentioning Kerry but he does remember them playing a tape of an address by anti-war activist Jane Fonda.

    Cordier and Galanti are longtime friends and prominent former Vietnam POWs with long-standing Republican ties. Cordier said he suggested Galanti contact O'Neill.

    Galanti coordinated Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s presidential campaign in Virginia four years ago and was a member of the same VA advisory panel when Bush's father was president. Cordier gave $2,000 to Texas Republicans in 2000 and 2001.

    The anti-Kerry group's ads have accused Kerry of lying to get some of the five medals he won as a Swift boat commander in Vietnam.

    Navy documents and other servicemen who witnessed the incidents contradict the group's claims, and the group has not offered any documentary proof of its claims that Kerry lied about his medals. Kerry himself has given differing accounts of some incidents, however, and his past claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 is not substantiated by any documents so far.

    Navy records also show most of the anti-Kerry group's members were not in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. The group has not released a membership list but did criticize Kerry in a May letter signed by 238 members.

    Only 101 names on the letter match names of officers or enlisted men on the rolls of Kerry's units in Vietnam when he was there, from November 1968 through March 1969.

    Van Odell, an enlisted man in Kerry's unit and a member of the group, said Swift Boat Veterans for Truth never claimed to be exclusively made up of veterans who served with Kerry. Finding such vets is difficult because Kerry was only in Vietnam for about four months, Odell said.

    "It's hard to be there when he was," Odell said. "He was in and out so fast."

    Before volunteering for Swift boat duty on Vietnam's rivers, Kerry served about a year on a Navy frigate offshore in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    At least 30 men on the list, including one who appears in an anti-Kerry ad, served in Kerry's former Swift boat unit a year after Kerry left Vietnam, the records show.

    Shelton White appears in the group's first ad, which claims it is quoting those who served with Kerry. In the ad, White says "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam." Navy records show White served in Kerry's former unit, Coastal Division 11, from November 1969 to March 1970 — a full year after Kerry left.

    Odell said White was referring to Kerry's anti-war activities after Kerry returned to the United States.


By agatha on Friday, September 3, 2004 - 11:35 pm:

    Snap back atcha, Wisper! There is bunny pee on my floor, and ain't nobody gonna clean it but me.

    Life gets tired.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 04:37 am:

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 05:07 am:

    since posting that I found new reports that the boos where actually just 'Ohs' and noises of people in shock.

By Nate on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 12:12 pm:

    i heard the audio and didn't hear any boos.

    that was odd.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 03:14 pm:

    I heard it too. Nothing.

    Maybe the reporter was in part of the crowd where a few people were booing or some stupid shit like that. who knows.

By Platypus on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 04:19 pm:

    this article suggests that perhaps there is a concerted effort to make sure dissenting noises get drowned out at the RNC.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 04:56 pm:

    not just the RNC, everywhere. To get into any Bush event you have to sign 'loyalty pledge' endorsing the president.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 10:38 pm:

By spunky on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 12:15 pm:

    Kerry is a blatant liar. He is an oppertunist.

    I know how you all feel about Bush, and I know it is a waste of time to explain anything to you, that you have hated him since before the 2000 elections, and you are blinded by your hate for capitalism, and your misguided notions that the US is the root of all evil on earth, but I think you guys are betraying your beleifs to back that twit.

    This guy is a chamilion. That is all he is.

    I said I was not going to weigh in on the political threads. And this is exactly why.
    You guys are worse then the democratic underground.

    And anyone who accused Clinton of waiting to take away from the RNC is a complete idiot.
    You know how I feel about the man, but I have nothing buy sympathy for him right now.

    Look, Bush is not a conservative. His spending alone proves that. But one thing is clear. His attmept at a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage further proves that. However, he has done more to defend this country then Carter and Clinton combined.

    I am going back on hiatus. You have chased the rabbit back into his hole. And there is no reasoning with you guys.

By semillama on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 02:12 pm:

    Spunky -

    So you're completely fine with Eri and your daughters having a 1 in 6 chance of having mercury blood levels high enough to cause fetal damage, I take it.

    That's sad. That's unspeakably sad that you would put your fears and prejudices above the health of your family.

    Perhaps you should go back into your hole and quiver some more, rabbit.

By Rowlfe on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 02:22 pm:

    Did you write this one yourself this time?

    "However, he has done more to defend this country then Carter and Clinton combined. "

    He's CREATED more terrorism spunk by going into Iraq. not ONE PERSON at the convention even MENTIONED Osama bin Laden by name.

    And by atacking Iraq, which has nothing to do with 9/11, if theres a real threat like Iran looks like its going to be, guess what? THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT NOW. And the public probably wouldnt support it either! You know how stretched thin you are when Bush is taking troops OUT OF KOREA? Cant you see now that move was absolutely retarded? If you attack any more countries now you'll only completely bankrupt the country USSR style.

    So all this "duh Kerry wont go to war duh" stuff makes no sense because Bush's and Kerry's hands are both tied with the amount of actual 'responses' they could make to terrorism. They can only do what Clinton did which is actually FIND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE and CAPTURE THEM.

    Bush never committed to Afghanistan, and now bin Laden is still supposedly out there. There were more police in NYC at the RNC then there are in Afghanistan. The Taliban are still kicking around in there and right after the US abandons it (which is will if OBL is captured because then nooone will care) then it will fall back into terrorism again, since the LAST conservative who was in there did the same thing, which is one of the many non-catchphrase reasons 9/11 happened now innit? Yes, yes it is.

    And then theres the Saudis where the hijackers came from, who still channel funds to Al Qaeda, who refuse to freeze the acounts of terrorists. Bush is betraying his country by not doing anything about them. Bush doctrine not applicable there apparently.

    Look, I think the war on terror is somewhat retarded and you know that. But if you're gonna fight one, you need someone who knows what the fuck he's doing and actually maybe you know, has a sense of geography and of history and to repeat Kerry, well, yes, actually FOUGHT in war who knows what its like to commit troops unlike all these chickenhawks.

    Bottom line: He fucked up on Iraq and has not taken any responsibility, which is one huge flipflop from the "uniter" "culpable" promising candidate of 2000. He has massively fucked up and that alone means he no longer gets to lead.

    So Kerry's a weathervane huh? I can accept that but no more than Bush. Fought 9/11 commish now taking their orders. Fought against the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security then did it. Said gay rights were a states issue then look at whats going on now. Flipflopped on Condi Rice before the 9/11 commish. No nation building and now look at whats going on. Carbon dioxide position. Recount laws. Created No child left behind but didnt fund it. Said he's a war president then a peace preisdent back to war president. Couldnt win the war on terror, next day its a nuanced "yes, but I meant".

    Oh wait Bush and conservatives are allowed to be nuanced but not Kerry. I forgot. Oops.

    Bush is the ultimate opportunist, look at his whole life. He never earned a damn thing, everything was a silver spoon thing, getting money from other people. But Kerry is the fancypants elitist? the one who went to war, earned his right to speak out against it afterwards, went to law school, served in the senate for all this time. You know, things that are actually hard to do, not things daddy pulled strings for. NO handed down businesses and bailouts from daddy. No extended haze of alcoholism and drug use. just WORK.

    I will stand up absolutely for how articulate kerry is, how he can discuss any issue (I'm sure he could say something about tribal sovereignty without babbling, natch) on a dime. On this quality alone he is way more qualified to lead than Bush, who is a lazy absent mess of a president. If he actually gets elected this time

    I dont even think I'm gonna even bother talking about it anymore because this time you'll deserve the damage he does to your nations families, troops and reputation.

    "Look, Bush is not a conservative. His spending alone proves that. "

    In that case I guess Reagan isnt a conservative.

    The cons say the Democrats are tax and spend but Clinton was way more fiscally responsible than both Bush 41, 43 and Reagan. These last conservatives are borrow and spend and thats much worse.

    Hey spunk, that 87 billion everyones crowing about? How come Kerrys responsible for body armor when Bush never gave it to them before the war in the first place? And do you know how much has actually been spent since that passed? Just a few billion. Who, is the rest of it going to?

    "nd you are blinded by your hate for capitalism, and your misguided notions that the US is the root of all evil on earth,"

    blah blah blah blah I'm a freeper now blah blah blah

    I'm all for capitalism, I just want it to actually fall into place with democracy. The courts have given corporations the basic Constitutional rights of persons, but workers lose those rights on entering the workplace. It doesnt make sense that we want to spread democracy all over the world but we spend 1/3 of our day or more in the opposite.

    Go back to your swiftvet forum. Its not cool to just drop a shitbomb and then tell us there'll be no discussion on it.

    If theres one reason Kerry is falling behind, its becuase he's not enough of a liar. Isnt that hilarious? the big hits from the RNC are coming from Zell Miller, who accuses Kerry of cutting things Cheney cut himself (AND MORE!), and from the Swiftvets who have been completely discredited, and Bush saying 527s are the root of all campaign evil when he was against McCain-Feingold's campaign finance reform bill.

By Antigone on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 02:30 pm:

    "This guy is a chamilion."

    So? I guess you'd say that Bush is resolute, or something like that. That he doesn't change his mind or change the opinions he expresses on a whim to please people, or for political reasons. That'd be funny.

    Oh yeah.


By Rowlfe on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 02:30 pm:

    Bush Definitely Missing Files:


    _A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing. The government has released copies of those DD Form 44 documents for Bush for 1971 and earlier years but not for 1972 or 1973. Records from Bush's draft board in Houston do not show his draft status changed after he joined the guard in 1968. The AP obtained the draft board records Aug. 27 under the Freedom of Information Act.

    _Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status. When Bush skipped his 1972 physical, regulations required his Texas commanders to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination," according to the Air Force manual at the time. An investigative report was supposed to be forwarded "with the command recommendation" to Air Force officials "for final determination."

    Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama.

    _A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him. His Texas commanders were ordered to have Bush sign such a document; but none has been released.

    _Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions. Bush missed at least five months' worth of National Guard training in 1972. No documents have surfaced indicating Bush was counseled or had written authorization to skip that training or make it up later. Commanders did have broad discretion to allow guardsmen to make up for missed training sessions, said Weaver and Lawrence Korb, Pentagon (news - web sites) personnel chief during the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985.

    "If you missed it, you could make it up," said Korb, who now works for the Center for American Progress, which supports Kerry.

    _A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas. The statement was required as part of a Vietnam-era crackdown on no-show guardsmen. Bush was approved in September 1972 to train with the Alabama unit, more than four months after he left Texas.

By Rowlfe on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 02:31 pm:

    "I guess you'd say that Bush is resolute, or something like that. That he doesn't change his mind or change the opinions he expresses on a whim to please people, or for political reasons. That'd be funny. "

    He's very stubborn so people get the impression that he's 'resolute' or wont change positions when the chips are against him

By TBone on Sunday, September 5, 2004 - 08:31 pm:


By Antigone on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 04:03 am:

    Just watched Mahr's "Real Time" on HBO. Pat Buchanan was on. Do you know what that ultraconservative motherfucker was saying about the war in Iraq?

    He said stuff like "terrorism is what empires get when they try to rule countries." Then I did a bit of searching and found this. Fuck all. If a liberal said this they'd be hung. Buchanan is just ignored, of course.

By semillama on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 11:40 am:

    You know the world's totally upside down when Pat Buchanan can write a column that a die hard liberal like me can agree with EVERY SINGLE POINT made in it.

By sarah on Monday, September 6, 2004 - 11:28 pm:

    there's hope. today i read that the kerry campaigned hired on some new staff = clinton's former press secretary i believe, and key folks from clinton's campaign.

    also, spunk: kerry isn't a chamelion, he doesn't change his colors so he can hide. he just doesn't see the world in black and white. don't mistake lack of conviction for what is really an understanding and appreciation for the complexity of the issues we face. i'd rather have a leader who can analyze all sides and come to a reasonable decision, rather than make decisions based solely on principals.

By RC on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 02:58 am:

    Kerry doesn't need new staff. Kerry needs to take the gloves off & come out swinging!

    Bush's record stinks to high heaven ON IT'S OWN. Kerry doesn't need to attack it -- just point out the facts! Beginning with the fact that Bush didn't shut down the swiftboat veterans the minute they began running that ad -- which speaks volumes about *his* character. You don't sit on your hands & let someone else sling mud on your behalf if you are above mudslinging.

    Dubya pulled the same shit at the RNC -- rather than having the balls to attack Kerry himself, he sent Zel MIller up there to do his talking for him (who si retiring, so who gives a rat's ass if he decided to switch parties now?). Which is precisely what those swiftboat vets are doing. And they're being discredited left & right:

    The press isn't going to get on Bush's case the way it should, so Kerry's gotta lead them where he wants them to go.

    Start HAMMERING on those missing 18 mos. of Air National Gaurd service -- why there isn't A SINGLE PERSON coming forward to say "Hey, I was there & I saw Dubya there too." Every time there's a microphone in front of him, Kerry should be stating that HE served his conunty honorably in Vietnam while Dubya's daddy used his influence to get the Lt. Governor keep Dubya at home in the Texas Air National Guard -- something the former Lt. Governor admits & regrets doing & something he later used for his personal financial gain:

    The mantra of the RNC the whoel week was that "Since 9/11, America is safer under Dubya". Kerry needs to remind people that 9/11 Happened On Bush's Watch In The First Damn Place!!!!

    Remind folks of the all those PDBs Dubya admits he never reads, the intel advising him him that no, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 -- & that American authorities received SPECIFIC WARNINGS in the weeks before 9/11 that attacks would be launched against NYC.

    (The links to these articles no longer work so I am pasting the 1st page of the info I gathered here. Anyone who wants the entire 22 pgs. can email me.)
    Info on the “Iranian National“ story I saw
    as one of the Fox News crawls on 9/13/01

    The first documentation I found about this story appeared at:
    (Title of piece: Suggestions of Advance Knowledge an Attack Would Take Place on or Around 9/11). Foudn on 5/17/03.)

    The “Advance Knowledge” piece contained the following info relating to this specific story:

    ***Early September 2001 (D): An Iranian man known as Ali S. in a German jail waiting deportation repeatedly phones US law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack on the WTC in the week of September 9-15. He calls it "an attack that will change the world." After a month of badgering his prison guards, he is finally able to call the White House 14 times in the days before the attack. He then tries to send a fax to Bush, but is denied permission hours before the 9/11 attacks. German police later confirm the calls. Prosecutors later say Ali had no foreknowledge and his forebodings were just a strange coincidence.*** They say he is mentally unstable. Similar warnings also come from a Moroccan man being held in a Brazilian jail. [Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 9/13/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01, Ananova, 9/14/01, Sunday Herald, 9/16/01] FTW

    The Deutsche Presse-Agentur link contained the following story:

    Iranian in Germany "Tried to Warn" U.S. of Impending Attacks
    Deutsche Presse-Agentur
    September 13, 2001

    An Iranian man awaiting deportation in Germany tried to warn the United States that the terrorist attacks which shook the nation on Tuesday were about to be carried out, according to press reports.

    The Hanover daily "Neue Presse", in a report published in its Friday edition, said the man, being held in detention near this northern German city, had told U.S. intelligence officials by telephone that attacks would take place this week. However, they had hung up the phone when the 29-year-old man said he was being detained.
    Just hours before the kamikaze airplane attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, he had asked in vain to be allowed to send a fax to U.S. President George W. Bush.

    The man had for the past month insisted that he had important information for the United States and must urgently pass it on by telephone. The German authorities had eventually allowed him to make the call, the paper wrote.

    The report said that the man had been interrogated on Thursday by German and U.S. justice and intelligence officials. There was no immediate confirmation available from the German prosecutor-general's office.
    © Copyright 2001

    I dont know what the hell Kerry's waiting for -- but the clock is ticking. You don't fight by the Marquess of Queensbury rules when your opponent is coming at you with rusty switchblade -- you go for the kill if you want to win.

    - RC

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:01 am:

    well, he's got Carville and Begala now. Carville can bring it. Mary Beth Cahill is in the doghouse, where she belongs for believing the Swiftvet thing would just blow over.

    They need to get out there and start swinging, I agree. Not just on the war and the economy, but on the environment too. That's a big issue that gets short shift. Although the latest National Geographic may help put it back in folks' minds - probably the best roundup of evidence for climate change I've seen.

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:13 am:

    for a long while it did just 'blow over', then all of a sudden POOF it was an issue. I think the Kerry campaign didnt want to make it the issue themselves, but well... looksee what happened.

    At the same time the Bush campaign pretends his National Guard stuff isnt happening and it never gets really covered in the media. Go figure.

    Anyone see the Pentagon now wants to investigate Kerrys medals?

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:21 am:

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 12:20 pm:

    A new "we're not associated with the bush campaign - honest" 527 group, with the creative name of, is planning to run what they call "Willie Horton" type ads, I just saw.

    Fucking slimebags.

    If the pentagon wants to investigate Kerry's medals, let them. I saw what it is about, and it's a clerical error on the part of the Navy. But shame on Rumsfeld for pushing it.

    Why not investigate why W. was wearing medals he couldn't possibly have been given in the photo in the GHWB presidential library?

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 01:54 pm:

    another good rude pundit today. effin' kerry ought to hire him, too.

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 02:00 pm:

    yeah, he should.

By spunky on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 03:04 pm:

    :"also, spunk: kerry isn't a chamelion, he doesn't change his colors so he can hide. he just doesn't see the world in black and white. don't mistake lack of conviction for what is really an understanding and appreciation for the complexity of the issues we face. i'd rather have a leader who can analyze all sides and come to a reasonable decision, rather than make decisions based solely on principals"

    Sarah. I know you are smarter then that.

    Sem, Dave, and Rowlf, I expected nothing else from you.

    Shit bomb? Why would an opinion from me that Kerry is a chamilion be a shit bomb? Of course he is. And sorry, maybe you Rowlfe do not dislike free enterprise and capitalism, but you are not the only person on this site, and maybe you should consider that comments are not aimed soley at you.

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 03:20 pm:

    "This guy is a chamilion. That is all he is."

    i know that what follows is way too long for you read, spunky. maybe eri can read it to you.

    and then you can go cheney yourself.

    From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

    1. Social Security Surplus

    BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

    ...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

    2. Patient's Right to Sue

    GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

    ...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

    ...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

    3. Tobacco Buyout

    BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

    ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

    4. North Korea

    BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

    ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

    5. Abortion

    BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

    ...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

    6. OPEC

    BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

    ...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

    7. Iraq Funding

    BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

    ...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

    8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

    BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

    ...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

    9. Science

    BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

    ...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

    10. Ahmed Chalabi

    BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

    ...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

    11. Department of Homeland Security

    BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

    12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

    BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

    ...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

    13. Free Trade

    BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

    14. Osama Bin Laden

    BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

    ...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

    15. The Environment

    BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

    ...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

    16. WMD Commission

    BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

    17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

    BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

    18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

    BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

    19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

    BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

    ...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

    20. Gay Marriage

    BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

    21. Nation Building

    BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

    22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

    BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

    ...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

    23. U.N. Resolution

    BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

    ...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

    24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

    BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

    ...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

    25. Campaign Finance

    BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

    ...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

    26. 527s

    Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

    …Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

    27. Medical Records

    Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

    …Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department…asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

    28. Timelines For Dictators

    Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

    …Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

    29. The Great Lakes

    Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'– [AP, 7/19/01]

    Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

    30. Winning The War On Terror

    Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

    …Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

    …Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 04:08 pm:

    "Shit bomb? Why would an opinion from me that Kerry is a chamilion be a shit bomb?"

    I didnt call that specific point a shitbomb. Its the whole post, how you decided you were going to post and then 'go back on hiatus' makes your whole post a complete shitbomb, since you pre-emptively stated you're not willing to stick it out and make your case.

    and you saw how many points we've made in response, and all you can come back with now is this "you're wrong because you hate capitalism" thing...

    lets pretend this is true of everyone who is against you. Does that somehow erase from existence all of Bush's own "chameleon"-like flipflops? Aren't you smart enough to admit that most 'flipflops' are either because of a legitimate and explainable changing of minds or a misconception based on nuance? If not, maybe you should ****insert glass house/stones metaphor****

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 04:35 pm:

    Whack a Mole!!!

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 04:41 pm:

    Hey spunky.

    nine hundred and ninety-nine.

    chew on that for a while.

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:13 pm:

    make that an even 1,000.

    and for what?

By spunky on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:29 pm:

    I am not talking about Bush. I am talking about Kerry. Focus, man focus!

    Tell me what makes Kerry a good canidate for the President of the United States.

    He's not Bush and He;s the lessor of two evils not acceptable. I want a good reason, based on his history and record in the Senate, or a statement he has made that he has not contridicted himself on.

    Try not to change the subject to Bush Bashing (you have had 4+ years to do that, and you are still wrong).

By Rowlfe on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:29 pm:

    I was just watching Rumsfeld talking about terrorism in Russia...

    I'm waiting to hear that the terrorists hate Russia's freedom. HAR

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

    "He's not Bush and He;s the lessor of two evils not acceptable."

    the hell it isn't.

    "Try not to change the subject to Bush Bashing"

    don't fucking tell me what it's about.

    john kerry never went on the air to mock a woman who was due to be executed. in general, john kerry isn't a vulgar, snickering, hateful little fucker who needs his ass kicked all the way back to connecticut, where he's really from.

By spunky on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:52 pm:

By spunky on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:53 pm:

    See, dave.

    You are only telling me why you wont vote for Bush.

    That was not my question. I don't give a shit about that.

    Why do you support Kerry?

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 05:57 pm:

    and that's just one example and not the most despicable by a long shot. i'm not going to list any more because the effort would be wasted on you, trace.

    george bush and the republican party are using YOU. i know they hate my people so it ain't no big thing to me but you actually think they care about you, that they respect you. they're laughing at you. wake the fuck up. or don't.

    shit, why am i even bothering?

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 06:10 pm:

    it's really as simple as that, trace. the republicans need to be derailed. i'd prefer dean just because he's interesting but i'm stuck with kerry. i'm ok with kerry. i trust kerry not to fuck things up. i despise bush and his administration and his party and 99.9 percent of his supporters. they're all wrong in the head.

    y'know, under a democrat, you folks can still run around and be unsympathetic hardasses and backwards idealogues all you fucking want. feel free, please. don't take the handouts, don't enjoy the infrastructure, walk your fucking 10 miles to school in the snow barefoot and like it. as long as you keep your bigoted, intolerant, hateful, grubby paws off me and mine, you just have at.

    under republicans, we'd all have to live like you guys. well, fuck you. i don't like your crappy world.

    that's why.

By semillama on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 06:42 pm:

    here's some reasons for you:

    Kerry's record in the senate is pretty damn good. He has a 92% lifetime voting score from League of Conservation Voters. He's worked to improve health care for low-income children, strenghten access to education. He was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. He's the ranking Democrat on the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee (north korea, anyone?).

    His running mate, Edwards, was a co-author of the Patient's Bill of Rights, and is a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

    Why I'm voting for Kerry, and not just against Bush:

    Kerry will reverse a lot of the damage BushCo has done to our environmental protection laws.

    Kerry actually believes Americans have the fundamental right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and have unspoiled wild placed. He also believes we have a responsibility to take care of our land so we leave a better and clearer America for future generations.

    Kerry supports Superfund, which Bush has abandoned.
    Kerry is an advocate of environmental justice, which Bush blocks at every turn.

    He has plans for a conservation covenant with America, to preserve our national parks and protect our last wild lands from overzealous development.

    On national security, Kerry understands that diplomacy requires nuance. He'll mend the bridges that Bush broke. He's pledged to complete the Global Cleanout of bomb material and help secure Russian nuclear weapons before any more can disappear.

    Kerry wants to double the capacity of the Special Forces to go after terrorists.

    on the economy, Kerry will restore fiscal discipline and attack the deficit without bankrupting medicare and social security.

    He's aid he'll eliminate tax incentives to businesses that outsource labor.

    He'll raise the minimum wage.

    How about cutting $1000 from your health insurance premiums for your family? How about making sure every child has access to quality health care?

    Then there's energy. How's a tax incentive to develop more fuel efficient vehicles sound to you? Bush sure doesn't like it.

    In education, Kerry wants to establish a National Education Trust Fund, so that no school has to be short on the funds it needs to operate.

    Spunky, if you've read this far, how does a $4,000 a year college tuition tax credit sound to you for your kids?

    Here's a good one: mandatory funding for veteran's health care. I can think of at least 3500 people that might appeal to, maybe even 130,000 people that could appeal to...

By dave. on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 07:00 pm:

    sounds like a happier place to me.

    thanks, sem. i get too pissed off to be so reasonable and expansive. i just wanna start knocking heads together.

By Antigone on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 07:31 pm:

    I'm voting for Kerry just to piss spunky off. (And to cancel out his vote in Texas...)

    Oh yeah. It turns out the Bush bounce wasn't all that great: Gallup. Is the media reporting this? Of course not! A direct quote: "Bush's bounce is the smallest an incumbent president has received."

By Antigone on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 08:09 pm:

By kazu on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 08:17 pm:

    Well, I am certainly not betraying my anti-capitalist, anti-
    american, marijuana and alcohol loving values with a Kerry vote.


By Antigone on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 08:28 pm:

    The kid gloves are officially off.

By patrick on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 08:34 pm:

    anyboyd but bush and im not afraid to admit.

    get that motherfucker out of there.

    the polls are garbage. the media can suck it. enjoy the last few days of the Bush II era because he's gone.

    Thats right. Here and now, I proclaim, Bush is gone come November.

    He's done enough damage to tie Kerry's hands for at least 2 years trying to unravel the damage, then maybe...JUST MAYBE in 2 years a Democrat controlled congress will re-emerge and MAYBE some progress might be made. Otherwise the inefficacy of the American government will continue and we'll all still be a bunch of fucking morons.

    Vote J in 2006.

    kerry in 2004.

By Antigone on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 08:35 pm:

By agatha on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 10:59 pm:

    If I see chameleon spelled wrong ONE MORE TIME on this thread, I swear I'll slit my wrists.

    PS- ABB, ya betcha.

    Carry on.

By Antigone on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:54 pm:

    Bush calls for a more sensitive treatment of terrorist child murderers.

By spunky on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 11:59 pm:

    Thank you Sem. I am glad to see something productive here.

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:31 am: could have gotten all of that from

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 12:34 am:

    You can go ahead and read it... You won't get cooties.

By RC on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:20 am:

    DAVE! A thousand thanks for that Bush Pro-choice quote!

    I always suspected he didn't give a rat's ass about black & brown girls having abortions, just the pure-d White ones who could be providing babies for infertile White couples to adopt. But I was NEVER aware that he'd EVER come out publicy in favor of the right to choose!

    Give that man a drink on me! That's what I missed the most about The Sorabji Asylum- - having conversation with folks who know more than I do.

    And Spunky - since you want a reason, here's why I'm voting for Kerry -- despite the fact that I am royally pissed that my only choices are a Skull & Bonesman & another Skull & Bonesman. Secret societies give me the creeps. And S&B has put far too many presidents in the Oval Office & judges on the Supreme court than the laws of coincidence will allow.

    The reason why you shouldn't vote for Bush is beacuse of what he's done to this nation over the last 4 years.

    When you're on a ship that the captain has run aground, you're leaking fuel & in danger of catching fire & you're facing attacks from foreign forces from land & sea -- seems to me any reasonable person would figure it's time to change captains. Bush is running this country into the ground with a a multi-billion dollar war that we can't afford & that benefits NO ONE except Halliburton & the other Bush cronies who are pocketing OUR TAX DOLLARS in the greatest instance of kleptocracy this planet has seen since slavery.

    Our involvement in Iraq is FUBAR! There WILL be a civil war there shortly -- & then what will Bush do? We ran roughshod over a people who have no use for the West, our values or our sham democracy. People there don't WANT a secular democracy -- which is their right! They WANT their religious leaders running things. Are their women oppressed -- of course -- but do you really think Bush cares about that? ANY fundamentalist religion is going to oppress women, gays & anyone who doesn't toe the line. But you don't change that by instigating a coup & holding sham elections -- you have to give The People within that culture the chance to CHANGE THEIR OWN MINDS about how they want to organize their society.

    But all Dubya cared about -- since way before we invaded Iraq -- was securing a virtually limitless oil supply in the Middle East & installing a gov't that would be favorable to the oil interests that made his family rich in the first place. BUSH LET 9-11 HAPPEN TO GIVE AMERICANS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PLANS HE'D ALREADY MADE TO INVADE IRAQ. And that's NOT just my opinion -- there's a paper trail to back it up:

    Read the Neil Mackay article, Spunky. Then click on the 2nd link & actually READ THE PNAC DOCUMENT. It's 90 pps. but well worth the effort. Some of the comments in it will Curl Your Teeth!

    Where I came from, what Bush has done in Iraq is called creating a puppet gov't -- which granted, the US has been doing for centuries in black & brown countries to secure the economic interests of the ruling class. I am a patriot but not a jingoist. I don't buy into the Republican party line that anyone who doesn't embrace Western capitalism in the guise of 'democracy' is an 'evildoer' or an 'enemy of freedom.' The people in Iraq look too much like me & my family members for me to brush them off as 3rd World 'Others' who just don't 'get' that democracy is a good thing.

    Bush is responsible for taking this nation from a budget surplus into raging debt due to tax cuts for the wealthy & a horifically expensive war we will NOT win. We are NOT safer from terrorism -- cities like NY are STILL waiting for the federal funds they need to update their communications systems between the fire dept. & the police dept. Our troops in Iraq are STILL WAITING for the proper body armour & reinforced vehicles they need to have some modicum of safety as they fight Bush's war for oil. Unemployment is still rising every month, as the gov't stops counting the people whose unemployment checks have run out, even though they are still jobless. And Dubya's Council of Economic Advisors are still claiming that outsourcing American jobs to low-wage countries is 'good for the economy'.

    That's not even Vodoo Economics -- it's Crackhead Economics!

    Bush is NOT performing well as President. This country is about to crash & burn -- or be blown to bits by terrorists -- because of his egotistical leadership & greed. Greed was the ONLY reason we didn't allow other nations to bid on the 'contracts to rebuild Iraq'. OF COURSE most of the rest of the world -- except for The Brits -- refused to run themselves into debt by sending their troops to support our war in Iraq when they weren't going to get to divvy up the spoils -- they are capitalist nations, just like us.

    The fundamental tenet of a free-market workplace is that WHEN SOMEONE CAN'T DO THE JOB, YOU FIRE THEM & GIVE THE JOB TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

    And that's all the reason any thinking person needs to vote for Kerry.

    - RC

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:27 am:

    question: Has a Republican president ever won a war?

    does anyone think its actually a tight race?

    Higher voter turnout historically works for Democrats, and we all know there'll be a high turnout this year. A lot of those swing states that appear to be 1 or 2% for Bush I think will actually fall for Kerry. If turnout is as high as expected and the race stays 'tight' in the 'likely voter' polls, kerry might actually win in a landslide.

    And again, I'm going to fall back on my main reason why any thinking person should vote for Kerry. He's fucking smart. And I'm not just talking mental capacity, he's constantly displaying it with numbers and statistics and facts and often its off the cuff and unprepared yet somehow DEAD ON. I know that makes him some sort of fancypants elitist, you know, actually having to read bills and books and weigh issues on a regular basis, but oh well. Like Kerry said, "what if there was a president who believes in science?"

    And I think even those who woulda preffered Clark or Dean should be voting thinking of all the people Kerry is going to surround himself with. He's got a good crop.

    Kerry would also be able to get rid of CIA director Porter Goss and put in someone who you know, doesnt admit on camera that he's unqualified for the job.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:38 am:

    Bush-Cheney 04 - dont change horsemen mid-apocalypse!

By kazu on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:39 am:

    question: Has a Republican president ever won a war?

    answer: Yes. Lincoln.

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:43 am:

    Bush-Cheney 04 - Winning the war on Terra!

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:51 am:

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:51 am:

    Bitch, I already posted that link. Don't wet yourself.

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:53 am:

    Here, wet yourself over this.

By Father Jack on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:58 am:





By dave. on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 01:59 am:

    support our oops!

    i dunno rowlf. do not misunderestimate these guys. if somebody walks out with osama in cuffs in the next month or so, the shit could all change. i also say they still have one or two good terror alerts left before election day to steal momentum from democratic races. this is not in the bag.

    don't thank me, r.c. thank google and the center for american progress. i just cut-n-paste marginally pertinent stuff in between episodes of cussing and name calling.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 11:40 am:

    The Boston Globe has a decisive take on the new findings:

    "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

    He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice."

    Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not ''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: ''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

    "That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

    ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

    "Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said. "

    "Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard."

    but yet here we are arguing if John Kerry bled enough.

By patrick on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 02:56 pm:

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 04:21 pm:

By kazu on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 04:25 pm:

    I have decided what I am going to do on election day besides
    vote. Later that night, when I'm fretting over who is
    going to win I am going to bake cookies. I realized today that I
    have to teach the day after the election and, no matter what
    happens, I am not going to be able to focus. I will feed them, the
    students and then hope that we can all concentrate on "The
    Yellow Wallpaper." I'll mediate a discussion on the election of
    they want, but we will have cookies to help. Cookies are good.
    Chocolate chop and some kind of ginger snap. Cookies, you can
    use them to celebrate or to to console.


    My cat does this thing where if she is resting on my chest (I am
    sort of lying down on the couch) and I stop petting her, she gets
    off my chest, walks around on the pillows above my shoulder
    and then sits back on my though that is what I needed
    her to do to remind me that she was on my chest in the first
    place. She also squeaks if I try to type.

By kazu on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 04:27 pm:

    how did that happen?

By patrick on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 05:31 pm:

    ok. so with Cheney's fear mongering, the only response is for Edwards to call the comment 'un-American' ?

    Take the gloves off Kerry.

    Fear-mongering. People WILL respond to it. Americans are NEVER comfortable with the idea they are being controlled with fear!

By semillama on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 06:06 pm:

    Good to see you back, Patrick, btw.

    So, the latest is that Bush is off the wagon. I half believe it. The white house is doing a pretty good job of covering it up, but damn if he has not looked totally hung over in a lot of recent photos. There's also the (of course) witness who does not wish to be identified who saw W drinking scotch neat at a private function earlier this year (finally, something I have in common with the pResident - our preference in hard liquor! Although I wouldn't necessary need to drink most of a decanter of it).

    On the flip side, it could just be complete exhaustion since this is the hardest he's had to work in his entire life. I'm willing to be fair once in a while :P

By patrick on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 08:53 pm:

By semillama on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 09:58 am:

    Someone put him in a headlock?

    Huh, good thing he wasn't a female protester at a Bush event, some nice Young Republican would have hauled him to the floor and kicked him repeatedly in the gut...

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 12:20 pm:

    "The claim by Bush and Cheney that the American people must
    give them four more years in office or else be 'hit hard' by
    another terrorist attack is a sleazy and despicable effort to
    blackmail voters with fear," Gore said.

    "They are going back to the ugliest page in the Republican
    playbook: fear," he said. "They're not even trying to convince you
    to vote for George Bush (news - web sites). Their only hope is to
    try and make you too afraid to vote for John Kerry (news - web
    sites). It's the lowest sort of politics imaginable.

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 12:22 pm:

    If someone doesn't tell me how to fix that
    I am never posting here again.

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 12:23 pm:

By semillama on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 02:02 pm:

    I love President Gore.

By Nate on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 02:28 pm:

    every method of recount requested by gore was done in the six months after the election and bush was still found to have won.

    the left has plenty to stand on without dispensing mistruth.

    and the right has a proven track record of finding the one flimsy point in an argument and using it to glaze over the important issues.

    sex satan.


    beef with tender greens.

    cannot find private key.

    cheney is a terrorist. fear is terror.

    this is not democracy.

    or, democracy has failed.

    :) :) :) (for kelsey)

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 03:03 pm:

    In my special world, I still think of Gore as pres.,
    in terms of the popular vote.

    Of course, in my special world I pretend that
    my Kerry Edwards pin is referring to a
    faboulous woman named Kerry.

    I am totally crushing on Teresa and Obama right
    now. In my special world, they regularly
    attend cocktail parties at my fabulous loft.

By dave. on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 03:15 pm:

    if you factor in the boxes of uncounted ballots discovered later, the erroneous voter purging, the buchanan misvotes, the polling sites closing earlier than scheduled, gore would have easily won florida by a margin much greater than bush did.

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 03:38 pm:

    "finding the one flimsy point in an argument and using it to
    glaze over the important issues."'s time to make the donuts.

    make the donuts kerry. MAKE THE FRICKIN DONUTS

By dave. on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 03:51 pm:

    john kerry's hot, greasy donut.

    that's all i have to say about it.

By dave. on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 04:14 pm:

    Revenge of the Not-So-Fortunate-Sons:
    Here's what we in America ought to hate: ungrateful motherfuckers. George Bush is one ungrateful motherfucker. Here he is, our goddamned President, who every time he has stumbled in his life, every time he has faced adversity or failure, has had a goose down pillow waiting for his ass when he hit the ground. What's so frustrating about the whole Air National Guard debacle is not that he weaseled out of his commitment. It's that he's not grateful for every break he's ever gotten. We who hate Bush hate him because he acts as if his stupid-ass luck of being born into one of the most powerful families in the world entitles him to be a complete motherfucker.

    From getting into Yale to getting out of his Guard duties to winning the Presidency on a fluke, Bush oughta be the most humble and grateful man in the world. Instead, he acts as if he is somehow something more than a privileged pussy, pampered and powdered, looked after like the favorite poodle of the patriarchy.

    And we who recognize this want to see him get his comeuppance. 'Cause if this son of a bitch (in the literal and figurative senses) loses the election, he will be abandoned by everyone around him. And maybe, just maybe, he'll get his fate of being forced to be his Daddy's manservant, washing Poppy's balls when Poppy gets so old he can't even scratch himself. Maybe every night lil' George will snort coke to the point that his brain can cope with the utter failure that he is.

    Fuck it. The Rude Pundit is tired. Back tomorrow with extreme rudeness on 9/11.
    // posted by Rude One @ 1:41 PM

By Nate on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 04:19 pm:

    you know, i don't think he really weaseled out of his guard duty. in fact, i'm pretty sure he fulfilled it. i think the media has spun this one.


By semillama on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 05:07 pm:

    What makes you so sure?

    There's way too much that stinks about the whole thing.

By spunky on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 06:17 pm:

    What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
    That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

    News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

    The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

    That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

    Not two years of weekends. Two years.

    After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

    According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

    Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot.


By Nate on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 06:25 pm:

    because he was a fighter pilot. he had to train full time for at least a year. he probably put in the equiv of one weekend a month, two weeks a year for his full term in the first year.

    at the time your obligation was "50 points" per year. according to the records released he earned 253 points the first year, 340 points the second, 137 the third, 112 the fourth and 56 in the fifth. in his sixth year he requested early release and it was granted. before he left, he earned 56 more points, his obligation for his last year, and then was honorably discharged.

    but that's no big deal. you think a cokehead would bail out of flying fighter jets for free? he was stoked.

    that said, his daddy getting him into the national guard makes him a big fucking cunt.

    and he's fucked up enough in the past four years that nobody on the left needs to focus on disprovable bullshit, dirty attacks or character assassination to get him out of office.

    i'm actually going to vote this year. i'm going to swallow hard and close my eyes and pretend that edwards isn't on the ticket and pretend that kerry is more than he really is.

By patrick on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 06:30 pm:

    you miss the point entirely.

    point is, Kerry's service was brought into dispute heavily.

    the cocksucker in the white house is not exempt.

    and the coverage of Kerry's service focused on a small portion of his time served. so what.

    white house made this shit an issue again when they dragged kerry's service through the mud.


    there's yet more evidence that the 'straight shooter' lied and thats considerable.

By wisper on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 06:30 pm:

    you know, i don't think he really weaseled out of his purple hearts. in fact, i'm pretty sure he earned them. i think the media has spun this one.

By kazu on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 06:49 pm:

    "pretend that kerry is more than he really is."

    ever since that boondocks comic which likened him to a knotty
    oak tree (or something like that), i've been pretending he's
    treebeard and running on the Ent platform.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 07:19 pm:

    "every method of recount requested by gore was done in the six months after the election and bush was still found to have won. "

    yeah, requested by Gore. If they had recounted the whole state instead of just a few districts, Gore wins in every situation.

    Gore made big mistakes, or maybe I should say Gore's lawyers made big mistakes, but Gore still wins.

    ...and thats only part of the disputed election equation. The majority of the stolen election dispute comes from the scrubbed voters list.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 07:23 pm:

    so..... noone has anything to say about the memos saying they had to pull strings to give Bush more points?

    ...or pressing him to ask WHY he missed his medical exam, when a million dollars was invested in him?

    and the big one

    that noone has come forward to say they actually remember him there? even when offered a 10 thousand dollar reward as Doonesbury did?

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 07:28 pm:

By RC on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 07:34 pm:

    Spunky - On top of using his father's connections to get a plum Air National Guard assignment stateside to avoid being sent to Vam, Bush was AWOL from the National gaurd for nearly a year!

    When a regular citizen goes AWOL from any branch of the military, THEY end up in the brig for desertion. THAT's the issue here.

    - RC

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 07:39 pm:

    "According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

    Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. "

    noones saying he didnt get 'honorably discharged' or didnt get the points tallied up. the question is did he actually show up to earn them? were they just given to them because of who he was? the memos I just posted, which the White House released THEMSELVES, dont exactly work to his favor.

By J on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 09:34 pm:

By Nate on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:17 pm:

    all i'm saying is that this brand of he-said she-said isn't benefiting anyone. that the right can spin anything that isn't in modern memory to the detriment of the left.

    the moore-esque attack on bush isn't going to work.

    nor is it necessary. there is so much to work from in the here and now.

    let's see what carvel does.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:29 pm:

    Robert Novak's ties to Regnery Publishing

    the brand of he said she said should at least level the playing field. If its true then the Dems are safe using this as an attack. That Globe piece isnt just a rehash of old accusations, that new stuff is pretty choice stuff, and there'll be more along the lines of this when the Kitty Kelly book comes out next week, though I'm already inclinded to doubt some of her claims (though her "Bush did coke at Camp david" source is Neil Bush's ex-wife)

    the right can spin lots of things to the detriment of the left. I'm not sure what you meant with your statement, but if this is what you meant...

    The biggest example I can think of is the claim that Al Gore said he invented the Internet, which just isn't true. As well as the other smear where they made Gore look like a nutjob, saying he lied about being the inspiration for "love story". it was all part of the campaign to make Gore look to be the chronic exaggerator.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:29 pm:


    do you mean Carville?

By spunky on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:33 pm:

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:42 pm:

    Dick Morris - GACK.

    this is the man who says all the time on Fox News that the Clintons are against Kerry and its all a big conspiracy to get Hillary in office. He also said that she was going to slime her way past Edwards to get the VP spot, and that Hillary would find a way to get the nomination instead of Kerry.

    Dick Morris can suck a fuck as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm been reading already allegations from right wing blogs that the memos in question I posted are forgeries. Its very interesting and there are things they are pointing out I agree are suspicious.

    However what doesnt make sense is that after CBS showed these, the White House/Pentagon released their own copies of these docs. So what the fuck is up with that then?

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 9, 2004 - 11:44 pm:

    I just read the Dick Morris thing after the fact to see if the Clinton conspiracy came up again. It does...

    bleh blah Carville doesnt want Kerry to win its all about Hillary they're gonna sabotage Kerry blah.

    bullshit. Dick Morris needs psychiatric help.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:12 am:

    I'm leaning towards the theory that these are forgeries, but I have to say its mainly because of my own ignorance of what typewriters are capable of.

    I've spent the last half hour visiting a lot of the various blogs with their own armchair assessments based on their own knowledge of 70s typewriters, etc....

    One thing for sure is if its authentic, it came from an IBM typewriter that had introduced kerning and superscript, which did exist at the time since 1962.

    The two signatures from Killian arent the same so that argument hasnt moved me, but that doesnt necessarily prove anything since my signature is never the same twice either. Sometimes its entirely different.

    heres a link to a blog convinced they are forgeries:

    if they are this could have an interesting fallout. Who gave these to 60 minutes? Put on your tinfoil, it could have been Democrats, or even Republicans pulling a 'double tinfoil' if you catch my drift, or some regular guy with no affiliation playing prankster.

    For the time being CBS is standing by its story, saying they had experts check it, have witnesses who saw these memos when they were written, and other witnesses who say Killian had expressed these same comments to them personally. On the other hand, the family of Killian thinks they are fake. That isnt swaying me.

    its the typewriter analysis thats put all of this in the fog. Could still be real, but they have already been successfully discredited if you ask me. The power of the internet.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:29 am:

By dave on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:47 am:

    i wanna know if this typewriter was anywhere near a grassy knoll. or if there was more than one typewriter.

    unfortunately, i don't think this is particularly damaging to bush. it's like saying i could kick prince charles' ass. for one thing, who cares? and for another thing, does anyone really think prince charles is a tough guy in the first place? that said, the whole poo-pooing of the issue by the bush campaign is obviously the only thing they really can do. because you know if bush had a military career even half as decorated as kerry's, they'd be trumpeting it nationwide. so for them and their talk radio surrogates to attempt to sideline it by saying "bush never made a big deal of his service so why should anyone else?" ought to be pretty transparent.

    once again, you gotta give it up to the republicans for their ball control.

    maybe we really deserve this shit.

    i'm glad the assault weapons ban is expiring. the killing spree is gonna rule.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:02 am:

    okay, this is from a Bush bashing site but take a look

    one is a Times new roman font on modern computer word processor. the other is the memo.

    the fonts arent the same. spacing nearly identical, but the serifs and other details, the raise in the 'th', etc, are different. so it wasnt just copied/forged over and over to look fuzzy and old, at least not with Times New Roman. Maybe another font.

    I'm so fucking awake. So awake I'm wasting my time on this shit.

By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:23 am:

    i hate that. you feel so wide awake and you figure you'll make it through the night without sleeping. it feels as if you could go for days like this. like you tapped an hidden power supply. then, around 5 or 6 am, right about a ½ hour before your normal wake up time, you start to fade and crash.

By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:31 am:

    speaking of fading and crashing. . .

By semillama on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:04 am:

    You know, it's pretty sad that we have to focus on some BS that happened 30 years ago, when, like Nate said, there's so much more horrific things that Bush's done in the last four years.

    Seriously, I don't give a shit whether or not Bush served all his time. He's a weasel and getting out of tight spots seems to be his one natural talent.

    I'm more concerned that he's essentially handed over our public lands to resource extraction companys at the expense of the public good (and the taxpayer - check out some of the sweet land deals mining companies are getting out west). I'm more concerned that there's been no progress in getting American auto companies to increase fuel efficiency (where's those SOTU hydrogen cars? Do we have to go to Mars to find the dealership?). I'm more concerned that our armed forces are bogged down in the middle east while genocide sweeps across another African country and we do nothing. I'm more concerned that our invasion of a sovereign country that was not posing any credible threat to us meant that we basically handed off Afghanistan to a bunch of petty warlords. When Doctors Without Borders pulls out, then you know it's all completly fucked. I'm more concerned that Bush's pre-emptive war precedent is bearing fruit in Russia. China can't be far behind, methinks.

    That's what's important, not whether some coked-up alcoholic was too screwed up to fly 30 years ago.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:03 pm:

    Daily KOS makes a good case for the IBM Selectric defense. I saw Dan Rather on CNN today insist they were real and they thoroughly checked the docs as well as have other people who worked with Killian who say they are real....

    No idea what to believe.

    Anyways, any election that has us all looking at 30 year old typewriters is automatically the stupidest election ever

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:38 pm:

    CINCINNATI - Indicators measure the nation's unemployment rate, consumer spending and other economic milestones, but Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) says it misses the hundreds of thousands who make money selling on eBay.

    "That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago," Cheney told an audience in Ohio. "Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay."

    oh good lord

By semillama on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:45 pm:

    John Edwards had a great rebuttal:

    "If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking."

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:46 pm:

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 04:58 pm:

    If only we could factor in drug dealing...

    actually...has anyone ever done research into that?

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 05:36 pm:

    i am on hold with the randi rhodes show.

    let's hope I don't say anything dumb if I get to talk to her.

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 05:39 pm:

    nope. not today.

By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 05:53 pm:

    do you listen online or on the radio?

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 05:56 pm:


By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 06:03 pm:

    i almost called a local station the other day. bill press was hosting and the topic was about the washington judge ruling in favor of gay marriage.

    some cromag called in saying "why don't we just say to everyone it's ok to have sex with kids or animals?!" and press was actually responding to that absolute red herring as if it were a valid counterpoint.

    i wanted to call in and advise him to please not even honor that argument with a response. that the issue is who gets to get married, not how people get to have sex with each other and every time the subject gets changed from the one into the other, the cromags win.

    but, the lines were full and the show was over in 10 minutes so i quit trying.

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    I wanted to talk about the assult weapon ban expiration crap.

    One arguement from the other side are how there we need these
    weapons to be able to match wits should the government decide
    to do us in.

    My feeling is that if the government really wants to do us in,
    assault weapons aren't going to be much help. They'll just
    engineer a biological attack and blame it on terrorists.

    I suppose the NRA could start pushing for the right to bear
    biological weapons. Could you imagine?

    "heya cletus i done drank somethin outta yer fridge and now i
    don feel so good"

    I like how homophobic conservatives are all bent on preserving a
    *traditional* definition of marriage, but not a *traditional*
    definition of "arms"

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 06:14 pm:

    fuck. my formatting and grammar are crap

    anyway, randi presented the argument that
    basically said, we need to be able to
    match wits with the gov't should they decide
    to do us in.

By Nate on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 07:27 pm:

    so, we can't overpower the government by force.

    and, democracy has failed.

    what now?

By Nate on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 07:28 pm:

    ps. quagmire iraq.

    when freedom is threatened by the violent response of our government upon its own people, the right to bear arms will play a part.

By kazu on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 07:45 pm:

    I don't disagree with that entirely.

    I just don't think if the gov't
    does us in, that assault weapons will
    help much.

    bio weapons in the asthmar inhalers

    too much x-files

    no. i can't accept letting the ban on assault
    weapons expire.

By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:32 pm:

    kazu, your messed up formatting is because you use a mac. try using a different browser. like firefox.

By dave. on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 09:52 pm:

    this article is dead on. if kerry loses this election, look back to this article for the reason.

    that one statement should have crystallized the democratic offensive strategy. practically every issue could be spun back to that statement, "i don't think we can win." economy, jobs, education, foreign policy. you don't even have to quote the entire sentence or state the actual context. just "i don't think we can win" using bush's own voice.

    fuck, the mind reels at the possibilities.

By Rowlfe on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 11:31 pm:

    re: assault weapons

    what doesnt make sense to me is that Bush is all about terrorism and 'making the homeland safer' even if it means sacrificing rights. I dont see how not renewing the assault weapons ban goes along with his supposed line of thinking.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:28 am:

    Dumbest. Election. Ever.
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Friday 10 September 2004

    "I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts. But I can't stop eating peanuts."
    - Orson Welles

    The clearest indication that the country is coming out from under the massive psychological concussion of September 11 is the fact that we are all enduring the stupidest Presidential election season in recent memory. If we were all still walking around in the cat-like state of readiness we operated under for at least a year after the attacks, we wouldn't put up with this garbage.

    Swift Boats? 527s? Who served or didn't serve, and how and why and when and where? They're talking about a war that ended 29 years ago. Bush v. Dukakis was close - a mythically stupid race, to be sure - but this current crapgasm is pinning the needle on the Dumb-O-Meter. It is no small thing that the guys who ran Bush's race against the Duke are the same guys running Bush's race against Kerry today. In '88, the thing turned on flag-burning, Dukakis in a tank and the racist meta-message of Willie Horton.

    This entire election, thus far, has been about television. All the issues widely discussed stem from television advertisements. For the television news media, this is like free money falling from the sky. They cover to the hilt any story stemming from a television advertisement - which they can show, and then talk about, and then show, and then talk about, lather, rinse, repeat - and so the campaigns make this garbage the focus of their whole act. It's like a Mobius Loop for really dumb computers.

    The entire Presidential debate thus far, performed in 30 seconds:

    The Swifties! Denounce the ad! I denounce all ads! But denounce that ad! I denounce all ads! He didn't denounce the ad! I like eggs! 527s! Response ads! The ad said you lied in Vietnam! How dare that ad say such things! You must react more strongly to the ads! He's not responding strongly to the ads! Shakeup because of the response to the ads! Guard duty scandal revived to respond to the Vietnam angle in the ads! The documents are forged! No they aren't! Yes they are! Vote Bush or die! We need another ad!

    Not to make this too personal, but I blame the Boomers. The fact that the Baby Boomer generation is the most important demographic in the country right now - both economically and politically - is really the only way to explain this. Think about it. The first generation raised by television is slogging, along with the rest of us, through a campaign where the only issues discussed have to do with television advertisements. Let's not forget, as well, the fact that the two main candidates spring from that particular demographic, as well.

    I'm kidding. I think.

    Marvin Minsky once said, "Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end of everything we know." Let's spool that thought out a bit. If TV was good, three of the major news networks (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC) wouldn't be owned by a defense contractor that profits from war. If TV was good, another major news network (CNN) wouldn't be wedded to the outsourcing of technological workers to cheap-labor nations because its parent company lives and dies by paying pennies on the dollar for geeks. If TV was good, another major news network (Fox) would require its anchors to say, "We are an auxiliary wing of the Republican Party, deal with it" every fifteen minutes.

    In other words, if TV was good, that would mean TV news would actually be informative, and not a commercial platform for the handful of corporations that own and distribute all the information we the people need to intelligently run the show. If such a thing were to exist, it would indeed be the end of everything we know. It would be the end of non-issues. It would certainly be the end of this amazingly stupid election.

    Issues we are not hearing about because we have spent so much time talking about television advertisements:

    Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;

    Unbearably expensive health care;

    A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;

    The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;

    The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;

    The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;

    The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;

    The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense;

    The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family;

    The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq;

    The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business;

    The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;

    The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo;

    Does anyone even remember Enron?

    Tomorrow is the third anniversary of September 11th. We deserve better than this.

    Yesterday, we ran a feature article that carried a photograph of every soldier who has died in Iraq. The article read, "The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President."

    Look into the eyes of those 1,000 lost faces and tell me they don't deserve better than this stupid election and its stupid public debate.

By dave. on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 12:48 am:

    i love it when sling blade carl calls in to the mike malloy show.


By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:08 am:

    nice impression but I thought that was boring.

    I put on this Crank yankers compilation I downloaded instead. Right now Super Dave is running for office promising an old couple to beat up their kid.

By kazu on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 01:26 am:

    thanks dave. i figgered it was the mac thing
    but wasn't sure why, one of my posts, half of
    the formatting was okay and the other part was
    messed up.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 04:42 am:

    I emailed Crossfire today.

    Novak made a stink about how CBS must reveal their source. I agree with him...

    ...and as an act of good faith he should reveal his Valerie Plame story source on national TV

By Agent D on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:58 am:


By Rowlfe on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 05:32 pm:

By Agent D on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:15 am:


By dave. on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:45 am:


By Agent D on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 01:26 am:


By semillama on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 02:28 pm:

    That Ted Rall cartoon could have been easily been comparing Patrick and Spunky on these boards.

By Rowlfe on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:56 pm:

By Rowlfe on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 05:22 pm:

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:18 pm:

    I was trying to figure out why TIME polls keep putting Bush so far ahead. I decided to read the details. Check this out

    "F12. Regardless of how you feel today, did you vote for Bush or Gore four years

    Date Gore Bush
    Sep7-9 41% 53%
    Aug31-Sep2 41% 54%
    Aug24-26 41% 53%
    Aug3-5 44% 50%
    Jul20-22 44% 51%"

    in other words, disregard the Time poll

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:49 pm:

    I wonder how they keep hitting that same slanted group of people.

    Got a link to the full poll?

By Antigone on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:55 pm:

    Ah, I got it.

    Note, also, that with registered voters (as opposed to likely voters) they're tied.

By Nate on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:50 pm:

    also note that with registered voters, nader would fatally cripple kerry.

    i've never understood how you can test 1000 voters and claim 95% accuracy over the entire sample, +/- 3%.

    of course, both quarters of statistics i was either drunk, stoned or sleeping.

By Dougie on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:32 pm:

By Antigone on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:13 pm:

    Some swift boat vets' names were used to discredit Kerry without their permission.

By Antigone on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:41 pm:

    Kerry and Bush tied again:,,SB109526872487418642,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

    (You'll have to cut 'n' paste the link}

    The interesting thing is that a majority don't think Bush deserves re-election.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

    may be tied, but puts Bush way ahead.

    the results on that site swing WILDY day to day, its ever consistent one person or another.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:47 pm:

By Antigone on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 01:18 am:

    Oh, certainly not an accident. The Kerry sign is cropped just barely into the shot, and note that the sign has the same proportions as the rest of the picture. That's a compositional trick to bring attention to the sign and make a mental connection between the Kerry sign and the rest of the shot. (i.e., between the Kerry campaign and a scene of disaster or destruction.)

By Antigone on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 01:37 pm:

    Check out this upstanding republican family.

By dave. on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 01:43 pm:

    Debate or Debase? - One Question For Bush:
    Oh, how the next few days are gonna be intense ones at the ranch in Crawford for our President as he preps for the first of three debates, to be held next Thursday, September 30. Karl Rove is shinin' his cattle prod, ready to shove it into Bush's haunches whenever Bush goes off script. Man, Bush will wonder, can't a man just pay someone to do this debatin' for him? Like back at Yale? Yeah, there's gonna be a lotta broken pencils, all-nighters, Krispy Kreme runs, and sweaty brows as they try to triangulate around whatever they predict Kerry'll say. (Kerry is gonna be in Boston this weekend, doin' his own prep.)

    Next week will be filled with advice and predictions. We'll hear the well-worn lie that Bush "won" the debates with Al Gore, which, if you mean "Told lies with a straight face" and "Didn't fling actual feces at the questioners while smacking the podium with his cock and screeching to Jesus to coke him up so he could make it through one answer without breaking down into blubbering monosyllabic grunts and sobs," yeah, sure, Bush won. If, however, you mean, "Gave coherent, substantive answers backed up by facts," well, you're pretty hard pressed to prove Bush prevailed. We'll also hear how masterful a debater Kerry is, so everyone will expect the President to fling shit, smack the podium with his cock, screech to Jesus, and blubber grunts and sobs. That way, when Bush doesn't fling, smack, screech, and blubber, he'll have defeated that "great debater."

    There's a website called "Just One Question," which boils Bush down to a single thing issue that might be asked at a press conference, interview, or, say, a debate: "How many times have you been arrested?" It's a fine question, but it ain't an election winner.

    The Rude Pundit has his own one simple question that needs to be asked specifically at a debate because it's about character, policy, and leadership in the here and now: Mr. President, do you believe Jews, Muslims, and others who die without accepting Jesus Christ as their savior will be allowed into Heaven?

    That's a "let's-put-our-cards-on-the-table" question. It risks alienating a whole fuckin' lot of people with the answer. To answer "Yes" or anything squishy about loving everyone will wreck Bush's base. To answer "No" would wreck any chance with moderates. And, besides, here's the bonus: it's a legitimate question because it lets us know what is guiding the President in his decision-making and attitudes. In fact, it's a more relevant question than any about the National Guard. Now, does any moderator have the balls to ask?

    Let's open this up: send your ideas for a single debate question to ask Bush that you think would devastate him or his campaign. The best will be posted next week. Send to

    The Rude Pundit, meanwhile, will be awaiting the call from the Kerry campaign to head up to Beantown to help the candidate delicately eviscerate his opponent.
    // posted by Rude One @ 10:40 AM

By Antigone on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 02:13 pm:

    President Eisenhower's son endorses Kerry. It's a pretty good read: "As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was."

By semillama on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 06:55 pm:

    I read that. Pretty amazing.

By dave. on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 12:32 am:

    bush just got his ass waxed.

    we'll see how the pundits parse it and what sticks but kerry clearly showed himself to be presidential.

    i watched it on c-span and they had a split screen, which i thought was against the rules (they adjusted the camera so their heads were at an equal height but the podium, with it's horizontal lines, may as well have been a yardstick marking off the height difference in inches). did the networks show it like that? did everyone get to see bush getting pissed off as kerry made an ass out of him? please say yes.

By kazu on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 01:14 am:

    did you hear Guliani's take on the Daily

    what a fuckhead

By dave. on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 02:14 am:





By patrick on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 01:25 pm:

    PBS didnt show the split screen. I dont know about the networks. Probably not.

    I thought Kerry missed some opportunities to make Bush out to be a complete dumbass, but then again, if i were Kerry I would have walked over to Bush and start shoving his wormy ass around.

    what is sad is the quantitative and strategic value in terms of votes this statement has

    "But people know where I stand, people out there listening know what I believe."

    I mean, you know thats meaty stuff there. You know where he stands. He's a wall despite prevailing wisdom. Fucking evangelicals.

    Did you guys see this?

    Hey spunk, token republican, your people taking the high road again?

    fuckin A.

By Nate on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 01:29 pm:

    that's not a republican ideal. the republican party is rotting from within.

    bush and his gang are not acting like republicans.

By semillama on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 03:13 pm:

    There was some split screen on CBS.

    Did you note when Bush made ANOTHER weird "love" statement in concerns to a woman - when he was talking about the war widow he met at a rally and how hard it was to love her or something like that?

    What about when he asked for a 30 second rebuttal and totally BLANKED?

    He fucking bombed, and the undecided voters saw that.

By Antigone on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 03:16 pm:

    God let's hope so.

By Nate on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 03:22 pm:

    that 'love' statement was creepy.

    hard to love them widows.

By dave. on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

    it's a very born again thing to say.

    everything that came out of his mouth was unpresidential, whiny, blaming. apparently, all this presidentializing is hard work. what a pussy.

    i can't wait for cheney/edwards.

By kazu on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 04:24 pm:

By dave. on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 04:42 pm:

    oh, i didn't see you there. you caught me mending my fences.

    i love that in a non-creepy way. they need to keep making more of those.

By Antigone on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 04:49 pm:

    Check out the "Faces of Frustration" video from It were funny. link

By kazu on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 04:52 pm:

    nice music.


By Anitgone on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 06:35 pm:

    Check out this bucket 'o' spin from CNN.

By Antigone on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 07:04 pm:

    Oh, this is classic.

    Is this a lively political news day, or what?

By semillama on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 07:12 pm:

    CNN is trying to become FOX news. They can kiss my ass. I watch Headline news in the morning just to get a handle on any breaking news I should scope out on the internet later.

    There was a great editorial cartoon lately, depicting these group of dinosaurs, representing the major networks. They were all looking up into the sky in fear at a flaming asteroid labeled "Internet".

By Rowlfe on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 08:28 pm:

    Kerry is so good at answering questions, much much stronger than making speeches or coming up with soundbites. These debates suit him well.

    The only danger for Kerry now is that expectations are even lower for Bush now into the other debates. Kerry will be expected to be even better, and if Bush just avoids embarrassing himself like he did last night more people will think he wins.

    Then again, foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's best foot, and now he has to account for domestic issues. ouch.

By wisper on Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 01:15 am:

    They had split screen on CNN.

    *Wisper's Top 3 Debate Moments*

    1) I don't know about you guys, but our house went crazy when Bush kept sticking up for Poland. It's the new catch phrase around here today.
    Threatening each other with Poland, asking why D forgot about Poland over at the store, wondering what Poland thinks of my dinner selection....

    That's what you would hear in the background, if you were to phone me.

    That was solid gold comedy, I was so glad the Daily Show picked up on it.

    God, like Poland is voting for this fuck...

    2) when Bush was defending his actions in Iraq, he said-
    "...they'll be a help to us in the war on terror"
    And i said-
    "Yes, what with all their massive stockpiles of weapons and- oh! OH CRAP!"

    3) I've forgotten number 3. I'll let you know when it comes back to me. hehe,

By Rowlfe on Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 10:21 am:

By dave. on Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 01:53 pm:

    i like the little swirly.

By dave. on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 01:36 pm:

    The Rude Pundit

    Proudly lowering the level of political discourse

    What Edwards Should Say (Rude Version):
    If, at tonight's "debate", when Edwards is asked, "How do you believe your career as a trial lawyer affects your approach to government?", he doesn't answer, "What the fuck kind of question is that, Gwen? What the fuck are you implying? Holy fuck, have you even looked at the cases I've tried? Doesn't the press do any actual goddamn research on, say, Lexis-Nexis or even fuckin' Google? Or maybe my fuckin' book? My legal career was based on helping individuals dicked over by the very kind of corporate and government culture this evil motherfucker across this stupid ass table has fostered. And don't you fuckin' gimme that stroke victim smirk, Dick, or I'll come across and start shovin' aluminum tubes up your ass, all 60,000 of 'em, one anodized tube at a goddamn time. Then, with all those tubes up your ass, you can tell me, tell all of us, if they feel like centrifuge tubes or just plain ol' rocket tubes. And then I'll shove yellow cake uranium from Niger up your ass. Then I'll shove the bones and blood of over 1000 Americans up your ass. And the bodies of tens of thousands of Iraqis, right up the motherfuckin' asshole, Dick, right on up. We'll follow that up with Energy Task Force documents, reams of 'em, get it, Dick? Gettin' reamed with reams? Then I'll shove Halliburton up your ass. I'll shove Kellog, shove Brown, shove Root, right up into your dessicated colon. I'll shove no-bid contracts and deferred compensation in there until your sphincter is aching and bloody. That's right, Dick, it's all goin' up there. Bribes to Nigeria and business with Iran. We're packin' it in, bitch. And let's go back, Gwen, let's get old school on this man whose heart is so small it needs a machine to make it pump, this vile, depraved political attack dog, this insider who massages the system to the benefit of his bastard cronies like a Korean hooker at a Japanese spa. Let's shove South African apartheid up Dick's ass. Let's shove water pollution, air pollution and other environmental degradation up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the bodies of women who will die of botched abortions if he gets his way up Cheney's ass. Let's shove the Project for a New American Century up Cheney's ass, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the motherfuckin' neocons, pack 'em in, into Cheney's ass, alongside draft deferments, Lynne, SDI, and more. And when Cheney's cryin', yellin' that it hurts, his ass hurts, when he's weepin' and wonderin', 'Why? Why are you shoving all this up my ass?' I'll say, 'Because you've been shovin' it all up our asses for years, you vicious, soulless bastard. Now, stay bent over, 'cause, trust me, there's tons more shovin' to do and then I'm gonna fuck you Deliverance style, you corporate pig, so start practicin' your squealin'.' Does that answer your question, Gwen?", then the debate will be worthless.
    // posted by Rude One @ 9:53 AM

By dave. on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 04:59 pm:

By semillama on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 05:41 pm:

    Senator Patrick Leahy will be in the second row of the debate tonight. I hope he wears a big grin everytime Cheney looks at him.

By patrick on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 - 08:47 pm:

    thats a rather glossy picture of Edwards.

    that aside....i've had thoughts to the effect of none of it matters.

    the democrats, the souless bastards they are,washed their hands of howard dean before he had a chance because of the potential threat to the corporate establishment he posed. to think democrats suck any less at the corporate teat is silly.

    another trauma center closed in metro LA yesterday because it was hemmoraging money.

    how many people, who otherwise go without, could get basic healthcare in this country for a 1/3 of the campaign funds those two assholes have spent thus far?

    we're the richest nation in the world and yet one of the most soulless.

    some days, it makes me sick.

    somedays, it doesnt matter to me whether its fucking frankenstein kerry or that smirky sumvabitch bush who wins.

    i love the pundits rant though....

By RC on Friday, October 8, 2004 - 11:51 pm:

    Kerry ROCKED against Bush in St. Louis tonite! Esp. when that chick asked him about his Pro-Choice position. All his answers were well-organized & thorough -- he did NOT resort to quips & soundbites as Bush did. And Kerry TOTALLY NAILED BUSH on the importation of Canadian drugs!

    Hopefully, if that crowd was really picked from 'undecided voters' (& Bill O'Reilly told Jon Stewart he is undecided -- who knew?), I think Kerry will have changed a few minds by tomorrow.

    So what do y'all think?

    - RC

By jack on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:08 am:

    ".......want some wood?"

By wisper on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:18 am:

    1) Shortly into the debate, all my neighbors were treated to me screaming "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU" at the top of my lungs when Bush was talking about canadian drugs.

    I mean, really. It makes my blood boil. Such ignorance I've never heard in my life.
    Is ANYONE so dumb that they think our drugs are unsafe? I can't even comprehend it. Our standards are higher than that of the FDA.
    Motherfucking HIGH-ER.
    And as for brand names- THEYRE THE SAME FUCKING DRUGS.
    "Sure you could buy drugs from Canada. They might cure you, they might kill you!"

    I can't even... god, i don't even have the words for how deeply wrong that whole argument is.
    I'm offended by the insignificant little prick.
    I'd even go so far to say- how dare he. How dare he mock our standards and our system, when his is flawed, falling apart and evil. On live tv. In front of the whole world. Fuck him.

    I can't decide if our government should issue a hard-ass retort, or not even glorify it with a response.
    Where does this guy come from?

    2) as for the abortion part, it was like a buzzword crossword puzzle vs. a dictionary. Kerry's response was as eloquent as anyone will ever hope to have. Good game.

    3) Bush said "internets". My mind = blown.

    4) Bush lost his shit and argured with the mediator. Classy.

    5) the whole time Kerry was just making an "I'm SO crushing him!" face. tee hee.

    6) wisper says- Buy canadian!

    7) Current CNN poll- Kerry 86%, Bush 16%

By jack on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:21 am:

    "want some wood?"

By Antigone on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:44 am: says: "President Bush himself would have qualified as a 'small business owner' under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise."

By Antigone on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:46 am:

    Last question of the debate...

    Citizen: Mr president, you've made thousands of difficult decisions in the last four years. Could you give three concrete examples of decisions you would have made differently?

    Bush: Iraq was not a mistake!

By Antigone on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 12:48 am:

    And I can't wait for a debate transcript. Bush's answer to the environment question was an incohernat pseudoscience rant. I thought I was listening to Salvador Dali talk about melting green flower pots or something. It was that surreal.

By jack on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 01:10 am:

    according to the transcripts, i'm out of line. it should be "need some wood?"

By Rowlfe on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 01:36 am:

By dave. on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 01:51 am:

By RC on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 06:51 am:

    YEAH, BABY! ALL the poll results from EVERY NEW SOURCE show that the public thinks KERRY CRUSHED BUSH! Take a look -- & while your're there, click on the links & VOTE! The polls will be open for the next 48 hrs.

    Of course, FoxNews shows the lowest margin, with Kerry only ahead 51% vs. 48% for Bush. But who beleives anything coming from Fox?

    Maybe we really won't end up Bushwacked again come Nov! But I'm still extremely worried about those Diebold voting machines...

    - RC

By Nate on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 03:30 pm:

    those are online polls. they don't actually have any value.

    the 'scientific' polls based on 'sound' statstics are disturbingly close. closer than even the foxnews polls.

    america is divided. there are two nations.

    three if you count mine.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 04:05 pm:

    The 'close' polls like Gallup I saw showed a higher polling of Republicans than Democrats. Telling.

By Nate on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 10:32 pm:

    how exactly is that telling? republicans tend to vote in higher numbers than democrats. you want your sample to proportionally mirror the population if you want your results as accurate as possible.

    or whatever, statistics are all witchcraft anyway.

    and the polls are meaningless.

By Platypus on Saturday, October 9, 2004 - 10:41 pm:

    It's all about the Australian drugs now, people. I order all my veterinary medications online from them because it's so much cheaper. And my cats have yet to explode, lose their hair, or turn republican.

    About halfway through the debate the power went out, and the radio station decided not to air the finish. Sounds like I didn't miss much, however.

    sllop nate?

By Rowlfe on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:24 am:

    "how exactly is that telling? republicans tend to vote in higher numbers than democrats."

    what I was talking about has nothing to do with actual voting in the elections. For the debate polling they sampled more Republicans than Democrats, and Kerry still was ahead in most polls. Theres no reason to oversample one side in a debate. its not meant to reflect election voter turnout, its meant to reflect who won a DEBATE.

    Anyways, to me it was telling that more people acknowledge Kerry is killing in these debates, that if you evened out the sample to even Repub/Democrat Kerry's numbers are even higher. regardless of how the media seem to want to make it look as close as possible. It seems the media are calling it a draw based only on the fact that Bush attacked back. It was the same piss-poor performance as last week, except this time it was stumbling and tripping and shouting while attacking back, instead of just stumbling and tripping and shouting on the defensive.

By RC on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:17 am:

    Yeah -- funny how "the polls don't matter" now that Kerry is ahead. Yet those same internet polls from a month ago were being treated like some great oracle by the press when Bush was ahead.

    The opinions people come away from these debates with are going to be reflected in the way they vote. With the election less than a month away, scientific or not, Nate, THESE POLLS MATTER.

    - RC

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:14 am:

    polls didn't matter when bush was ahead. polls are small sample bullshit. i'm a registered democrat voting for kerry, so don't misassume my bias.

    "Theres no reason to oversample one side in a debate. its not meant to reflect election voter turnout, its meant to reflect who won a DEBATE."

    what you fucking canadians don't seem to understand is that the whole point of the debate is to win the hearts of voters. these guys don't give a fuck about non-voters. who won the debate is who swayed the most voters.

    we are two americas, without a doubt. and those americans who don't realize this, consciously or subconsciously, are the target audience of these debates. are the point of these debates. everyone else already knows who they are going to vote for. they knew before the primaries started. the ass or that big-eared dickfaced thing, there is no swaying them. those who can be moved will get sucked to one side or the other or just give up and lock their doors and pull the shades.

    it's all about what moore got right in bowling for columbine. we're scared shitless. and we're either scared shitless of the kaiser or hitler or osama bin fucking laden, or we're scared shitless of the man at the helm taking away our freedoms. one or the other, and we're going to back the candidate who's presence feels most like daddy. feels most like womb. let the evils of our side be ignored and dissolve into the dissonance that placates our reality.

    i don't even know why i care anymore. this population is like cattle with rings through their noses. television has zombified everyone. both sides throw out false news stories and then hide the corrections a week later deep in page 12 and 6pt type. no body knows whats going on so they glom onto one side or the other and only hear what they want to hear.

    everyone is overconfident. no one listens. gone are the great compromisers. there is no comprimise when you are dealing with corporations with billions of dollars. you just shut your fucking mouth and vote where they tell you.

    no, the polls don't matter. the debates don't really matter. who gets elected probably doesn't even matter. it's all an illusion to keep you thinking you are free.

    michael badnarik and david cobb, the libertarian and the green party candidates, where arrested outside of the debates. they were trying to get inside. the libertarian was trying to serve an order to show cause against the CPD.

    the CPD is a private, "nonpartisan" nonprofit corporation. by nonpartisan they mean bipartisan, as in thier bylaws they have clearly established to "represent the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties."

    badnarik and cobb have already debated 4 times this year. real debates, without scripts, without pre-screened questions. have you seen them on the zombie box? did you know about them at all?

    there are two parties in this country and they are both owned by the same small group wealthy wealthy people. people who have perfected tyranny through democracy.

    pacification of a population through the illusion of freedom.

    sllop slurp.

By Antigone on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:47 am:

    Yeah. So?

    Who can compete against a "people who have perfected tyranny through democracy" than another "people who have perfected tyranny through democracy"?

    I want my manipulator to only mostly fuck us up, not totally fuck us up.

    Anyway, you're all poised to enter the manipulator class, right? I mean, if you're a published author, that's what you'll be: Johnny Memeseed planting his memes in the minds of mankind.

By Rowlfe on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:41 am:

    "what you fucking canadians don't seem to understand is that the whole point of the debate is to win the hearts of voters. these guys don't give a fuck about non-voters. who won the debate is who swayed the most voters."

    The purpose of the debate may be to win voters, but you can win the battle and lose the war. The sampling should NOT reflect turnout of 4 years ago, especially when that turnout isn't even accurate anymore. In most swing states at least, the Democrats are registering new voters around 2.33: 1 compared to the Republicans. Polls dont matter in many senses, but with it this 'tight' in the medias eyes, right now EVERYTHING matters.

    "there are two parties in this country and they are both owned by the same small group wealthy wealthy people. people who have perfected tyranny through democracy. "

    I'm sure I'm going to blubber on forever here...

    not even very long ago I was quite hardline in this thinking. its still there but I think now I was out of touch with reality - with my own bitterness that there wasnt any candidate - US or CDN - who could win that closely defined me. I've come to decide now its not really the Dems or Reps fault. The people allow it to happen with their own apathy and desire to be on the winning team, that they arent willing to see any dark side of capitalism existing to the point its taking over their lives, their wages are dropping and their CEOs are making disprortionate salaries compared to corporations any other country in the world. Apathetic to no price cap on their drugs so that Canada actually becomes an issue. Apathy to Monsanto poisoning their milk, apathy to corporations patenting life and suing farmers when THEIR grain accidentally grows on their land. So inundated by fear they wont vote their true feelings for fear of 'losing' 4 years. You have to blame the people as well as the media and politicans for not being able to see through bullshit. I understand people work X amount of hours and dont have the time to read the Guardian or Reason Magazine or whateverthefuck but come on. That I actually encourage people to vote strategically this year is just me saying thats HOW BAD Bush is, 4 years ago the way they presented themselves it wasnt so scary. In 2008 it will hopefully be different. Anyways, people are so scared by something so vague as terrorism, they cant see the more direct threats to them personally. Their air quality, AIDS, unfair taxes, labour law reform, their childrens education...

    And the media dont take an interest in other candidates because the people themselves dont. they follow the money and are only interested in a horserace. I saw Badnarik and Cobb on CSPAN. To be fair, they made a huge mistake themselves in the scheduling of one of their debates during the RNC. What did they expect? They seem way too eager to preach to the converted, and guess what? people arent going to vote for a Nader or a Cobb or a Badnarik no matter how much they like them, because if they did get elected they have no party to support them. People have been smart enough to figure this out. They're not organized and they purposely make their platforms over the top becuase they themselves know they wont get elected and just want to get attention. They dont even take themselves seriously enough. If they were smart they would be using their entire campaign to rally people to accept reality and push their view into the 2 major parties. I think a lot of Libertarians and Greens this year realize this which is why less people care in the fringe parties than ever. I dont know whats up with Nader voters who dont see this as an option, that they have to vote with whoever reflects them most every time. They should see that people like them are why Howard Dean happened, which even though he didnt win, changed the entire Kerry campaign for the better.

    the fringe parties'll never be up there without money. This is what happens when capitalism is taken off its leash, people like Nader and Cobb need major donations and funding to even get in there. Have you read much about Canada's NDP? They're pretty far left, but are incredibly energized and organized, the leader is a regular guy with "zazz" and even after years of being an official party they're STILL not ready to lead the country. it takes a long time. People in Canada switch parties a lot more often, taking more into account than one issue or one candidates likability.

    After years of Bill Maher and Alex Jones and Bill HIcks I have to acknowledge even to myself that I'm sick of being so jaded. It aint healthy. At this point in time I'm trying to actually have a little faith in someone and that people actually care so much right now they'll be more involved and will try to insert their views into a major party and actually influence major people. Right now I'm glad Kerry's a moderate, I think the world (yes I said the world, everyone is sleeping next to an elephant now) needs a level head. I seriously think once Kerry is in power the nation will actually see what a moderate he is and things wont be as tense.

    yep. Blubber. I think my light started flashing red a couple paragraphs ago.

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:23 pm:

    i don't disagree, rowlfe. the point of the libs and the greens wasn't that i thought they should be elected, but that i thought they should be acknowledged. their influence on the main candidates is what i want, and i want it in a real debate between all the candidates.

    even then, though, we're past that mattering. we are right now at the point where all media can be easily, inexpensively, rapidly spoofed. you can put some dude on the whitehouse lawn from a thousand miles away. we have no way of trusting anything we are told. there is no basis for 'proof'.

    the cia released that report the other day that said that saddam was bribing goverment officials billions of dollars to skirt the food-for-oil program. russians, french. the key players in the fight against the implementation of the UN resolution that justified our move into iraq.

    that's kind of a big deal. that kind of says bush did the right thing and kind of says the US should go contrary to the UN on occasion.

    that cia document is either right or wrong. it's either honest or propganda. we have no way of knowing. you have to have faith in one side or the other.

    "the fringe parties'll never be up there without money"

    that's the problem with the CDP. with the republican/democrate corporation that runs our government every year. there should be a consistutional amendment that limits campaigning via the media to X debates. and if you're on the ballot of enough states that you have the possiblity of getting the electoral votes to win, you're in the debate. does that abridge the freedom of candidates' speech? it sure does. but guess what, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, either. the supreme court has made it clear that the freedom of speech should be abridged when it impinges on the freedom of others. and that is just what this buy-your-election system is doing.

    i don't know, rowlfe, i think we're flinging the same shit from the same pulpits. a think i might just be a little more resigned than you, a few more years jaded.

    or whatever, i'm still voting this year. for the first time since i "helped" vote the other bush out of office. i'm scared shitless. like everyone else.

    cheers to the new tyranny, tiggy. if the w wins this one i'll be in the market for an overseas bride.

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:28 pm:

    honestly, i think what is really making me grumpy has more to do with the number of liberal, out-of-iraq, peace loving people of my region who have said something to the tune of "every time i see a BUSH '04 bumper sticker i just want to swerve over and slam into their car."

    obama's speech fell on deaf ears. that makes me really sad.

    both sides have the same blindness. there is no attempt to try to understand what the other side says. they are just automatically wrong because they are idiots. or hippies.

By Antigone on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:50 pm:

By Rowlfe on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:42 pm:

    Obama's speech simply didnt get heard. We heard it cuz we were looking out for it, but that was on the day that the cable networks didnt cover as much.

    "they are just automatically wrong because they are idiots. or hippies. "

    I think theres more understanding than we think. Since we're internet junkies we just see all the hardliners. We dont talk to a lot of people on the street who are one-issue voters but acknowledge the other side has a better stance on this/that/the othe rthing. At the same time I find a lot of the 'undecideds' way more frustrating than the hardliners. That they can have 4 years of Bush and not know if they want more of it or not is just crazy. Hardliners may be stubborn but at least they seem to be paying attention enough to know what they hate.

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:06 pm:

    i don't know rowlfe. i'm talking about the people around me. you talk to anyone around here and they just don't understand how anyone could vote for bush. anything right-leaning comes out and it is WRONG WRONG.. no one is listening.

By wisper on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:29 pm:

    "i'm a registered democrat voting for kerry"

    ...i thought you were a registered libertarian?

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 05:18 pm:

    you re-register every time you move. when i moved here i re-registered democrat.

By Antigone on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 07:42 pm:

    You can't see this without a Salon membership, but I think it's important enough to cut 'n' paste here:

    Bush's message to pro-lifers

    We were as bewildered as anyone on Friday night when President Bush referenced the Dred Scott decision when asked what kind of Supreme Court justices he would appoint. Was he making a play for the runaway slave voting bloc? Actually, it looks like he was making a play for pro-lifers, assuring the anti-abortion rights crowd that he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade if re-elected. You read that right.

    For many who oppose abortion rights, Roe is "Dred Scott II," denying the unborn rights they deserve just as the Court once denied blacks. Here's the logic from the National Right to Life Committee: "In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery. Where would Blacks be today if that reasoning had not been challenged?"

    "The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same 'beings of an inferior order' that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago."

    Pro-life Sen. Rick Santorum made the point in an interview with The New York Times: "[He] likened Roe to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, when the court ruled that blacks born into slavery had no constitutional rights. 'The more people understand how wide open Roe v. Wade is, how unlimited it is,' Mr. Santorum said, the more they turn against it." And as Paperwight pointed out, a simple Google search shows how widespread the Roe = Dred comparison is.

    A sidenote: We found this interesting article that shows how Antonin Scalia's angry dissent in the anti-sodomy law case last year, in which he argued against gay rights, echoed the logic used to justify slavery in Dred. Yet Scalia has taken issue with Dred in the abortion context, citing the decision in his dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

    - Geraldine Sealey

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:52 pm:

    i am a pro-life democrat. i think i can pretty much agree with the point, in that the supreme court has erroniously judged against the rights of a class people in the past.

    i think the pro-abortion arguments are bullshit. more about skirting responsbility than liberty.

By Nate on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:54 pm:

    with apologies. i don't mean to judge anyone, i've skirted plenty of responsiblity in my life.

    and i break the law whenever i feel the need to. and often just for kicks.

By dave. on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:28 pm:

    everyone is a slave to their own biology but women are particularly and uniquely so and the argument about being personally responsible for both personal and mutual actions sort of breaks down on this one topic of reproductive rights. i don't think there's any reasonable argument for forcing a being to host another being in or on its body. whether it's a tapeworm, lice, a human fetus or anything else, an individual ought to be able to make the decision to seek a medical remedy that will cure the condition. i might not be personally comfortable with someone's decision to abort, but i'm far less comfortable with disallowing the decision.

    i think of a current example of the arabs raping africans in the sudan with the sole purpose of getting them pregnant and forcing them to bear a child that will culturally stigmatize the baby and the mother.

    incest, child molestation, and rape are all legitimate reasons to abort a fetus but so are stupidity, fear, revenge and mental illness.

    now, in a perfect world, i might, might, be willing to limit the conditions upon which abortions are available but i doubt, even then, that i could righteously demand a woman to bear the child in her womb.

By Antigone on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:15 am:

    If you force a woman to have a child you are making her a slave. By the "slavery" argument, you make a slave out of either the mother or the child. There is no avoiding this if you follow that argument.

    So I choose enslaving the child. It ends up being better for society, my several measurable factors. The pro life side, to my knowledge, hasn't put forth measurable reasons why the mother should be enslaved instead of the child. I'd love to be educated, though.

By Bill Hicks on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:28 am:

    You know who's really bugging me these days. These pro-lifers ... You ever look at their faces?

    'I'm pro-life!'
    'I'm pro-life!'

    Boy, they look it don't they? They just exude joie de vivre. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long. You know what bugs me about them? If you're so pro-life, do me a favour - don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to this idea.

    "She can't come in!"

    She was 98. She was hit by a bus!

    "There's options!"

    What else can we do? Have her stuffed? I want to see pro-lifers with crowbars at funerals opening caskets - 'get out!' Then I'd be really impressed.

By agatha on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:27 am:


    Nate, no comment. Really.


    I mean, no comment.

By agatha on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:31 am:

By Nate on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:00 am:

    taking a life is taking a life. you can't go shoot your invalid parent in the head just because she can't live without your support any longer.

    regarding slavery, say a woman has a baby and goes the single mom path with child support from some guy who was the unlucky other half in some sweaty drunk endevor. now this guy is legally required to pay some percentage of his salary for 18 years to this mom and her child. isn't that slavery? what if the guy didn't want the baby? it's not like he can mandate an abortion or go drown the kid when he gets the family court summons.

    "your honor, i request the child be euthenized on account of me not wanting to have a child."

    i don't know. i figure it is ok that for medically necessary reasons and rape. you make a judgement call. i figure it is ok to shoot a man if he is standing in your living room at 3am with a knife in his hand. i figure there are reasons why is ok to kill people, and reasons why it isn't ok. casual abortion, abortion as birth control just isn't ok in my head.

    i don't judge though. honestly. and i don't see to change the law. it's one of those interal moral issues that i can't get over for myself. i have many friends who've had abortions, and each one makes me sad, and i've never told anyone of them that it makes me sad. it made them sad, too.

    it certainly won't sway my vote. we're killing our babies in much worse ways these days.

By dave. on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 02:14 pm:

    karen ryan strikes again.

    that's why it's a personal issue, nate. a government that launches a war of choice, killing thousands of innocents, has no credibility on the issue of saving innocent life.

    i also think death with dignity is a personal choice and it should be a right.

    essentially, until we get to a point where life is guaranteed to be totally awesome, people need to be allowed to make the choice.

    you didn't say it but i assume you're only concerned about human life. to me, the only credible pro-life argument is one that treats all life as sacred and protected, which would be practically impossible to uphold.

By wisper on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:17 pm:

    As a take-off from what dave said, i can't imagine some people can spend all day crying in front of an abortion clinic and then go home and eat a whole steak.
    They fight for the rights of an inanimate cell cluster, that may or may not mature, but ignore the millions of dead chickens we make every day, or 100 year old trees.
    Why aren't they chasing down deer hunters every fall?
    Do they swat at flies?

    Of course not. Only humans are "life". Right?
    One fetus is somehow worth more than thousands of trees.

    But i have a real question.
    On the second season of Six Feet Under, (heh) one of the main characters has a one night fling and the girl ends up pregnant and decides to keep it. She doesn't tell him about it until she's almost ready to birth, and she knows he doesn't want the kid so she serves him with papers to sign away all of his parental and custody rights.
    Do such legal papers exist?

    Why are men so fucked over by laws if these papers do indeed exist?

By Nate on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:35 pm:

    they do exist. it is the woman's choice. the man has no choice in the matter.

    "One fetus is somehow worth more than thousands of trees" huh? isn't that a slightly absurd argument? do you refuse medical treatment because of the plants that may have been harmed? for christsakes! the germs they kill in hospitals! it's a fucking bloodbath.

    i guess it is really just a personal belief, so techically i am pro-choice, whatever. abortion horrifies me. usda prime beef does not.

    i do think men should have some choice, though. half the choice. or choice of involvement.

By Antigone on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 07:06 pm:

    Naw, nate, it's a protoplasm bath.

By wisper on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:24 pm:

    "isn't that a slightly absurd argument? do you refuse medical treatment because of the plants that may have been harmed?"

    it is, and i don't, because everyone has a scale of 'worth' in their morals, and to me, something like, say, a 100 year old redwood forest is worth more than a fetus, and probably more worth protecting.
    What would do more good to the world in the end? the forest or the fetus?

    And that's me.
    And my best friend since age 12 stands firm in her belief that I'm a sociopath.

    Rowlf sez: "or like how 3000 american lives are somehow worth more than 12000+ Iraqis!"


    But my point is that they've invested so much time and emotion arguing that an unwanted immature cell group is precious life, and would not do the same for a 20 year old moose with generations of babies.
    I'm saying that if they find the fetus to be such precious life, why not every insect or fish? All life?

    And I'm saddened again to find out that the magic forms exist, but are in the woman's favour.
    However, i'm not surprised.
    We gotta change that shit.

By RC on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:29 pm:

    Men do have a choice: PUT ON A DAMN CONDOM -- EVERY TIME! None of the women I know ever complain when a guy says "Hold on, lemme get my jimmie on first." We're not the ones whining about how we 'can't feel anything with a raincoat on', blah-de-blah-blah...

    SEX IS THE MOST SERIOUS THING A MAN & A WOMAN CAN DO TOGETHER! We all learn that in 7th-grade health class, but too many people don't take it to heart. It takes 2 to make a baby -- but either party can make a unilateral decision to use b.c. Men need to be more responsible about sex if they want to avoid making babies.

    I still feel the Pro-life position is really a supply-side racial issue undercover. Never in my life have I seen a Pro-life demonstration in front of a clinic in Bed Stuy or Harlem or Little Dominica. They only protest in front of clinics in WHITE areas. Because with so many White women finding themselves infertile now, sometimes even before they hit 30, Whitefolks are desperate to make sure there are as many White babies available for adoption as possible for the ones who can't afford $10k a pop for in vitro or foreign adoptions. That's the REAL issue.

    When Shaniqua wants an abortion, no one really cares -- not Bush, not the Pope, not Jerry Falwell. Bush may not want tax dollars paying for it, but he doesn't give a shit if some ghetto girl gets an abortion. But when blonde, blue-eyed Susie wants an abortion, some infertile White chick feels disenfranchised because that could have been the pretty little White baby she got to adopt. And SHE'S the one writing the check to the Pro-life candidate, who prolly doesn't really care about abortion -- he'll epsouse whatever platform will get him those checks. But the Shaniquas of the world don't contribute to political campaigns.

    And the Pro-lifers never seem to care what the hell happens to those kids once they get born. They don't support increasing Medicare or other social services, or boosting the minimum wage so the 16-yr-old they insist should have her baby can afford to take care of it. Child support enforcement is a joke -- if the father has half a brain, he can find a job off the books so the state never knows he's working.

    Bottom line is, NOBODY should have the right to tell someone she HAS to give birth to a kid she doesn't want. Personal morals are just hat -- Personal. You can't force them on others. Sure, a woman can make a man a father against his will -- but she can't force him to raise a child. If he doesn't want to be involved, fine -- he can just mail the check every month, same as he would for his car note or rent.
    But the mother has to care for that kid every day for the next 18 years. So I really don't see how the 'father' is getting the the shaft.

    - RC

By dave. on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:59 am:

    OH, SNAP!

    i dunno, though. the anti-abortion banner may be flown by mostly white folk here in the usa, but the pope and his crew do a pretty good job of stifling it in many of the browner parts of the world. i'm pretty sure islam is also very much against abortion. in fact, you could probably argue that most nations with a pro-choice posture are predominantly protestant european. oh, and china.

    actually, here this unverified internet source:

    just a quick glance at that confirms, with some exceptions, my statement above.

    but i agree that the majority of the anti-abortion freaks in this country are envisioning little pink fetuses as opposed to little brown fetuses. just like they see jesus as a white guy. i think it's beautiful irony that jesus, if indeed there ever was such an individual, probably looked more like osama bin laden than a white hippie dude.

By wisper on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:23 am:

    And condoms don't work all of the time.
    And why should the man spend 18 years paying for something that a woman wanted by herself?

    But, this line of discussion has already been done here.

By Nate on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

    shit RC, you just flipped the race card on me.

    the vast majority (vast) of pro-lifers in california are brown.

    if women want to pull the whole "it's my hot body, i cant do what i want" then they hold the responsibility for birth control. bottom line. men can't get pregnant.

    abortion, eugenics, gassing retards; murdering the people you don't want is wrong.

    "inanimate cell cluster" is not what we're talking about. we're talking about little humans with little hands and little smiles.

    "Personal morals are just hat -- Personal"

    huh? so if i catch my kid stealing cookies i can cut his finger off? it doesn't work that way. personal morals are personal when they don't affect another living human being.

    "Sure, a woman can make a man a father against his will -- but she can't force him to raise a child. If he doesn't want to be involved, fine -- he can just mail the check every month, same as he would for his car note or rent"

    and that's slavery. she can force him to work some percentage of every month and not see the rewards of that work.

By kazu on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:06 pm:

    I've never heard an intelligent pro-choice
    argument that didn't include birth control
    somewhere in there. abortion is a physically
    painful and emotionally terrifying procedure.
    I know that some women have used it as birth
    control, but the vast majority of them don't.

    And I don't care if you think of it as a
    cell-cluster or a baby, reproductive rights are
    about autonomy and the protection of
    bodily integrity, not evading responsibility, and
    the so-called rights of a fetus do not trump those
    of the mother. In McFall v. Shimp, Shimp's bodily
    integrity was legally protected to the
    extent that he was permitted to refuse a procedure
    (a bone marrow extraction and donation) that could
    have prevented his cousin's death from aplastic anemia.
    (McFall died two weeks after the ruling).
    Now, we can argue that for Shimp to refuse to
    provide his cousin with lifesaving tissue is morally
    questionable, if not repugnant, to some but his body
    is his own and that is not subject to legislation. I don't
    see the issue of abortion as that much different.

    Regarding child-support. I don't think it's right to
    force child support payments, but then again, once
    a child is born there is an individual there who had
    no choice in the matter and who cannot take care of
    himself. I don't think that you can legislate responsibility.
    The fact is women and men have different roles with
    respect to the bearing of children, but once a child
    is born both people are what do you do
    with that?

    Although in some cases, I have no problem forcing
    payments. My friend A's father left her mother after
    12 years and refused to pay childsupport because
    he just decided he didn't want to be married or
    be a father anymore. Are they entitled to nothing?

    And then, if a mother *refuses* to let the father
    see his child and still expects payments...fuck that.
    That is utter horseshit.

By kazu on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:31 pm:

    And when I say you can't legislate responsibility, I
    don't mean that you can't hold people criminally
    negligent. I meant it on a more personal, individual
    level anyway.

    To me, rights always come with responsibilities.

    Regarding the race issue, I think that the fundamentalist
    christian anti-choice movement is partly concerned
    with producing more white babies than brown ones.
    At least the adoption rhetoric is reflective of that when
    it cites the millions of parents who want to adopt, but
    leaves out the millions of children who waiting
    to be adopted. But that doesn't mean that only whites are
    adamantly opposed to abortion rights.

By kazu on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    oops, i didn't see all of RC's post on other parts
    of the world.

    RC, have you read Dorothy Robert's book, Killing
    the Black Body? I taught a chapter from it last week.
    The students seemed to get it, but one woman
    was really affected, said right in class that it made
    her cry.

By RC on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:07 am:

    No, Kaz -- I'm not hip to KILLING THE BLACK BODY. But I'll look for it next time I'm in the bookstore.

    And Nate, race card or not, you know I'd have your baby in a heartbeat if you'd just gimme some of that Natorious Sweetness, just for one nite! :)

    (See Kaz, I've had a crush on Nate since the late 90's, but he never gives me the time of day...)

    - RC

By RC on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:54 am:

    And I'm not saying there aren't black & brown folks who are rabidly Pro-life in certain parts of this country. But the demonstrators *I've* seen outsdie of clinics were almost always White Pro-lifers, in White neighborhoods. There are clinics in the hood too, but they never seem to get picketed.

    And Nate: Aren't you supporting contradictory positions here? Cant' do that, dude -- you've gotten be consistent all the way down the line.

    I'm Pro-CHOICE -- meaning I think a woman should get to choose whether she wants to have a baby or not. But I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to have an abortion. CHOICE is the operative word.

    You're Pro-Life, no abortions for anybody unless her life or future reproductive health are in danger. Because the life of the unborn fetus trumps everything. (Are you also against stem-cell research on the same grounds?)

    But you claim having to pay child support is tantamount to SLAVERY? WTF izzup with THAT!?

    If you were running things, every woman would have to give birth to every baby she gets impregnated with, inc. yours -- yet you bitch about having to support that baby you made?


    - RC

By kazu on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:35 pm:

    I didn't get the impression that Nate
    would outlaw abortion, just that he
    has personal feelings about abortion
    that are similar to folks that are consider
    themselves politically pro-life.

    In my opinion, any position that respects
    life must also deal with the fact that
    outlawing abortion doesn't do much to
    reduce it's occurence--it just pushes them
    abroad (if the woman can afford it) or into the
    back alley, where women can and will die.

By dave. on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 12:53 pm:

By patrick on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 01:15 pm:

    RC, here's the line.


    here's you crossing it RC.

    "And Nate, race card or not, you know I'd have your baby in a heartbeat if you'd just gimme some of that Natorious Sweetness, just for one nite! :)"

    holy fucka moly

By wisper on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 01:51 am:



    (perhaps the flu shots were coming in from Canada. .... therefore poison.)

By dave. on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 02:02 am:

    i don't fear the flu, either.

    here's to bush picking up some exotic, south-of-the-border flu and dying. but not before he passes it on to the republican leadership.

    natural causes, baby.

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 04:04 am:

    Check out this site about the whole "was Bush wired" question. It has some great video from FoxNews showing Bush following along while being fed lines from a speech. (The audio from his earpiece was accidentally played on the air...)

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 04:09 am:

    Wait a sec. That video looks to be faked. I think someone just replayed the audio track offset and distorted a bit.

By patrick on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 01:07 pm:

    though the most boring of the 3 debates, id have to suggest it was bush's biggest loss.

    never did he look more silly when he said he never stated that bin laden wasnt important or that he wasnt thinking about bin laden that much. i remember that quote verbatum.

    never did he look for snarky when he dropped that line about ted kennedy and being liberal.

    never did he come off more wrong when he said his tax cut was largely spend on the middle and lower class.

    the other thing that is driving me nuts.....the Cheney's. Fucking hypocrits. Their never want to make a judgement call on the gay issue. They walk a fine line. Now, they act as if Kerry called their daughter a flaming hot carpet muncher. He stated a fact. It forced their hand and reminded the country of their deep dark secret they keep hidden away in the basement.

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 02:17 pm:

    Yeah, but they touch on a theme in conservative society: protect your own. See, the reason conservatives can grudgingly accept Cheney's gay daughter is because she's Cheney's kin. It's also the reason they'll respond negatively to Kerry mentioning her: he's 'attacking' Cheney's kin.

    That's how you get in with a conservative. It doesn't matter who you are or what you do if you're kin. If you're kin, you're in. :)

    I'm hoping Bush's worst moments were when he was saying "the troops have everything they need" and whatnot. That should turn soldiers against him because it's patently not true. The fact he had a smirk on his face when he said it is icing on the cake.

    Another thing: There's currently about 50 web articles mentioning the white ball of spit Bush had on the right side of his mouth for abouthalf the debate. Also, the left side of his mouth was drooping more than it usually does. The articles have mentioned this but not speculated on the cause. What could make your face droop and not notice you're drooling a bit, eh?

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 03:00 pm:

    This was posted on DailyKos, and it makes some scary sense:

    Bush: Health Problems? Stroke?
    by heynewt
    Thu Oct 14th, 2004 at 14:26:47 GMT

    Look first of all, I'm not trying to send everyone off into Oliver Stone land, so I'd love a smackdown from a doctor or someone who actually works with stroke victims to tell me this theory is absurd, but...
    I've worked doing medical documentaries for 14 years. I've done several shows on stroke victims, and something kept bothering me about Bush last night. Then I got a call this morning from another medical producer. First thing he says is: Bush has had a stroke. And it hit me, that's exactly what I saw. Check Bush's mouth, where the spittle was coming out. It's slightly droopy. If you go back and look at video from his earlier days, his mouth isn't drooping, that side of his face is far more animated. It's very subtle but it's there.

    Now if you look at video from the FIRST debate, there is no droop. The right side of his face is pretty animated. Why? The thing on his back. Listen, I've put wireless mics and wireless IFBs (2 way transceivers) on talent for years. They're the size of credit cards now. That wasn't a transceiver on Bush's back. It was some kind of medical device. He wasn't wearing it last night, and that's why he was forcing himself to stand with such a rigid expression. The best he could muster.

    Why would he have lost so much of his verbal capacity in the last 4 years?

    Think about the choking episode a few years ago. Who witnessed it? That's all we got.

    Whddya think?

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 03:04 pm:

    And this posting from

    2004-10-14 12:47:33 PM Occams_Electric_Razor

    Given the droopy left side of Bush's face, the goober in the corner of his mouth, and his slurred speech, the impression I got of him watching him speak last night was that he had suffered a stroke, albeit small one, at some point in the not too distant past.

    Given the physical signs and that fact that he's skipped his mandated yearly Presidential physical, it makes me wonder about the man's health.

By Antigone on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 03:10 pm:

    I just searched Google, and the only reference to a "Presidential physical" for Bush is his first one: linky

By patrick on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 04:06 pm:

    a co worker had a condition about a 3 years ago. he was under extreme stress. the left side of his face went entirely numb. droop, drool everything. it wasnt a stroke, it was a just a nerve reaction to the extreme stress he was under.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 07:04 pm:

    the only really exciting part of the debate was that white shit on the side of Bush's mouth.

By Dougie on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:24 pm:

    Yeah, I couldn't concentrate on anything else when he was talking except that dried spit and the crookedness of his mouth. Probably a good thing, because similar to how Lewis Black puts it, "my brain would have exploded" if I tried to concentrate on what he was saying.

    I watched it on PBS, and they must've noticed it too, because after a while, they weren't doing closeups of him -- they zoomed out on him.

By RC on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 07:23 pm:

    OMG ! I hadn't thought of that until I read the DailyKJos post. I through the drool was because Bush had cottonmouth & was too busy being macho to take a drink of water.

    But aftet seeing the photos from that Bush Is Wired site - esps. the one of him in his pick-up truck -- it makes perfect sense! He wouldn't have needed any sort of transmitter to have someone feed him answers if he was just doing a quickie soundbite from his truck. The bulge in the truck photo is IDENTICAL to the one on his back in the debates!

    IT'S A MEDICAL DEVICE, not a transmitter!

    I have no idea what the device would be for. But I beleive the mofo DID have a stroke in the last few weeks. That gizmo is prolly feeding him current to keep his facial muscles looking normal.

    Man-oh-manischevitz -- how sweet would it be if Kerry could get PROOF that Bush had a stroke & has kept it from the public???!

    - RC

By Antigone on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 08:30 pm:

    Fuck me...Jon Stewart was on Crossfire. He handed them their asses...

By Antigone on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 08:32 pm:

    STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

    CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

    STEWART: You need to go to one.

    The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

    CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

    STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

By Antigone on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 08:39 pm:

    CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...


    STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.


    CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.

By kazu on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 09:00 pm:

    STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not
    honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And
    I will tell you why I know it.

    CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show
    and you sniff his throne and you're accusing
    us of partisan hackery?

    STEWART: Absolutely.

    CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He
    comes on and you...


    STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads
    into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

    love him!

By kazu on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 09:02 pm:

    oh this is too good:

    APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying,
    there's no reason for you -- when you have
    this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's
    butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy.
    Come on. It's embarrassing.

    STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was
    so far -- you would not believe what he ate
    two weeks ago.

By dave. on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 09:16 pm:

    i heard it replayed on randi rhodes earlier. it was priceless. stewart is godly.

By wisper on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 01:28 am:

    i have aquired a .wmv file of the show.
    once i find a place to put it up, it shall be yours to download.

By dave. on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 01:31 am:

    bless you.

By dave. on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 01:38 am:

    what you don't get from the transcript is stewart's timing and carlson and begala's fumbling. carlson could only repeat that stewart is "boring" as a lecturer. as if that would hide the fact that carlson is "useless" as a defender of the indefensible, i.e. his career.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 03:08 am:

    Here's one link

    Also, get it using bittorrent: linky

    If ya'll can't get it from there I'll put it up myself.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 03:29 am:

By dave. on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 03:29 am:

    goddammit there is NOTHING more frustrating that choked up media streaming.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 04:00 am:

    Oh, and you've got to watch this clip of Bill O'Reilly's accuser interviewed on NBC: linky

By Antigone on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 04:02 am:

    Do the torrent, man. It's downloading faster than my link can handle it. :)

By Antigone on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 04:05 am:

    And, get this: from that single torrent site alone, 1TB (yes, that's Terabyte) of video has been downloaded. 2824 copies of the Jon Stewart Crossfire video have been retrieved from that source alone. And that's just in the last 12 hours. He really struck a chord.

By dave. on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 04:22 am:

    i got the torrent.


    stewart in 08.

By RC on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 05:25 am:

    DAMMIT! A spent all that time downloading the damn videe & No Sound Would Play! It's obviously a system problem -- now my Windows sound effect is gone too.
    Does anyone know what to click on in Control Panel to reset the thing?

    And does CROSSFIRE re-air it's programs? Air America Radio migth re-air it ... lemme see if I can get that to play...

    - RC

By Rowlfe on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 11:30 am:

    Alan Keyes said: “The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it’s possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism.”

    when asked if Cheney's daughter is one of those? “That goes by definition. Of course she is."

    The reaction by Dick Cheney's family? None.
    Kerry states a fact? They act like the world exploded.

By wisper on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 01:53 pm:

    what i was really impressed with after seeing the video (after only reading the transcript) is how dead serious John is, he's being a smart ass but not in a stupid jokey way. It obviously shocked the hell out of that smug motherfucker Carlson.

    My favorite moments are when he makes it very clear that Carlson is not allowed at his home for dinner, EVER. And the whole "You need to get a job at a journalism school", "You need to GO to one.", and it's sad that the crowd was laughing over that part, or they were too shocked to reply.

    Before, he was just funny.
    Today, John Stewart is a hero.

By dave. on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 03:01 pm:

    i think right from the beginning, where begala gives a smart ass response to "say something nice about bush", the look on stewart's face shows exactly where this was going.

    those guys were so not ready for that.

By kazu on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 07:16 pm:

    I found it intersting that Carlson was so bent
    on calling stewart out for his lack of journalistic
    ethics. I mean, he really wanted to make a case
    as if there were actually one to make. What a dumbfuck.

    and in other comical news:

By John Cleese on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 01:25 pm:

    How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?

    "None. There’s nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn’t work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness."

By semillama on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:42 pm:

    Are you sure that was SPIT in the corner of his mouth? I mean, he could have just come from servicing Cheney in the back washroom.

    I promise I will catch up and produce more insightful comments soon - I think I picked up a cold coming back from N'Awlins this weekend and I'm feeling a little out of it right now - sort of floaty and shit from the allergy medicine I took last night to dry up my runny nose (only thing I had in the house).

By Rowlfe on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 02:35 pm:

By Antigone on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 02:47 pm:

    Not exactly a "plummet." 11% drop since wednesday, only a 6% drop so far today. It's taking a hit, yeah, but it ain't no "plummet."

By patrick on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 03:54 pm:

    "This is CNN! My show is preceeded by a show with puppets making crank calls...c'mon!!"

    there. that sums it up.

    its fantastic, and brilliant but only in the sense that our standards have reached an all time low. He's saying speaking the rational obvious, but we've become so fucking jaded and misguided it sounds radical.

By Nate on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 04:04 pm:

By kazu on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 04:13 pm:

    I don't think of the Stewart thing as radical
    just refreshing.

By Dougie on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 11:27 pm:

By agatha on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 01:00 am:

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 03:12 am:

By semillama on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:38 am:

    <Gilbert Gottfried voiceover>

    What the FUUUCCK!!!!

    (hey, he says it best.)

    That HAS to make the Daily Show.

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 01:29 pm:

    OK,I take it back. Sinclair stock is plummeting.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 02:02 pm:

By Antigone on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 02:25 pm:

    Oh, the "Trust" one is the best by far. It's soooooooo true.

By Antigone on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 02:35 pm:

    "The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, 'We're not going to have any casualties.'"


By Antigone on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 03:34 pm:

By Antigone on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 05:13 pm:

    I just voted early. I didn't vote straight Democratic, though. Voted Kerry for prez, and dems wherever they were in a race. There were a couple of races with repubs versus libertarians. In those cases I voted libertarian.

    I'm quite confident Kerry will take Texas.

By Antigone on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 05:13 pm:

    Sorry. Just channeling that Bush faith based worldview there at the end. :)

By semillama on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

By RC on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 07:44 pm:

    See, if you're not a Christian or familiar with bible history, you don't get how deeply delusional Bush really is. The nutjob thinks GOD IS SPEAKING TO HIM, like he's some Old Testament prohpet, that God promised him complete victory in battle with NO CASUALITES on his side, because he's fighting God's war in Iraq.

    And Robertson is totally phony, claiming "the Lord told him" the war in Iraq was going to be "a disaster" & "messy". Then how come he's only mentioning it now?

    This crap should be the lead story on EVERY evening newscast! But so far, it's barely getting any coverage. The media KNOWS a remark like that would cost Bush the election, & they're going to treat it like a non-story.

    It's official: Bush is freakin' Certifiably Insane -- & you folks here who are planning to vote for him need to TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HIS MENTATION & MIND SET!

    That mofo should dragged out of the White House in a astraight jacket & placed on serious meds!

    And screw him for making Christians seem like delusional idiots!

    - RC

By kazu on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:01 pm:

    You don't need to have any knowledge of bibical
    to know how deeply delusional Bush is, the signs
    of his "condition" far exceed his religious claptrap.

    All you have to do is check out the diagnostic
    criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Criticisms
    of abnomal psychology aside, he is the POSTERCHILD.

    And even scarier he's not just one-nutsack, among
    others, but the entire administration collectively
    embody the symptoms.

    I'm usually hesitant to say that people are nuts. It's
    not something I like to throw around.

    He's ill...not that he can't be held accountable, but the
    level of delusion and deceit, lack of remorse,
    impulsiveness, aggressiveness and irritablity, and
    irresponsibility are pathological.

By kazu on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:04 pm:


    i need to sleep.

    bibical is something i know lots about.

    bibical. yeah. bibical

By Vet on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:14 am:

    I saw a great statement, it was also funny marked on a truck it read: Do the right thing flush two Johns in November. Yes I agree with it.

By Vet on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:23 am:

    Bush's record is being questioned by those who falsified paperwork and do not know him. Kerry's record is being questioned by those who were there and knew him when he shot himself in the leg or foot and said the enemy did.

By Antigone on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:54 am:

    Bush's record is being questioned by those who did not know him? Yeah, that's right. Like that guy who served in that small Alabama national guard unit when Bush was supposed to report there. That guy never even met Bush!

    And, funny, all of the guys who served in that tiny swift boat with Kerry never said he shot himself in the leg. That would have been hard to miss, you think? Do you know how big a swift boat is?

By Antigone on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 03:12 am:

    By the way, Vet, are you a combat veteran?

By Rowlfe on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 08:48 am:

    hey Vet, how come Bush cant find one person from the ANG to come forward to say they served with him? Even with thousands, THOUSANDS of dollars in reward money out there?

    and apparently you didnt see ABC news the other day, where they actually WENT TO VIETNAM and FOUND WITNESSES to the events in question, and they backed up the Navy/Kerry version of events. They brought that Nixon buttboy O'Neill back in for comment and he tripped all over himself.

    if you believe the swiftvets you also believe they hand out ribbons like candy, that Thurlow didnt deserve his own medals, that Cambodia never happened, and that atrocities were never committed, when the Swiftvets when on Sean Hannitys show themselves and admitted they FIRSTHAND saw them all the time. Apparently they just think you cant tell anyone? What would these motherfuckers do if they were at Abu Ghraib then I guess?

    And Kerry's the bad guy? Kerry's morals are in question?

By semillama on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:27 am:

    "get a brain, moran!"

    -sign held by rightwing protestor

By semillama on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:14 am:

    I just can't see how any veteran can back an administration that loves to smear veterans (McCain, Cleland, Kerry), cuts veteran's benefits (like my dad's, for one), and does nothing to help the 1.7 million vets in poverty without medical coverage, all from folks who did everything they could to avoid going to Nam. I've read reports from folks who came back from an Iraq tour, complained about PTSD, and got reassigned to infantry and sent back over - cheaper to pay for a potential funeral than years of therapy, I suppose.

    This administration is the worst thing to happen to our armed forces in years.

By Rowlfe on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 12:33 pm:

    I dont see how anyone can back an administration whose surrogates have so openly stated they intend to suppress peoples' votes.

By agatha on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 09:05 pm:

    While we're at it, I don't understand why people in the military support an administration that not only send them into harm's way, but keep them there for much longer than was ever intended, all the while slashing their benefits. What gives?

By Vet on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 09:49 pm:

    No I am not a combat veteran if I was still in the military I would be going with my unit to Iraq next year. I heard they were leaving about a month and a half after I finished my contract. There are many people whom I can't remember their names who were in my unit five years ago much less actually seeing them, we are talking about much more time than thatI remember the soldiers who were in my section like supply but i cant say I would remember people who were in the scout platoon. About the question of did he show up when he should have well I know many people who worked for over a year trying to get missing time correctedwhen I do remember them being there because I worked directly side by side with them. I can tell you that if you go to any ANG or reserve unit near you you would find similar situations. Yes Bush was an officer that does not make him stand out any more than an enlisted. There were 2 officers in my unit who were 20 years old and already commissioned having associates degrees with the condition that they within so many years they receive their bachelors (sp) degrees many soldiers who were as much as twice their age would have to say sir to them. This was just four years ago and I can't even begin to try to remember their names. Yes swiftboats are small Kerry claimed his injuries occurred in combat the enemy was shooting at his crewmates too not just him. They were not just sitting there watching everything saying Johnny will take care of them all. They were firing back at them so not everyone would see this. I can back up the thought that ribbons are handed out like candy. Durring one field exercise when I was assigned to admin the Battalion Commander said that he wanted 250 awards such as AAMs and ARCOMs handed out for this exercise that lasted less than one month. You all seem to be up on things so how about the "I voted for it before I voted against it" thing how could any vet or friend or family member of a vet vote for someone who said that now that our soldiers are in combat they get no supplies they can use their e-tools for armor and MREs for weapons, all that would do iis insult them. The veterans benefits were FUCKED by that idiot Clinton. When Bush came into office he created a bill that for two years coused the service members pay to increase every six months rather that just at the beginning of each year. The only vets that do not get medical coverage is those who do not have twenty years under their belt or had anything besides an Honorable or medical discharge. I kind of want to take the Patton side of PTSD situation some of those who claim they have it are either hypocondriacs or self diagnosed. If a licenced doctor does not say you have a problem then you aren't as bad off as you think. I have seen many goldbrickers pull some fucked up shit just to get out of doing work. I personally know some of them and they make me sick. Anyone who gets 180 consecutive days of active duty can be seen at their local VA hospital as long as they have a medical or honorable paying no more than a copay which would be at most a $25 dollar fee. 25 dollars an hour for a licenced shrink I would say that is not bad. Let me know if I missed anything.

By Dougie on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:28 pm:


By kazu on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:30 pm:

    Yeah, that asshole Clinton signed the Veterans
    Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. What an idiot.

    According to the department of defense, notorious
    for it's left wing propaganda, the bill enabled:

    about 2.3 million disabled veterans and
    300,000 surviving family members of military men
    and women whose deaths were service related will
    get a 1.3 percent increase in compensation payments

    and so on:

    cut-n-paste as my browser sucks

By kazu on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:31 pm:

    hey! that link worked. hooray!

By Dougie on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:36 pm:

    I gotta tell you, the VA hospitals I've done work in, I wouldn't send my worst enemy to. Run down, apathetic staff -- sad, sad places.

By dave. on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:38 pm:

    i'll take the voted for/voted against issue.

    the version kerry voted for stipulated that part of the 87 billion would be paid for by rolling back some of the tax cuts for the rich and that some of it would be loans to iraq. bush promised to veto that.

    the version kerry voted against put the full cost on the public taxpayers. that's the version we got.

    i don't really know why the kerry campaign can't get out from under that one. bush voted against a version of it, too. the way bush's campaign plays fast and loose with the facts about voting records, if bush were running against himself, he'd have pointed that out and called himself a flip-flopper and unfit to lead. why kerry hasn't disturbs me.

By dave. on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:43 pm:

    i should also add that kerry knew it was going to pass anyway. it was a political statement that he let the bush campaign define before he could define it himself.

By Cletus on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:50 pm:

    Thet's jest t'other example of liberal ackivism
    in th' congress. Jest like th' homosexuals wantin'
    t'infeck th' sanckity of marriage wif their sin, as
    enny fool kin plainly see.

By Dougie on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:51 pm:

    I thought he did a pretty good job of dismissing it at the last debate by saying he mis-spoke (and hoping that his audience would understand that, especially given his silver-tongued opponent), but yeah, his handlers should have gotten out on that early, as well as the swiftboat bullshit.

By Platypus on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:54 pm:

    Also, my understanding from the military folks I have contact with (a passel of Navy seals and some assorted air force) is that the military actually doesn't support Bush all that much.

    And, uh, "licensed doctors" do recognize PTSD--the VA/administration don't because they don't want to pay benefits. Likewise with Gulf War Syndrome.

By wisper on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:46 pm:

    Vet: "Let me know if I missed anything."


    doritos came out my nose, Dougie.

By dave. on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:03 am:

    dougie, i think he's been clear and consistent throughout. especially when compared to the bush administration. the problem is that the hannitized, dittohead, faux news watchin' types don't hear it. they hear the sound bites and the sound bites stick.

    so, vet, i saw that wisper welcomed you on another thread. i also welcome you but i have to say that if you try to argue a pro bush, pro republican party message here you will get an earfull. or an eyefull.

    the reason being, as jon stewart said last friday, they're hurting us. they're hurting america. and for me, i'm not going to bother with politeness when i hear that shit regurgitated. the people need help.

By Dougie on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:26 am:

    Sorry, wisper. That must've been painful. I know the feeling -- I had poured myself a glass of Sam Adams last weekend with a big head, and as I was drinking it, my buddy said something stupid, and I had beer foam coming through my nose which hurt like hell. I'll try to keep my snide remarks to a minimum. Actually, I felt kind of bad about posting that after I saw your welcome to Vet on another thread, which dave mentioned. I guess I was just caught up in the V/Dodo thing. But your welcome to Vet was very magnanimous, as was dave's.

    You're right, dave, he has been consistent (although if you think about it, Bush has too, but that's only because it's hard to fuck up the mantra he's been droning on about since 9/12).

By Nate on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:27 am:

By agatha on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:48 am:


By Dodi on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 12:58 am:

    Dodo, I like that.

By wisper on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:03 am:

    ?where's Droopy?

    That's okay Dougie, they were chewed up pretty good at that point, but the nacho cheese-it burns!

    I think you can mock grammer no matter how you feel about a person. It's fun and fair.

    tha hazing begins

By jack on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:11 am:

    don't think that's the real droopy there.

    i believe it's a friendly ghozt, though.

By gramps on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:14 am:

    leave grammer alone! her grammar is impeccable.

By jack on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:26 am:

    yes! librarian humor, mwah!

By Antigone on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:39 am:

    Aw, Nate, I was going to post a link to that! :)

    Dave, you asked by the Kerry campaign hasn't been able to refute the "voted for/voted against" stuff. That link explains it. Bush supporters tend to believe, without question, what the administration says. It's just that simple, and just that sad.

By dave. on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:50 am:

    it comes down to conscience. they have no conscience. they encourage anti-conscience behavior. they deceive with impunity. they LIKE it.

By Antigone on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:22 am:

    Well, it's a combination of both. Being deceptive isn't effective unless you've got a population that can be deceived.

By dave. on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:31 am:

    but i mean the deceived like it. they don't even know why. they're the taliban and they don't even get it. this whole culture is cultivated by the republican party leadership.

By Antigone on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:38 am:

    I'd say it's more exploited than cultivated, but yeah there is cultivation going on. There's just fertile ground. :)

By semillama on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 10:28 am:

    I'm just boggled that everyone finds it so hard to believe that someone who served on a SWIFT BOAT in fucking VIETNAM would be wounded and awarded the purple heart. Didn't swift boats have one of the highest casultie rates?

    Plus, don't even get me started on "five deferments -other priorities" piece of shit Cheney.

    Look, everyone should know by now about the "fog of war" - how the viewpoint of those participating in combat can be pretty limited to what's going on around them. Therefore, anyone who wasn't on the same boat as Kerry, in a firefight, likely wasn't paying attention to what Kerry was doing, if they didn't want their ass blown off.

    But all that was 30 years ago. What's more important is that in the last 2 years, Bush has thrown away the lives of 1100 service men and women to benefit the geopolitical agenda of a small handful of maniacs who have lied, cheated and stole their way into power. Kerry's "I voted for before against" statement is fucking paltry compared to that.

    Sorry, my best friend is active duty and could be shipped out at any time, and I worry about him. He's already been to Afghanistan, and told me that any changes made over there are cosmetic, and that outside of Kabul, it's like nothing changed - burkas everywhere, boy prostitutes, pretty grim.

By kazu on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 11:57 am:

By kazu on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 11:58 am:

    cut and paste close of the spaces or
    sem, will you post it?

By Nate on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 01:12 pm:

    "nacho cheese-it"

    i read that and got all excited and then realized you weren't talking about nacho cheese-its.

    i'm getting ready for this. i think it is going to be fucking awesome.

    and kazu, for you and your link.

By kazu on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 01:14 pm:

    I know how to post links, but it doesn't work
    for me anymore, either way.

By eri on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

    Sem, I totally undestand your fears about your friend. My brother in law is heading out to Korea. He's due to leave one month after my sister gives birth. So he's going to be in Korea for at least a year, and this election will definately have an impact on what happens when he is there, and my sister is going to be stateside alone with two kids (yes she has Christopher back for those who don't know). So I get a double whammy on that one, and if anything at all happens to Mike while he is gone, what does that mean for the kids (if they even have them still when/if he gets back)?

    This election has spent so much time discussing the Vietnam war that it makes me ill. I mean, we really need to be focussing on what is going on NOW and not what went on then. We need to vote based on what will be best for our people fighting NOW, and not worry about who did what with a purple heart when.

    In Texas it has been insanity. Voters are so completely clueless. I finally just get to the point where I say "I don't give a shit who you vote for so long as you make an EDUCATED decision". Too many people don't even look into the issues and just vote party line and it's not only disgusting but dangerously ignorant.

    OK, I am done ranting for the moment.

By dave. on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 01:50 pm:

    i just wanna say pie friendly and french wallop.

    oh, and this.

    get bugmenot for the login.

By patrick on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 02:03 pm:

    the bullshit about Kerry and Bush in regards to the Vietnam era is just silly.

    the finite debates as to what was happening on those boats, who was shotting at whom etc etc is just fucking retarded.

By RC on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:55 pm:

    But Sem - & anyone else who wants tyo jump in - Riddle Me This:

    All the hawkish, America-Is-The-World-Police types who love a good war & will support a bad one if that's all they've got, after 4 years of Shrub running this country into the ground, his mishandling of a phony War For Oil & letting Halliburton basically loot the US treasury, why aren't these people lined up on their knees to give Kerry the a hummer of his life in gratitude that they finally have a candidate with Real Wartime Experience that they can send to the White House?

    The people I thought would be supporting Kerry the most -- the pro-war contingent -- are still Pro-Shrub. Which makes no sense when we're about to elect a war-time president.

    The current Atlantic Monthly has an article entitled THE MEDIA & THE MILITARY. In it, Robert Kaplan basically disses all members of the press as Ivy-league dilettantes with no grasp of the economic & cultural backgrounds of the working-class men & women who make up the NCOs in the military. He claims it's good having journalists 'embedded' with the troops because it gives them 1st-hand exposure to the working class.

    Kaplan's snide attitude towards his fellow journalists & narrow-minded view of our service personnel pissed me off. I assume he is one of the rare working journalists who got into the profession before a college degree was required --which makes him an anomaly, but does not guarantee his assessment of our troops' attitudes will be any more accurate than that of someone with a masters from Columbia Journalism school.

    Kaplan flat-out stated that the reason most folks in the military support Bush is because they are more nationalistic than the cosmopolitan journalists from the 'theory class' (his term), that folks whose main concerns are job, family, country & faith tend to be nationalistic, therefore better suited to being in the army & more supportive of Bush because his conservatism reflects their own. Which I don't buy. Bush is from an eastern establishment family, he's a Yalie AND a Bonesman for god's sake! No NCO with half a brain is fooled by Shrub's fake folksy manner -- they know he's got no better understanding of what their lives are like than Kerry has.

    But Kerry understands what life in a war zone is like. I still believe that any US soldier would rather have a man with military experience like Kerry as their Commander-in-Chief than a draft-dodger like Shrub. But I'm clearly wrong on this one because I see wives & mothers & safely-returned soldiers on tv every night, talking about how they're gonnoa vote for Bush again.

    Which makes me wanna poke my eyes out with a fork...

    - RC

    (You can't access the article unless you're a print edution subscriber, so here it is for those who care to read it.)


    American reporters would shudder to think that they harbor class prejudice — but they do.
    - by Robert D. Kaplan

    Ever since the American-led invasion of Iraq last year, when hundreds of journalists were embedded with military units, people in media circles have been debating whether journalists lose their professional detachment under such circumstances and begin to identify too closely with the troops they are covering. A journalist I met recently in Iraq told me that whenever he returns from a stint with the military, he gets a string of queries from journalism professors, wanting to know if embedded journalists have become, in effect, "whores" of the armed forces.

    Having spent much of the past two years embedded with U.S. military units around the world, I find such fears to be a case of class prejudice. As with many forms of prejudice, the perpetrators are only vaguely aware of it, if at all.

    Even with the embed phenomenon the media still manifest a far more intimate—one might say incestuous—relationship with politicians, international diplomats, businesspeople, academics, and humanitarian-relief workers than with the U.S. military. Given that all these groups push various political agendas, it is fair to ask why embedding has struck a raw nerve.

    The common denominator among the non-military groups is that they derive from the same elevated social and economic strata of their societies. Even relief workers are often young people from well-off families, motivated by idealism and a desire for adventure. An American journalist would most likely find it easier to strike up a conversation with a relief worker from another Western country than with a U.S. Marine or soldier, especially ifthat Marine or soldier were a noncommissioned officer. This is not necessarily because the journalist and the relief worker share a liberal outlook; a neoconservative pundit would fare no better with the NCO, for example. The NCO is part of another America—an America that the media elite is blind to and alienated from.

    I am not talking about the poor. The media establishment has always been solicitous of the poor, and through much fine reporting over the years has become intimately familiar with them. I am talking about the working class and slightly above: that vast, forgotten multitude of Americans, especially between the two cosmopolitan coasts, with whom journalists in major media markets now have fewer and fewer opportunities to engage in a sustained, meaningful way except by embedding with the military.

    The U.S. military—particularly at the level of NCOs, who are the guardians of its culture and traditions—is a world of beer, cigarettes, instant coffee, and chewing tobacco. It is composed of people who hunt, drive pickups, use profanity as an element of ordinary speech and yet have a simple, sure, demonstrative belief in the Almighty. Though this is by and large a politically conservative world, neoconservatives might not feel particularly comfortable in it. Some neocons, who have taken democracy and turned it into an ideological ism, wouldn't sit well with Army and Marine civil-affairs and psy-ops officers who pay lip service to new democratic governing councils in Iraq and then go behind their backs to work with traditional sheikhs. The meat-and-potatoes military is about practicalities: it does whatever is necessary to, say, restore stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, Army Special Forces work regularly with undemocratic warlords and tribal militias, and see no contradiction with their own larger belief in democracy. Arguing over abstractions and refining differences between realism and idealism is the luxury of a well-to-do theory class.

    The military is an unpretentious environment in which, for instance, the word "folks" is commonly used for people both good and bad. When, after 9/11, President George W. Bush drew snickers from some writers for his reference to al-Qaeda terrorists as "those folks," it was an indication not of Bush's poor speech habits but of the regional and class prejudices afflicting the media establishment.

    The starkly differing attitudes toward Bush that one encounters within the media and the military go to the heart of this class divide. You may not get much of a sense of it at the Pentagon, or at military academies such as West Point and Annapolis. The Pentagon is about as indicative of the rest of the military as Washington is of the rest of America; West Point and Annapolis are about as indicative of U.S. military schools as Harvard and Yale are of colleges and universities across the heartland. To know what soldiers, Marines, and other uniformed Americans think, visit the housing for young NCOs at a base such as Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Camp Pendleton, California; or Fort Hood, Texas. Visit the Army Sergeants-Major Academy in El Paso, Texas, or the Army and Marine infantry schools at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Twentynine Palms, California. Visit U.S. barracks and military chow halls around the world.

    NCOs in these places appreciate President Bush, whatever his manifold weaknesses, for subjective cultural reasons. His voice is a clear, simple one that speaks of a clash between good and evil, between good guys and bad guys. Bush talks like a believer; he is unabashedly Christian. He says openly that it is all right to kill the enemy, which goes a long way with military fighting units. One Air Force master sergeant told me, "I reject the notion that Bush is inarticulate. He is more articulate than Clinton. When Bush says something, he's clear enough that you argue about whether you agree with him or not. When Clinton talks, you argue over what he really meant."

    Bush, from an elite East Coast family, connects with sergeants and corporals in the same visceral, almost tribal way that I saw Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, a sophisticated European Jew who relaxed to the music of Chopin, connect with the tough, working-class Oriental Jews of Israel's slums and development towns a quarter century ago. The Oriental Jews, like American NCOs, were looking not for subtlety or complexity but for clarity. How deeply does this man believe? Will he fight to the finish?

    n a recent article in The National Interest, Samuel Huntington, of Harvard University, writes about the divide in American society between the elites, who are cosmopolitans, and the mass of citizens, who are nationalists. The media and the armed forces, respectively, are poster children for these two categories. The world of the media is just as easily defined as that of the military. Journalists are increasingly global citizens. If they themselves do not have European and other foreign passports, their spouses, friends, and acquaintances increasingly do. Whereas the South and the adjacent Bible Belt of the southern Midwest and the Great Plains dominate the military, and the only New Yorkers and Bostonians one is likely to meet in the barracks are from working-class areas, heavily Irish and Hispanic, the urban Northeast, with its frequent air connections to Europe, is where the media cluster. Whereas the military is a lower-middle-class world in which a too-prominent sense of self is frowned on, the journalistic world too often represents the ultimate me, me, me culture of today's international elite.

    The military and the media occupy distinct cultural and economic layers. For the military this doesn't really present a problem. Its culture is appropriate to its task, which is to defend the homeland, through the violent use of force if necessary. The troops who do this require nationalism more than they do cosmopolitanism, though a bit more of the latter would certainly be healthy. They also require a religious spirit that is both martial and compassionate, a requirement that the Old Testament orientation of southern evangelicalism satisfies nicely. The soldiers I have met harbor no particular resentments. They are middle-class in their minds, whether or not they are in reality; the military offers a telling demonstration that class resentment is mainly an obsession of the elite.

    But the media do have a problem. They are supposed to explain what is happening in a diverse world, which is difficult to do if journalists all hail from the same social and economic background. The media establishment may claim eclectic origins, but whether a journalist grew up in New York or Hong Kong or Mexico City matters less than you might think if in any case he is affluent and well educated: the New Yorker will have more in common with his colleagues from Asia or Latin America than he will with someone from a working-class background in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

    To deny that this is an issue for the media is to deny a basic truth of writing: though journalists assume the mantle of professional objectivity, a writer brings his entire life experience to bear on every story and situation. A journalist may seek different points of view, but he shapes and portrays those viewpoints from only one angle of vision: his own.

    The blue-collar element that once kept print journalism honest has been gone for some time. Journalists of an earlier era may have been less professional, but they were better connected with the rest of the country. The mannered intrigues of the well-heeled Washington and New York media world have come to resemble those of the exclusive Manhattan society that Edith Wharton chronicled a hundred years ago.

    How many members of this world really know people in the active-duty military or the National Guard? The East Coast media's social circle is much more likely to include aging sixties protesters than Vietnam veterans. Of course there are exceptions to all of this, but exceptions don't cut it.

    Yes, the editorial boards of prestigious newspapers regularly invite top military brass up to their offices, and a contingent of colonels are always studying at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and similar places. Furthermore, the military correspondents of the major newspapers are in a category by themselves in terms of considerable expertise and well-rooted personal relationships with military men and women. But such cross-fertilization does not go very deep in the larger scheme of things. Besides, generals and colonels are not really what the military is about.

    So although some journalism professors may worry that military embedding is subverting the media, I would argue the contrary. The Columbia Journalism Review recently ran an article about the worrisome gap between a wealthy media establishment and ordinary working Americans. One solution is embedding, which offers the media perhaps their last, best chance to reconnect with much of the society they claim to be a part of.

By semillama on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 04:45 pm:


    The answer to your riddle is easy: Kerry was a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. For a lot of folks who drink up on *'s kool-aid, that trumps any military service.

By wisper on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 07:47 pm:

    exatly what sem said.
    Kerry had the balls to go over and do as told, and then come back and tell everyone it was wrong, they were wrong, and the whole war was bullshit.

    that makes him a hero to me anyway, even if he never got any medals.

    But it's so very similar to what is happening now, it scares me. He of all people knows what it's like to fight in an unjust war, and maybe it will take another 20 or 30 years before anyone can admit that.
    You're forgetting that america still likes to think that they won Vietnam and it was all good.

    I'm more interested in how all these blind patriots with a hard-on for the military can be so adamant that Kerry doesn't deserve his medals. In one breath they can act like the US army is an unquestionable god-like fource of pure good and perfect organization, never to be questioned. Then they act like they're handing out purple hearts to any shmuck who asks for one.

    I hope the paradox at least gives them a headache.

By agatha on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 09:33 pm:

By Vet on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 09:40 pm:

    As I stated in a previous post the military will give awards to many people who do not deserve them and if they kiss the right ass in their command which is what I am sure many Democrats will say Bush did while he was in the ANG during the vietnam era..... Oh what is that he was in during the vietnam era well if that is so how could he be a draft dodger? The last draft dodging President we had was Clinton, then they could get their awards upgraded to something even better.

    Come on everyone think about it both of them are not exactly the best choice for president. I do not know how Dean lost to Kerry he was a cleaner choice and if Powell were to try for it I personally know many people including me who would line up to get into the uniformed secret service just to doubleor triple the security around him for his eight years of presidency. My point is throw this mud and throw that mud but you aren't going to make anyone change their mind. Oh yeah and these assholes who say they are undecided are full of shit they know who they are going to vote for they knew it long ago. They are just trying to get attention. Hey Mr. T.V. man put me in front of the camera while I am wearing my moomoo and curlers and carrying two babies while I have five more kids following me from my mobile home and four lawn ornaments that used to be cars.

    Venting feels so good

By Antigone on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 01:13 am:

    I'm afraid our last draft dodging president was Bush. There's no other way to explain his "service."

    Vet, if you even try to say that being given a spot in the national guard is equal service to being shot at in a river in Vietnam, you might as well be a traitor to this country. You'll be disrespecting all of those noble men who died in Vietnam. You might as well go kiss Jane Fonda's ass.

By Rowlfe on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 12:40 pm:

    Bush told the press he would have gladly gone to Vietnam if asked.

    On his army forms in the box where it says 'do you volunteer to go overseas' he checked "no"

    and again, acknowledge the facts: Everyone from Kerry's own swiftboat backs up his side of the story. The Naval records back up his side of the story. The people questioning him either werent on his boat or have had their own statements contradicted or disproven. Ie Nixon tapes where O'Neill says he was in Cambodia.
    The database of Swiftvet debunking is here

    Meanwhile, in a VERY SIMPLE TEST, Bush and for the matter, the media, even the right wing media, cant provide ONE PERSON from the ANG who saw Bush during the time he's alleged to be AWOL.

    Undecideds arent listening or paying attention. There can be a debate or rally where a specific thing is laid out in detail, as much detail as can be expecting in 2 minutes without actually GOING TO THEIR WEBSITE, and then Judy Woodbitch interviews them and says "I have yet to see any detail from the candidates regarding blah"

    If they've had 4 years of Bush and dont know if they like it or not, they probably shouldnt vote.

By Vet on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 08:49 pm:

    Excuse you Antigone but you must have your head so far up your ass you could be next to a supernova and not be able to see the day of light. Anyone who says that serving in one branch of service is more risky than another must not only be a traitor but also not have a clue what the hell they are talking about. You little shit I served honorably in the service and never made any comment that could be considered traitorous. It is typically morons like you who are clueless that make comments like that. Now why don't you get out from under Kerry's desk and off of your knees you Lewinsky wanna be. I will bet you think the only thing the Coast Guard does is surf and sun.

    "On his army forms in the box where it says 'do you volunteer to go overseas' he checked "no""

    For anyone who joins the military they know that once you sign on the line you do not get to choose what location yuo go to if your chain of command says go then you go.

    "Meanwhile, in a VERY SIMPLE TEST, Bush and for the matter, the media, even the right wing media, cant provide ONE PERSON from the ANG who saw Bush during the time he's alleged to be AWOL."

    I had been in my unit for three years when I received one of my deployments after arriving there someone came up to me and started talking to me and after just one minute I found out that he had been in that unit longer than I and I had no clue who the hell he was.

    If they've had 4 years of Bush and dont know if they like it or not, they probably shouldnt vote.

    I agree Rowlfe, but like I said before there really are no undecideds now.

By Nate on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 09:38 pm:

    "Anyone who says that serving in one branch of service is more risky than another must not only be a traitor but also not have a clue what the hell they are talking about. "

    well let's see, the marines are first in and last out, but the airforce guys fly in at 30,000 feet after all the anti-aircraft defences have been knocked out by cruise missles. yeah, most marines i've talked to have low opinions of the other branches of the military.

    you were national guard, vet?

    you mention the coast guard, but they aren't military now, are they.



By Antigone on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:05 pm:

    Vet, I don't think you served honerably at all.

    Prove me wrong.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:14 pm:

    And, yeah, I do think flying a toy plane on the other side of the world from a war zone is less dangerous than chasing down a man with a loaded weapon in the jungle. Yeah, I do.

By Vet on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:25 pm:

    I know a few marines they are the most arrogant branch they will always say they are the first and best. If anyone was watching when our forces were making the long trek across the desert, the reporters from all of the networks were with different battalions and all of those were Army and Army National Guard. Lets not forget what we saw on CNN from a hotel window during Persian Gulf part 1 was alot of tracers, which if they follow a similar pattern to ours it would mean that every tracer was five or ten rounds apart. They were being fired at our Airforce.

    I was active, reserve, National Guard. The Coast Guard IS military if you would be able to see the ID card that the CG uses it is the same one that I had, of course with the exception of the branch crest on the one side. Also if you were to be able to get one from the early '90s you would see the the hologram in the lamination includes the CG. They also use the same schools as the rest of the military. I met a couple when I was in a military school.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:27 pm:

    "...I found out that he had been in that unit longer than I and I had no clue who the hell he was. "

    Wait... Who's got their head up their ass again?

    Anyway, they haven't even gotten someone from the same PLATOON Bush was supposed to be in to identify him. How large is the average platoon?

By Vet on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 10:58 pm:

    "...I found out that he had been in that unit longer than I and I had no clue who the hell he was. "

    I was a mechanic he was in support, he operated a fueler, I fixed vehicles and when one of ours needed fuel someone else took them to have that done.

    "Wait... Who's got their head up their ass again?"

    That would be you. Do you need me to draw you a picture? Never mind it is too dark in there isn't it.

    How long was your longest term of employment? How many people work there? If it is more than 50 then could you name all of them first and last name?

    I remember during my time of service many officers referred to their buddies by their first names therefore it would seem to me that if someone who was not very outgoing like Bush who just showed up and did his job would stay very much under the radar and George is not a unique name.

    "Anyway, they haven't even gotten someone from the same PLATOON Bush was supposed to be in to identify him. How large is the average platoon?"

    ANG I believe would call it a flight not platoon. A very small platoon would have 30 members preferably more.

By Nate on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:09 pm:

    the coast guard reports to the dept. of homeland defense. prior to that it reported to dept. of transportation. not the department of defence.

    the army is the bulk of ground forces because typically the army is the least trained, least capable cannon fodder in the armed forces.

    if you remember anything about the persian gulf war, you'd remember that none of our planes came down due to anti-aircraft fire from the ground. with that much munition rising into the air, odds are they would have hit something... if they were reaching the altitude we were flying at.

    shit man, trace would slap you down, and he'd probably arguing your side of the equation.

    do you honestly not know the difference between 1 person in a group not knowing another person in a group, and no one in a group knowing one person in that group? i could pick out a person from my highschool book who i never saw when i was at highschool, but there is no way in hell i could pick someone out who NO ONE saw. that is ridiculous.

    or did bush wear his invisibility cloak when he came to work? maybe he didn't have to interact with anyone whatsoever?

By dave. on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:09 pm:

    bush was a privileged little prick. he was an attention whore. if he was there, someone would have remembered.

    you're in denial, vet.

By Antigone on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:14 pm:

    You can't even see that your argument makes no sense, can you?

    Can you get ONE person from the Coast Guard who can say, "yeah, I served with Vet." If you couldn't get one person who said that, NOT ONE, that'd be pretty sad, wouldn't it?

    And Bush was "not very outgoing"? You're joking, right? By all accounts he was a party animal, always the "go to guy" when you wanted to have a good time. Not outgoing? Man, you'll say anything, believe anything, won't you?

By Vet on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 12:17 am:

    I could get a few who would say they know me and remember me it has only been a year we are talking about 30 years. Memories get hazy about people that some one served with. It has been almost that long since I was in Kindergarten. There was less than 30 people in that class I can only remember one and that is because she graduated high school with me. The age I was then does not mean anything it was a big event in my life my first year of school.

    "And Bush was "not very outgoing"? You're joking, right? By all accounts he was a party animal, always the "go to guy" when you wanted to have a good time. Not outgoing? Man, you'll say anything, believe anything, won't you?"

    Here at home when people need help they know they can ask me and I will help to the best of my ability even if that would mean changing my schedule. I also like to go out and party but there is maybe one person in my unit maybe one that I would "party" with. A persons personality is different from his military time and his civilian time. I am a jokester when I am out with friends but vaguely sociable in my unit. I am saying things as I see them. I believe that some of you are such hardcore Democrats that you despise Republicans.

    May I ask any of you what military experience you have.

    "the coast guard reports to the dept. of homeland defense. prior to that it reported to dept. of transportation. not the department of defence."

    That does not negate their status as a branch of military.

By dave. on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 12:19 am:

    i'ma cut to the chase, vet. you're wasting your time if you think you're gonna score any points for bush here. there are a couple libertarian-type, capitalist conservatives here but even they have abandoned this administration.

By Antigone on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 02:24 am:

    "...we are talking about 30 years. Memories get hazy..."

    So, when Kerry talks about having been in Cambodia, you cut him some slack, right? I mean, he may have just been on the border, and it was 30 years ago, after all...

    And, no Vet, I don't despise republicans. You can't pull the "you libruls hate Amurica" crap. I just have little patience with stupid arrogant people. Like I always say, stupidity isn't bad by itself, and neither is arrogance, but together they make a titty fucking asshole licker of a human being.

    Can you tell I just saw Team America World Police? :)

    And, Vet, I have no military experience. What of it?

By wisper on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 11:33 am:

    "America- FUCK YEAH!"

By Nate on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 01:13 pm:

    "I believe that some of you are such hardcore Democrats that you despise Republicans. "

    i'm more republican than the Republicans. you think bush is a republican?

By Dodi on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 02:13 pm:

    Wisper....I loved that movie!!!!!

By Rowlfe on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 08:04 pm:

    I didnt like it. Well, I liked the first 30-40 minutes, then it fell apart
    Mainly because of repetition and rehashing jokes they already did on South Park.

By Dodi on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 09:35 pm:

    The best part, is when they were fighting.

    Totally hilarious..LOL!

By Vet on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 10:34 pm:

    "Vet, I don't think you served honerably at all."

    Antigone I almost missed your pathetic attempt to piss me off. That just shows your total stupidity. I would send a copy of my DD214 with certain personal info blacked out but then you would just say that it was doctored like those papers that CBS showed the world. Why is it that everyone is wanting to talk about Bushs level of honor in the military? It seems that while Bush has all of his military info out on the table and it shows an honorable discharge, and I mean all copies. Kerry does not want to show his original discharge which says DISHONORABLE it was changed when he entered public office. Kerry said "Bring it on" to Bush when he challenged Kerrys record. Well I say bring it on to Kerry and show the original DD214 that says he is a pathetic dishonorable worthless idiot who does not even deserve to serve the community as a sanitation worker which is a thousand times the quality of person that you are. How ignorant can you be to question someone who you do not know on their Honor you started a personal attack on me all I have done is respond. Why don't you prove that you are an honorable person to society?

By dave. on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 11:28 pm:

    i fuck your mom.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:02 am:

    Ya know, why do you have to say shit like that dave?
    Just cause this guy (vet) has his own opinion on things and you don't agree, does that mean you have to say such a down right mean thing like that?
    I don't see why you all can't be kind, just let it rest already and grow up and be mature!!!!!!!

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:05 am:

    Vet, they pull the same crap on me, so don't feel bad.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:11 am:

    Plus, why does vet have to prove anything to anyone? Have any of you proved anything, besides being assholes?

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:11 am:

    A personal attack? I don't think it's that personal. You seem to have no problem attacking Kerry like that. Was that a personal attack? If so, you were the first. I guess you're just a pussy who can't take what he dishes out.

    And about Kerry's discharge, you have no proof whatsoever to back up your claim. Neither does FreeRepublic, or any other conservative media outlet, and if anyone would it'd be them. All they, and you, have is your pathetic assumption. So, based on no proof, you say that a soldier's discharge is dishonerable. Have you no decency, sir?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:16 am:

    let this end already, cause it's doing no good for anyone. Is all this arguing getting anyone anywhere? NO!!

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:19 am:

    it won't end.

    and dave's jumping in with crazy random insults is what's called "humour".

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:21 am:

    This whole election thing sucks and their both not qualified to serve this country, but that's MY own opinion.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:25 am:

    I don't call that "humour"....sorry.

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:26 am:

    "Plus, why does vet have to prove anything to anyone? Have any of you proved anything, besides being assholes?"

    i see that dodi's progressed from whining and crying to whining and name calling. sniffle, wah!, snarl.

    yay! have an extra snarly day!!! it's fun to vent!

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:28 am:

    Oh please, I won't stoop to your level.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:29 am:

    according to al franken, it's called "kidding on the square". i've never heard that expression before hearing it on his show but it means basically, "the sentiment is sincere but the delivery is light-hearted".

    yeah, it's a mock insult, but i ain't gonna apologize for any offense taken.

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:31 am:

    i have encountered personalities that approached this, but dodi is the first certified cliche factory i've encountered. 99.99999999999999999% guraranteed unoriginal content.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:34 am:

    Just cause you all like that sort of insult, doesn't mean others do.

    Yes, I've heard of that expression before dave, but the "i fuck your mom" was pushing it, especially to someone who doesn't understand the so called humour that's displayed here.

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:35 am:

    and what the hell is up with this "oh they did this to me too vet, they're soooo mean!!! :(" crap?
    Are you the moral police? Warning the new posters about how we conduct our political discourse?

    We asked you to leave or shut up, and you didn't.
    This is your choice but you have no licence to bitch about us, NEWBIE.

    Take it or leave.
    There are millions of other boards where no one ever insults anyone and they give out free hugs.
    What fun.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:36 am:

    Doesn't bother me a bit, say more jack.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:36 am:

    dave.'s like the nicest guy here. he sends me prizes.
    nate sent me a prize once too.

    vet should be honored and dodi should be
    begging dave. to fuck her mom.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:39 am:

    i would also like to mention that when i was new,
    and before anyone knew who I was no one was mean
    to me. and I wasn't agreeing with everyone either.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:39 am:

    No thanks, my dad already satisfies my mom, but thanks for the offer. I'll let her know though. :)

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:40 am:

    Who gives a flying fuck!!

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:41 am:

    "Doesn't bother me a bit,"

    you seem to be under the illusion that i am interested in bothering you. you are mistaken once again. or, as you usally prefer to put it, you "don't understand."

    "say more jack."
    sorry, attention whore, you mistake my comments for interest. you'll have to beg someone else for the attention you crave just now.

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:43 am:

    "Just cause you all like that sort of insult, doesn't mean others do. "

    Tone it down, fellows!!

    "we all" have been here since 1996.
    "we all" keep coming back because we like it.
    "we all" don't get offended by petty shit like that.

    why are you here, again?
    if you don't think we're funny, simply hit
    ALT and F4

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:45 am:

    I'm beginning to like the word "whore" and I find it very funny that you all say that all the time.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:47 am:

    "I" keep coming back because I find it amusing, so I must stay.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:48 am:

    come to think of it, rowlfe wasn't given the
    "treatment"either. now, it could be that we were
    warned. but I wasn't, considering I started coming
    here before sem even knew.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:49 am:

    I'm very happy for you.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:58 am:

    None of the vets I know, and granted they are all
    masshole democrats, are voting for bush.

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:30 am:

    Rowlfe tried to sneak in first without me noticing but i totally called him on it when i recognized his writing style. (that and an IP search).

    Forward several months and he started coming here solely to argue with Trace. It was like his hobby.
    If that wasn't the "treatment" I don't know what is.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:30 am:

    namecalling on the internet is absurd but even more absurd is being offended by namecalling on the internet. therein lies the fun. appreciate the absurdity.

    i have really strong feelings about some of the topics here but i can pretty much tell when the argument ceases to be productive. vet just wants to drop on us the tired, old, veterans-against-kerry arguments but virtually nobody here will buy it just like vet won't buy the bush-ang-awol stuff.

    now, dodi, if you want to engage vet on the issues he raises, feel free; but i'm not going to put any more effort into it than i already have. from now on, i'll either ignore vet or i'll toss out a dismissive insult, fully embracing the absurdity of doing so on a message board on the internet.

    note that i don't bother going over to the free republic to bait those assmonkeys with anti-bush remarks. note also that i don't think strangle is in any way a response to the freepers. note especially that i have just run out of steam so i'm gonna stop right. . . here.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:47 am:

    oh, and regarding kazu and rowlfe -- it was so completely obvious that both of you were self-aware, critical thinkers as well as interesting and entertaining communicators, that i don't think either of you raised any hackles. except maybe trace's.

    to be honest, compared to both of you, i suck and often wonder why i haven't been run off long ago.

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:51 am:

    because you don't suck

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:19 am:

    come on, man. i've said some of the stupidest stuff ever over the past 6 years.

    really, really stupid and pitiful stuff, man.

    sucky stuff.


By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:53 am:

    Goodmorning everyone!

    Did I miss anything?

    Nope, sure didn't.

    Have a great day ya'll!

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:59 am:

    thanks guys

    dave. doesn't suck

By Gee on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:08 am:

    dave. rocks!

    rox even!

By semillama on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:21 am:

    My active duty friend is not voting for Bush, and he's not alone either.

    You know what, I don't think anybody here actually ever gave Bush any shit for joining the National Guard to avoid the draft. Shit, that was probably the intellectual highlight of his life. I give him props for pulling it off. Too bad brothers from the ghetto didn't have his connections.

    But it's weird. There's obviously tons of folks who remember serving with Kerry (or claim to), yet if the folks who fund Swiftvets can find all these men who claim to have served with Kerry, why can't they find folks who claim to have served with Bush? I mean, seriously. I ask that because it's an interesting question and puts the debate in a perspective over how likely it is for someone to remember someone else.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:19 pm:


By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:31 pm:

    I knew you were gay. I hope you enjoyed it my love.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:37 pm:

    I bet no one is fucking you, poor thing.:(

By Vet on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:21 pm:

    "i fuck your mom."
    Dave I didn't know you are into fat chicks.

    Nate is gay?
    Note to self Dave likes fat chicks, and Nate likes guys, don't turn your back to Nate.

    "A personal attack? I don't think it's that personal. You seem to have no problem attacking Kerry like that."

    I am not attacking Kerry as a person but rather his record which he brought up and when someone brings up a subject then I should be able to disqualify it.

    "And about Kerry's discharge, you have no proof whatsoever to back up your claim. Neither does FreeRepublic, or any other conservative media outlet, and if anyone would it'd be them."

    If there is nothing to hide then why is refusing to show the original DD214. There is an attempt going on right now to have the original released using the freedom of information act.

    I never said "you libruls hate Amurica" I am just able to see that you hate America. So why don't you go back to whatever raghead country you came from and live with your little "pussy" Terrorist buddies.

By Vet on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:24 pm:

    I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:26 pm:

    Vet, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, okay?

    Just keep posting.....

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:34 pm:

    is that all you got, vet?

    good greif.

By semillama on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:35 pm:

    well, he just proved he was a racist, Dodi, although I guess you didn't notice that...

    He also proved he's an idiot with that played-out "You hate america" comment.

    I was giving him the benefit of the doubt until that, because I'm a nice guy.

    If there's one thing we do not tolerate here, it's racists. So get lost, Vet. And Dodi, if you don't have a problem with Vet after that racist remark, then you should probably get lost, too.

By kazuabdullahmed on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    See? See? That is the fucking problem, every time you
    idiot conservatives are confronted with an even the
    tiniest criticism of our administration you fall on the
    pathetic accusation that we hate america. And why is it,
    that when you and your ilkcriticize the democrats, it isn't
    considered hating the country? Since when did only one
    set of opinions come to represent the whole country?
    Isn't that antithetical to the very concept of a representative
    democracy? You racist piece of shit. Many of those so-called
    raghead countries epitomize exactly the kind of theocratic
    dictatorship you are supporting with a vote for Bush.

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

    Oh, so you're not attacking Kerry personally when you say he shot himself in combat, but I am attacking you personally when I say you didn't serve honerably?

    And, hey, I'm all for finding stuff using FOIA. Go for it, d00d.


    Vet, I'd like you to respond to this.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:45 pm:

    I'm not going to let that bother me, cause I know who I am and what I stand for. I'm not going to hate someone, just cause they state their opinions or feelings, sorry.

    You all state your stuff and it seems to be okay, but when someone else does it, it's not.

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 03:20 pm:

    "You all state your stuff and it seems to be okay, but when someone else does it, it's not."

    hey, what did sem just say?
    we give each other and everyone else shit, but resorting to racial slurs is a different level all together.

    If you can't tell the difference between dave saying "i fuck your mom" and Vet calling us all "pussy ragheads", you've got issues. Not us.

    Vet, why did you feel you had to do that?
    I hope it was meant to be ironic.... or something.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 03:38 pm:

    I know the difference, but I'm still not going to hate someone for it! I don't have the issues my friend, you all do.
    You all talk about the war and how bad it is, but what about the war that goes on here, in our every day lives. If we could all get along, maybe this world, would be a kinder place to live in, but it takes a few like you, to make it shit.
    I'm sorry, I don't live my life like that and I accept everyone for who they are, even if their beliefs are different than mine. I don't judge!

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:00 pm:

    Explain to me how the world would be a kinder place
    if we tolerate racist and ignorance? I know I can't
    change everyone's perspective, but I do not have to
    accept people who hold opinions that perpetuate
    hatred and utlimately leads to violence. Is that what you
    consider a kinder, gentler world? Getting along includes
    challenging each other and accepting challenges to our
    world view to become better, more knowledgable people.
    If you feel like *we* are resistant to that, maybe it's because
    you've said NOTHING that contributes to these kinds of

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:03 pm:

    "If we could all get along, maybe this world, would be a kinder place to live in, "

    yes. this is why people on this board have repeatedly tried to clue you in on how to better get along with people. of course, you enjoy the thrills of conflict and crave the attention, so you ignore their suggestions that you behave less like a retarded 7-year-old, which is what your endless repetitions of "ya know what you don't bother me" "am i bothering you?" sound like.

    carry on, attention whore.

By semillama on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:06 pm:

    Bullshit. You just finished judging all of us. Could you possibly be a bigger hypocrite?

    Is that the speech you give your black neighbors who wake up with a burning cross on their lawn?

By patrick on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:09 pm:

    we're not asking you to hate dodi, what the fuck are you talking about.

    just get a fucking clue.

    where are these shortbus drifters coming from and would someone please summon a return shuttle?

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:11 pm:

    i can spell grief.

    dodi, the harder you try, the faster you sink. now, lie and tell me you don't care.

By Platypus on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:14 pm:

    Speaking of prizes...Kazu, I have one to send you, but nowhere to send it. So email me.

    And for the record, I don't remember anybody being mean to me when I first started, other than Lucy, and I said some pretty stupid shit too. Perhaps it's because I'm not racist. Who knows. As went Lucy, so shall pass Dodo. (Although, hamdu allah, maybe operation jizzmop will speed things along.)

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:18 pm:

    Dodi: "I don't judge!"

    Kinda like when you didn't judge me when I tried to warn you that your computer had no security measures? Remember that? I was trying to help you out, trying to be nice, and you freaked out and insinuated that I was going to hack into your machine. That sounds like fearfully rushing to judgement, doesn't it?

    Sure, you don't judge. Just keep telling yourself that...

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:18 pm:

    I sent you an e-mail, platy.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:26 pm:

    platy, we might have been all focused on lucy, you ass.

    doody, i'm not gay; i'm an opportunist.

    kazu, vet is not a conservative. he's afraid. of terror. conservatives are many things, but they aren't pussies who would be willing to trade liberty for security.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:32 pm:

    Sorry, I won't buy into any of that.

    If you all don't like me so much, then quit responding. I could really care less about what you say, but it's quite amusing how I do get your attention, whether you want to admit it or not.



By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:35 pm:

    I do hope, that you're all having a wonderful Monday, cause I am.

    Oh, how I love the fall season, leaves turning colors and the nice cool crisp air...just love it!!

    Go outside and play kids!

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:36 pm:

    "Sorry, I won't buy into any of that."

    yes, it's clear that you don't have the intellect to respond to adult conversations.

    "If you all don't like me so much, then quit responding. I could really care less about what you say, but it's quite amusing how I do get your attention, whether you want to admit it or not.



    the statement of purpose of an attention whore, nicely summarized.

By wisper on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 04:51 pm:

    fuck you Dodi. You know shit all about the people here. How do you claim to know what we're like outside of our discussions on sorabji?
    If i want to be a cynical bitch on the internet, that is not destroying the world.
    This is what is known as "venting".
    Unless you take internet message boards WAAAY to seriously, which, (by the way) YOU DO.

    I don't log off the computer and go light kittens on fire.

    If you think us being bastards to morons on a message board has anything to do with our real lives, or life in general, you're insane.

    "You all talk about the war and how bad it is, but what about the war that goes on here, in our every day lives."

    I can't believe you're comparing us being jerks on a MESSAGE BOARD to the goddamn war.
    Hey! Go to a veteran's hospital and say that!
    They love that shit!

    The fact is, we are nice people Dodi.
    Until you're a racist, or an idiot.

    "If we could all get along, maybe this world, would be a kinder place to live in,"

    You truly are a child.
    What we're talking about here -global politics- go far beyond such ideas. Yeah, that will probably make your town a better place, but that's not the answer for such issues. This is why we must have such heated debates.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:11 pm:

    Why do they call you "wisper"...cause no one wants to hear you!!!

By jack on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:14 pm:

    predictable, unimaginative, retarded 7-year-old retort. as usual.
    she named herself, dumbass.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:16 pm:

    Ya know, I just don't take things so seriously.

    I don't care what you call me, it really doesn't bother me, but I can tell, it bothers you all so much.

    Take a breathe and relax ya'll...really.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:20 pm:

    attention, attention, attention, I'm getting so much of it, I just don't know what to do. :)

    Lots of smiles and ya know what, I'm giving you all free, yes free hugs.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:21 pm:

    It's your lucky day.

By Sye on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:29 pm:

    I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

    Sound familiar?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:36 pm:

    such fond memories.

By Gee on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:38 pm:


    the insinuation that sex with "fat chicks" is offensive?

    Fuck You, again.

    Fuck you so hard up the ass you lose all ability to stop the outpouring of shit running down your legs. at least then you'll have it coming out of both ends.

    "man hating dike" + "fat chicks" + "pussy ragheads" = HATE.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:40 pm:

    I think someone needs a nap.

    It's so funny, you all start this shit, but can't take the heat....LOL!

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:43 pm:

    Hey dave, my sister might fuck you, she's really, really fat, but pretty.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:49 pm:

    Oh, by the way dave, I'm not sinking, just floating real nice....coasting actually.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

    that's the spirit!

By semillama on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:53 pm:

    We don't start fires, lady. we put them out.

    So, you are remarkable silent on your apparant defense of racist actions. interesting. says a lot.

    In fact, we can take a lot of heat. We dish it out better than folks like you imagine you are capable of. We don't have to resort to passive-aggresive empty rhetoric or claim the other side must "hate america" when we can't defend our arguments.

    Folks here are able to back up what they say with good solid arguments, or they just don't start arguments. If you can't do that, then you should get used to getting your ass handed to you on a regular basis. Kind of like what just happened.

    Oh, I suppose another way to handle getting your ass handed to you on a public BBS is to live in a constant state of denial that anything is wrong and it's all happyland with cookies and milk for everyone.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

    sem, you bastard. now i'm craving cookies and milk.

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 05:58 pm:


By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:04 pm:

    Update: Jizzmop v0.1 is operational. I am, as I type, jizzmopping Dodi into oblivion. I don't know how to automatically install updates into Mozilla, but if you want the script you can e-mail me. You also have to install a mozilla extension you can find here. (Or just install directly here.)

By Sye on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:05 pm:

    Is it just me, or does anybody else want to make machine gun noises with their mouth like my child does?

    Just wondering

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:10 pm:

    And Jizzmop now mops up V as well. :)

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:11 pm:

    look everyone! it's the wonder twins!

    wonder twin powers ACTIVATE!!

    size of. . . a baboon!

    form of. . . a puddle!

    dun dun! dun dun dun da-dun!

    tra-la-la! sam and jayna to the rescue!

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:13 pm:

    wow,hi Sorabjis........just post to me for a big surprise.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:16 pm:

    nate is right of course, about folks like vet who have a
    adopted a kind of pseudo-conservativism that really
    has nothing to do with any respectible conservative
    or republican ideology.

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:17 pm:


By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:24 pm:

    kazu,you have a small and conservative mind,if you want to get any where in life,make it bigger.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:25 pm:

    I knew this would happen

    i just knew it!

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:32 pm:

    Dave,take your jizzmop,and shove it right up your ass.

By kazu on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:32 pm:

    oh i get it!

    V lives in the bizzaro-world

    of course.


By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:32 pm:

    Hi V! I missed your postings the last couple of days.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:34 pm:

    It's okay V, I still like you.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:36 pm:

    GO BUSH!!!!!!

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:38 pm:

    KAZU, your just a face on a stick.You dont exist.

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:39 pm:

    Ya'll hold off on installing that extension above until you get the Jizzmop script from me. It tosses up an annoying error message if you install it before installing Jizzmop.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:41 pm:

    you can put an empty userScript.js file in that directory is specifies.

    this is quite nice, tiggy. like noise-cancelling headphones or something.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:41 pm:'s it going? Where ya been?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:46 pm:

    V, my sister just got back from England and just loved it. Her boyfriend took her around to other places, but we've yet to get pictures from her. The postcard from Westminster Abbey-London is beautiful.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:47 pm:

    i see your lips moving, but i can't hear a word you're saying!

    ha! doody you cunt! what you going to do now?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:49 pm:

    Who cares my love, but I'm still here!!!

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:50 pm:


By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:53 pm:

    I'm just glad that I got them all fired up, makes me feel special in away.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:59 pm:

    GO BUSH!!! GO BUSH!!! GO BUSH!!!

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:00 pm:

    uh, could you repeat that? i couldn't quite read you?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:03 pm:


By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:05 pm:


By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:09 pm:

    I kind of gathered he was gay, but I wasn't quite sure.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:09 pm:

    oh don't cry, you silly little cunts. i like you so much better this way.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:11 pm:

    I love that word "cunt"...gets me so excited for some reason. OOOOH-LA-LA!!!!

    If you can't see our postings, then why are you responding, you silly?

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:13 pm:

    V. I must go for a bit, I have my training session, so hold the forte, my friend.

By Antigone on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:13 pm:

    What do you think of this, Nate? How about I change the script so that it anonymously e-mails their posts back to them every time they're jizzmopped? :)

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:16 pm:

    that would be some kind of funny.

    this is great. instant blackball.

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:17 pm:

    DODI,dont take too much notice of Nate,he kinda dresses as a Woman most of the time. :):):):):):):):):)

By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:23 pm:


By patrick on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:23 pm:

    hahahahahahahhaaha brillant tiggy brilliant!

By Rowlfe on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:34 pm:

    I'm too tired to say anything other than

    FUCK YOU ASS MUNCH. What the fuck is up with you 'Vet', calling yourself 'Vet'. Is this all there is that makes you who you are?

    anyways, noone knew who wisper and I were a couple for a while when I came, though I gave Nate an easy clue. he knew. And I think aside from trace who doesnt count since I was pissing all over him, Nate was the only one who pressed me at all to start off, and thats fine.

    I think since there were so many tense issues and goings-on at the time you were all too busy to bother razzing the newbie anyways. or a few of you were all too glad to have another person here to rag on trace. whatever.

    I'm so fucking tired, and I have "Morning Train (9 to 5)" in my head. that song truly is the "showgirls" of songs.

By patrick on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 08:43 pm:

    By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:11 pm: This post has been jizzmopped!

    By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:13 pm: This post has been jizzmopped!

    By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:17 pm: This post has been jizzmopped!

    By V on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 07:23 pm: This post has been jizzmopped!

    hahahahaha you stupid cunts.

    fuckin A.

By dave. on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 09:01 pm:

    i gotta get me that.

    has anyone seen this?

    the new eminem video. i'm downloading it right now.

    sounds interesting. it looks like he's finally using his powers for good.

By agatha on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:34 pm:

    1. I'm not fat.
    2. I would like the program from lovely Tiggy, please.
    3. Can we PLEASE make a united effort to ignore these three? Please?

    Thank you.

By Nate on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:55 pm:


    that video was great. my short list of heros of the time; jon stewart and eminem.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:18 pm:

    I'm back and I just love you all.

By Dodi on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:24 pm:

    Have a good nite all and I will be seeing you in the morn.....

By Platypus on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:29 am:

    Agatha and Gee, will you marry me please?
    take note of who to write in on 2 November.

By Vet on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:30 am:

    The comment that I made was intended to show you what you look like by attacking me personally while I tried to show some level of respect. Now you can't seem to be able take what is dished out.

    "you idiot conservatives are confronted with an even the tiniest criticism of our administration you fall on the pathetic accusation that we hate america."

    Let me clarify my statement. It was pointed at only antigone. It seems that this "person" is very hateful yet you seem to be overlooking that.

    "By semillama on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:21 am:
    You know what, I don't think anybody here actually ever gave Bush any shit for joining the National Guard to avoid the draft.

    By RC on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:55 pm:

    I still believe that any US soldier would rather have a man with military experience like Kerry as their Commander-in-Chief than a draft-dodger like Shrub.

    Military experience is military experience. There are alot of people who spend many years in the military and few or all of them are not on the front line

    But it's weird. There's obviously tons of folks who remember serving with Kerry (or claim to) why can't they find folks who claim to have served with Bush?
    Is a Colonel good enough?
    RC on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:55 pm:

    What the fuck is up with you 'Vet', calling yourself 'Vet'. Is this all there is that makes you who you are?

    Are you going to tell me that the names that I see on this site are given names not chosen ones?

    I am not going to give anyone my real name.

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:43 am:

    Pay attention, Vet. We wanted someone who claimed to serve with Bush in Alabama. Try again...

    And I can take it just fine, babycakes.

    And why do you call me hateful? Because I said you did not serve with honor? Doesn't that make you hateful too? YOu say the same about Kerry, right? You Kerry haters! All you do is hate, hate, hate. You hate so much you can't see straight. You hate 'till you deny fate!

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:47 am:

    And it'd be real nifty if you could comment on the 760,000 pounds of high explosives Bush decided to not clean up in Iraq.

    Or are you toooooooooo puuuuuuuuuuuuusssssyyyyyyyyyyy?

By kazu on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:57 am:

    "There's obviously tons of folks who remember
    serving with Kerry"

    I read this too quickly and saw, "There's obviously
    tons of folks who remember servicing Kerry"

    carry on...

By Dodi on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:31 am:

    I like you vet! You sound like a nice guy and don't let anyone here, change that for you.

    Their just big assholes and they have nothing better to do, then to make (at least try) other's feel bad. Trust me, it's just a game for them, so keep being who you are...a good person, who served in the military. Hmmmmm, I wonder if any of these folks on this board ever served in the military. I bet they would shit their pants and cry for mommy everyminute of the day. Oh well, I believe you!

By patrick on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 01:32 pm:

    By Dodi on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:31 am: This post has been jizzmopped!

    hahahahahaha you stupid cunts.

By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 01:52 pm:

    Q.whats the difference between a Sorabji and a cockroach? A.nothing...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By dave. on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:03 pm:

    By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 01:52 pm: VORP!


By Vet on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:14 pm:

    You wanted me to comment on this. Ok.

    "The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land"
    Our troops were called to other locations.

    "It is unclear whether President Bush was informed."
    How could he ignore what he did not know about?

    "Administration officials said Sunday that the Iraq Survey Group, the C.I.A. task force that searched for unconventional weapons, has been ordered to investigate the disappearance of the explosives."
    He knows about it now, he is having something done about it.

    "The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon"
    All the democrats are saying that there were no WMDs well this is proof that the intentions were there.

    "The other components of an atom bomb - the design and the radioactive fuel - are more difficult to obtain."
    But not impossible.

    "beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country."
    There is always a necessity to put priority on different items.

    "A Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Sunday evening that Saddam Hussein's government "stored weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals and countless other locations," and that the allied forces "have discovered and destroyed perhaps thousands of tons of ordnance of all types."
    Read it again "and that the allied forces "have discovered and destroyed perhaps thousands of tons"

    "the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings."
    after that was said we read this
    "A senior military official noted that HMX and RDX were "available around the world" and not on the nuclear nonproliferation list"
    that means these bunkers would be put lower on the priority list.

    "One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives were stored was listed as a "medium priority" site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites"
    Cia says medium priority. Remember this is one of over 500 sites.

    In the chaos that followed the invasion, however, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.
    Those of us who have been trained by the military have been trained to work in chaos. Also we are told to report and continue mission

    "Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said."
    No wonder france did not want us to go in there.

    "The Qaqaa stockpile went unmonitored from late 1998, when United Nations inspectors left Iraq, to late 2002, when they came back. Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. "
    some of it was already missing before the inspectors returned.

    "American forces "went through the bunkers, but saw no materials bearing the I.A.E.A. seal." It is unclear whether troops ever returned."
    I felt this needed to be seen again.

    "I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting."
    Sounds self explanatory.

    "Administration officials say Iraq was awash in munitions, including other stockpiles of exotic explosives."
    Remember over 500 sites.

    "Experts said the insensitivity made them safer to transport than the millions of unexploded shells, mines and pieces of live ammunition that litter Iraq. And its benign appearance makes it easy to disguise as harmless goods, easily slipped across borders."
    So anyone could safely move it.

By Vet on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:19 pm:

    A good president does not micromanage like what happened in vietnem. He/She lets the generals make the military decisions regardless of the level or type of military experience the president has.

By semillama on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:26 pm:

    Does that include vice-president and SecDef?

By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:30 pm:

    Vet,nice postings,and well thought out.

By semillama on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:34 pm:

By patrick on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:43 pm:

    "It is unclear whether President Bush was informed."
    How could he ignore what he did not know about?

    Buck stops where bitch? Fine. Fire Rumsfeld too.

    "He knows about it now, he is having something done about it. "

    well hot damn, i feel better now.

    "Cia says medium priority. Remember this is one of over 500 sites."

    This is useless because we have learned that the CIA didnt know its ass from a bomb crater so so the fuck what.

    "All the democrats are saying that there were no WMDs well this is proof that the intentions were there. "

    proof of intentions????? intentions of what dumbass???? That Iraq had conventional explosives???? we KNEW that!

    "Weapon inspectors determined that Iraq had bought the explosives from France, China and Yugoslavia, a European diplomat said."
    No wonder france did not want us to go in there.

    Um, you want to spell out that logic again? Because france had ALREADY sold Iraq some bombs, was sufficient reason for us not to to war???

    Um, the US sold its fair share of weapons to Iraq too in previous decades homeboy.

    "Upon their return, the inspectors discovered that about 35 tons of HMX were missing. "
    some of it was already missing before the inspectors returned.

    Uhhh. yes, thats what that sentence means. very good.

    Saying Vietnam was 'micromanaged' is a fairly retarded sentiment because there were at least 4 different presidential administrations overseeing the Vietnam conflict. To lump them all up and say Vietnam was micromanaged is just a silly and totally irreverent to history. From the build-up wth Eisenhower and Kennedy, to the actual bulk of the war under Johnson and Nixon to the pullout under Ford.

    did someone reboot the spunktard version 1.0?

By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:45 pm: thanks,you tend to be boreing.

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:45 pm:

    Yeah, Vet, you're right, 500 sites.

    That means this is only the tip of the iceberg.

    We were supposed to get the WMD out of the hands of the terrorists. Instead it looks like we gave the terrorists 760,000 bombs, each capable of blowing up an airplane, a corner cafe, a school bus, or an entrance to a federal building. And, like you say, there were 500 other sites just like it.

    Oh, another thing: the Bush administration knew about this a year ago and decided to not tell us about it. How many other fuckups like this have happened? We just don't know.

By patrick on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:52 pm:

    BEST Get Your War On ever!!!!

    Especially the last frame.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:05 pm:

    two things: conventional explosives are easy to manufacture. hell, we made shit in highschool chem that would have us locked up for life in cuban terror prisions these days.

    second, this is an old story? april 2003? the eplosives were missing when we got to the site in the first place?

By semillama on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:11 pm:

    I changed my jizzmop:

    By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 02:45 pm: buzz! buzz! buzz!

    thought that was highly appropriate. Sort of like using it to translate what certain people are typing into what they actually are saying.

    Antigone's point on the seriousness of this matter is the best so far. Medium priority? tell that to the folks who are probably currently being killed by the missing explosives.

By Dodi on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:15 pm:

    V, I don't think they know what their talking about.....blowing wind out their asses.

    I personally think, that Bush is going to win the election, but you wouldn't know anything about this whole thing, thank God. I hate this whole campaining thing and they pretty much lie, just to get your votes. I do like Bush better, so that's my vote.

    By the way, how are you today? I just got back from the dentist and had a cavity filled...OUCH! Then I went to StarBucks and got me a nice mocha. I hope you have a wonderful day V and go out and enjoy yourself.:)

By dave. on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:33 pm:

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:45 pm:

    Check out this metaphor for the last few years:

    Say you're a farmer, doing your farmer business, and you get stung by some killer bees. You got stung, real bad, stung in eyeball bad. It was nasty and you were pissed. So you rounded up some friends, found the hive near a tree stump (a pesky little thing you've known about for a while) and dropped a big rock on it. Cleared it out pretty good, but the queen bee got away.

    So you're still pissed, and there's this other bigger hive out there. Some bees from that hive stung your daddy years ago, but he didn't do much about it. He just fenced off the property around it. So you figure it's time to take care of it too.

    So, what do you do? Do you get a beekeeper's outfit to protect yourself? Do you try to smoke and poison the bees out? No! You walk over to it and hit it with a baseball bat! Now the bees are flying everywhere. You know they're about to sting the shit out of you, because you didn't bother to wear a beekeeper suit, but now it's too late.

    You can't run home. The bees will just follow you there and attack your family. You can't run to your friends. "Let the stupid doofus get stung," they'll say as their doors shut. You're out of options, all because you didn't bother to handle the situation in the slow, but best way possible.

    You really thought you could hit the hive and collect all the bees. How fucked up is that?

By kazu on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:50 pm:

    that's great. did you write that?

    don't forget about the honey. all that
    sweet sweet honey you can have when
    you take care of all the bees.

By semillama on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:53 pm:

    good analogy.

    How fucked up is this?

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 03:57 pm:

    Yeah, it just kind of poured out of me in the last 20 minutes. I must be channeling. :P

By patrick on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 04:30 pm:


By Platypus on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 06:16 pm:

    Sem--that's pretty hectic. It seems like every time I check Google news there's a new story from somewhere in the country about voter intimidation. The system is breaking down. And the bees are mad? People in this country are fucking crazy man.

    And what's the deal with the early voting thing? Does anyone live in a state where they are doing it who could perhaps explain it to me?

By kazu on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 06:23 pm:

    i might vote tomorrow. I just go to my county's
    election commision office and cast a ballot.

By Antigone on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 06:31 pm:

    I already voted here in Texas. It's just like regular voting, only...earlier.

    But you know what they say about voting: "Vote early, and often!"

By Dodi on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 07:25 pm:

    Bush is going to win, so vote again.

By V on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 09:21 pm:

    ...and take bets.

By Dodi on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 10:10 pm:

    Man, this whole campaining this is boring, snore and snore some more.

    We all know they lie to get our votes, then they piss on everyone, when their in office. I don't trust either of them, but if I had to choose, it would be Bush. He's better looking, so why not vote for him...LOL!

By Dodi on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:59 pm:

    GO BUSH!!!

By RC on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 10:06 pm:

    Florida's doing it. As of 2 weeks before Election Day, anyone can go down to the actual Board of Elections office any weekday & cast their ballot, thru Nov. 1st. My mom did it just before she left Sarasota to move to Baltimore.

    Personally, I think it rocks! Being able to vote in advance of the election avoids long lines on Election Day, which is the biggest turn-off to new & younger voters. And if there are any problems with eligibility issues or voting machine performance, there's time to correct them &/or let folks vote again if necessary.

    Early voting should be federally-mandated for every state -- period.

    But dig this -- I just learned today from the radio that Absentee Ballots in Maryland Don't Even Get Counted Until AFTER The Election!! -- & only if it's a close contest! WTF IZZAT ABOUT? Not having your vote counted is as much of a violation as not being allowed to vote at all! How is that legal?

    - RC

By V on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 11:11 pm:

    Dodi,in England most people think Bush has more firepower,I think he will win,all most tempted to put 5000$ on the out come.Christ,if Bush can talk Blair into putting loads of our best troops in to Iraq (The Black Watch)then he can do just anything he wants,The Black Watch are not far short of the s.a.s. is an Army elite,my own Father was in it.

By Dodi on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 01:25 am:

    I think he's going to win, no doubts.

    My father served in the military, but he was in France during the Korean war. My parents got married, he joined the military and they both went to France. I love listening to my dad's stories, cause their so interesting, plus, I'm proud of my pops. Did your dad ever tell you stories about his time in the service (war)? My dad continues to have reunions with the men that he served with and it can be quite emotional. Quite a few of them have passed on, so it's hard to deal with. Man, why do we have to get old?:(

By V on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:49 pm:

    ...DODI!OLD!...NOT EVER...You are so good looking,have you not been on t.v.? advertisments,as I did years back,large bucks are to be made,I did,and so can you.

By V on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 12:20 am:

    DODI,I think you asked me if I was in the British Army,or words to that effect, I was for a while,it was boreing,and full of bullshit,all I learned was how to shoot a man at 600 meters,my Father told me it was great,it was not,and I dont advise it to anyone.DODI,if you do it for real,in a REAL field situation,you get shot to bits in 5 mins flat,and I WAS A PATROL LEADER...damn good job they were blanks.

By V on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 12:38 am:

    Dodi,you are so lucky your Father is still alive,mine died at 58,when his heart split in half.lifes a bitch,da?...but death is far worse.rock till you drop.lots of love,as allways.

By V on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 12:49 am:

    Dodi,yes,as it happens,my Father was a w.w.2 hero,he took out a German pillbox with one grenade,the down side was crawling through half a mile of mud,blood,and human guts to get to it.

By V on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 01:32 am:

    ...he could have had back up from his 5 or 6 bros in the trench,but most of them had shit there pants in fear of haveing there heads blown off by machine gun fire 12 inches above there heads...indeed,my Father was a hero,allmost got a medal,but 2 days later,the commanding officer,and medals were blown apart by a morter...that was my Father,an amazing guy,to him,I am less than nothing,in my own eyes.I have money,yet I have nothing,strange,to think my my forefarthers fought Napolion on the Russian front.

By V on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 01:46 am:

    ...SO,I think from my amazing back ground,I do not have problems with Sorabjis.

By Dodi on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 03:20 am:

    Sorry to hear about your dad. He was very young when he passed away and I'm sure it was difficult to deal with. My father was supposed to die when he was 36 years old, but he survived to tell his story. He has had 2 other heart surgeries since then and for some reason, God keeps him around. I think God know's, that I need him. :) I'm sure your very proud of your father, as I am of mine. Never let go of the memories, okay?

By Dodi on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 03:22 am:

    YOU, have problems with the sorabjis?????

    I don't think so.:):):)

By Dodi on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 03:25 am:

    You mentioned how you have money, but you have nothing, why is that?

    Life is too short my friend, so enjoy what you have NOW!!!

By V on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:32 am:

    Dodi,true what I say,money,yet no if I were to look at you,fact is,you have it all,sorry,I find it very hard to say what I mean.,yet perhaps you can I explain better,if a man has no wife,no kids,he is nothing,if a man wishes to become rich,then he has to sacrifice other things.It is the way of the world.

By RC on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 05:48 am:


    If you've got your health & an good mind, you can find the rest. And not having to worry about covering the rent only makes it easier.

    And this is America, Baby! For a rich man, finding a wife is as easy as AIDS finding a crack whore.

    - RC

By V on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 11:04 am:

    ...point taken,but it is easy to find "a" person,but to find the ideal person ... not a simple task.

By Dodi on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 02:51 pm:

    I agree with you V. When a woman finds out that you have tons of money, that's all she's interested in, not in you. It's a sad fact, but that's the way it is. I know men are the same way. To find someone, who is totally interested in you, FOR YOU, is tough. Does that make sense to you V? I don't think there's too many people out there, that are truly interested in the other person. It seems like everyone is in it for themselves.
    Just because I have a husband and a child, doesn't mean, I have it all. Does it make a person happy, not always.

By V on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 11:45 pm:

    Dodi,to me,you seem to have a perfect life,to me,you are very well adjusted, as such,all people should regard you as an icon and mentor,I do,...if it helps,tell me why your life is not perfect,or not,but for me,it is allways an honer to post to such a very fine person,...I just dont understand why people dont give you more respect.I expect they must be insane.

By V on Monday, November 1, 2004 - 12:20 am:

    p.s. I like your last posting a lot,you have a very good understanding of my personality,few people have that gift.In real life,I am a very private person,but to you,I can open up,(I hope).The cool thing about Sorabji,is we become "non people" postmen,milkmen,waiters, can speak in front of them,and yet recieve no (I dont know how to word this)feedback,fallout,backchat,moral codes,...sometimes I run out of English words.,but I expect you

By Dodi on Monday, November 1, 2004 - 01:41 pm:

    I guess that's why we're here V.

    It's nice to come to a place and post your feelings, without fear or worry. Of course, there's always a fear of putting yourself out there, but no one here really know's anyone, really.

    Post how you really feel and don't worry about it.

By V on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 10:59 pm:

    ...indeed,why not? from you,I get lots of ideas for life,from others,only the idea of useing purple contact lenses. :)...allmost forgot, JIZZMOPS,good for cleaning floors,no good for anything else,and thats a fact. :)...and Sem offers me the machine code? no thanks,I have a floor mop allready. :)

By Dodi on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 01:42 am:

    I agree V. I think they just don't want to deal with anything, almost like running away, ya know what I mean? It's funny, they can dish out the rude comments, but when someone else does it to them, they wet their pants and run. It reminds me of elementary school stuff and it just makes me laugh a bit. Infact, they should take the so called "Jizzmop" and wipe up their own pee-pee......

By wisper on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 02:18 am:

    Hey american ladies, better get those abortions while you still can......!

    ah, democracy. What the fucking shit.

    Welcome to the 1950s, y'all.

By Dodi on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 02:24 am:


By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:09 am:

    because Bush stole the election of 2000 in the eyes of most of the world, there was always a great deal of sympathy for the american people, for dealing with a leader they did not actually choose.

    now that theres been 4 years of all this and it looks like he's won 'legit' (if there is such a thing), things are much different overnight. its the same dumbass president but its a whole new world as far as how the rest of the world views America.
    The people have legitimized every corrupt act of the last four years, and given a blank check for four more to a president who now doesnt have to worry about being reelected, who has the house and the senate and perhaps an open supreme court seat and can do whatever it wants. Even with a slim lead Bush will consider this a mandate, and if you thought he was unaccountable now, well he must feel unstoppable right now.

    the sympathy for the American people? the 'we dont hate Americans, we hate the government?" thing? consider it gone. Now the Americans will be considered to deserve their terrible leadership, and every new job lost? every soldier dead? its tough titties now, folks. you make your bed, and if you thought the world wasn't willing to help out now, well check things out now. The world will blame the people themselves now for the rest of us having to put up with 4 more years of Bush, not blame Bush and his cronies themselves.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:20 am:

    other shitty things this election means:

    Americans have rejected fiscal conservatism and smaller government. They just don't care.

    American voters have made it clear they reject gay marriage, and this issue alone could have been what drove Republicans to the polls and helped tip it for Bush. Social conservatism dominates the country even as the entertainment media which helps define America to so many shows otherwise.

    And again, now all the feelings foreigners have about President Bush, are now certainly spread to the American people as a whole. You will probably never see yourself more hated in the world than you are right now.

    Its time to seriously consider Jesse Ventura '08

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:46 am:

    I just read that only 17% of the 18-24 set voted. They didnt come out.. All that ballyhooed extra turnout really was the Christians I guess.

    the kids have no interest in the possibility of a draft I guess. Or mayhaps they all went to the Tuesday cheap price showing of "The Grudge" or some dumb piece of shit instead of voting. In that case, mayhaps they SHOULD get drafted. Mayhaps.

By heather on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:58 am:

    i blame jesus

    not the real one. the fake one.


By semillama on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 09:59 am:

    what we cannot do is stop fighting. Maybe this is what will finally give the goddamn democrats a spine. stop working with this evil megalomaniac you call "president". Work hard to support left wing political action groups, such as Sierra Club and DFA.

    Work extra hard to get rid of black box voting.

    or, we could all just move to canada and let america slide into an irreversible decline.

    I'ts going to be interesting to see how this election will affect the pullout of "coalition" troops from Iraq. I'm betting it accelerates it.

By Dodi on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 10:48 am:

    Well, Bush must have done something right, or else people (alot) wouldn't have voted him back in.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 12:12 pm:

    you dont have to do anything right. If you're the more religious one you're guaranteed at least 25% of the vote

    "Well, Bush must have done something right"

    ...and you dont even know

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 12:23 pm:

    btw, is anyone else actually glad that that shithead Daschle lost?

By kazu on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 12:31 pm:

    Aside from Obama and that Coors dude losing
    there is prescious little I am glad about today.

    I agree with corey that daschle is a shithead, but
    I'm not *thrilled* he lost. I am very glad he won't
    be the dem senate minority leader though.

    What's this guy who is suceeding him like?

By kazu on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 12:34 pm:

    It maybe Harry Reid from Nevada...

    dammit. i am not ready to look at the news

By Platypus on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 01:16 pm:

    Great, now in addition to making fun of us, the rest of the world is going to hate us.

    I'm really disgusted that 17% of them there 18-24s showed up, after all of the get out the vote effort that went on. I think that's worst than the last election, isn't it?

    I keep feeling like something is afoot here. Are this many Americans really that...awful?

    We're holding a council of war at the hl in a few hours to discuss results and what we should do and all of that. From the almost boistrous air around here yesterday, it's suddenly gotten very, very quiet.

By Rowlfe on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 02:38 pm:

    well... heres one thing to consider gang...

    ...its going to get so bad, the left will be completely vindicated. Bush wins, but he now has to clean up his own mess.

By wisper on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:51 pm:

    I'm not even really hurting from the fact that Bush won (even though he said 'internets', 'you forgot Poland!' and the whole Canadian drugs=POISON thing, what the hell is wrong with you, middle america?!?)

    It's the gay marriage shit that gets to me. 11 whole states? Not even one said yes?
    I think the Daily Show reported one state had voted 93% opposed to it. That both sickens and terrifies me, deeply. They couldn't even find 10% non-bigots in the whole fucking state?? 93 out of 100 people in that state are complete assholes??
    Are they racist too?
    I could cry, it's just too evil.

    Nuke the south, China.

    But...I've got a feeling our immigrants are about to get a whole lot more fabulous!

By semillama on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 06:58 pm:

    they just may.

By Platypus on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 07:14 pm:

    Just remember, it's 93 out of 100 people *who voted*
    And yes, I'm really annoyed that those bans passed in every state they were up in. I feel that this country is regressing further and further into conservatism, now that the cons have control of the house and senate as well. And those Supreme Court Justices are looking mighty old...

    And I don't know about immigration.

By TBone on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 07:46 pm:

    My stupid fucking state banned gay marriage. By nearly three quarters majority. But I already knew it was full of bigots.

    How's the job market up there these days?

    The exit polls are interesting. Some odd combinations of votes, like people who voted for a ban on gay marriage, but also voted for Nader. Who are these people?

By patrick on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 07:58 pm:

    all this bullshit about how morality played a role in this election...if thats true, we sent a loud message to the world.

    be afraid world because clearly abused iraqi prisoners, innocent dead iraqi civilians, blatently corrupt war profiteers and irreverence to international law dont mean shit compared to whether some fags get hitched and have access to the same civil services straight and MORAL america does.

    its sick.

    what DOES one wear to a civil war?

By Platypus on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 08:24 pm:

    I find it interesting that so many voters cited moral integrity as a concern in their selection of president, and that they all felt Bush better embodied that ideal. I fail to understand how it is that we can be more concerned with who others are sleeping with than the human rights abuses this country perpetrates abroad.

    Patrick, I'm knitting up a fresh batch of watch caps as we speak.

By wisper on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 09:50 pm:

    That article just says you'll have to wait at least a year. One out of 4 ain't bad.
    That is, if you think the country will last a full year. Heh

    I dunno about the job market, but here's some housing costs:

    You know what your problem is? religion.
    You gotta get that whole church + state thing seperated, for REAL this time.
    I watched this whole documentary on CNN about evangelicals and politics and etc, it was scary as hell. They were all saying "faith and religion have a lot to do with how you vote, who you choose to lead your country" and I'm sitting there freaking out.
    Is the seperation of church and state just a quaint little idea in America? Something you just pay lip service to and then ban stem cell research and gay love??
    Why does CNN even show that kind of shit?

    I don't get it.

    Okay, i hate this, but I'm going to talk about Canada now. I'm SORRY. The back and forth gets old, and is being played out all over the world right now. But I feel the need to explain where I'm coming from, why I'm so confused....

    We don't talk about religion here. Ever. It's your own damn bussiness. I don't know the beliefs of any of our leaders, and i don't want to. No one brings it up. It's a secret. It's private.
    The last guy to be open about his religion (the former leader of a conservative party) became the laughing stock of the nation. He admitted to thinking the bible was the literal truth, and it ended his career. They openly mocked him on the radio.
    And it's not that we're all anti-christian or anything. It was more of a "What the hell are you telling us this for, idiot?" kind of mocking. Like: "Just shut up about your god and tell us about the taxes! Who cares what you do on sundays?" kinda vibe.
    It was a great time.

    church | state

By Dodi on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 10:04 pm:

    This has been a good day and I knew without a doubt, he would kick ass......AMEN!

By lapis on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 11:01 pm:

    grumble grumble.

    measure 36 (gay marriage ban) almost lost here. sat around my best friend's home and watched it like a hawk. 51% yes, 49% no. 50% yes, 50% no. 48% yes, 52% no. Then, all of sudden, yes went up and up and up. fuuuuuuck.

    there was a lot of yelling and screaming and crying and whining and carrying on.

    for some reason i have been hearing ween's "if you could save yourself" in my head for weeks. first i was thinking of debi while i sang, now i think of what no longer feels so united.

By V on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 11:02 pm:

    Ill drink to that.

By V on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 11:06 pm:

    Dodis posting,that is.

By Dodi on Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 11:43 pm:

    Make that the two of us.:)

By wisper on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 12:38 am:

    Here's an excellent quoate from someone else about the gay marriage ban:

    "I feel so, so bad for these people. Being told that they are, basically, subhuman. Lesser than the normal people, as it were, despite not having a choice in being born that way.

    Wait, I thought this was about slavery. My bad, sorry."

By kazu on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 01:03 am:

By kazu on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 01:07 am:

By kazu on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 01:10 am:


    never mind

By V on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 01:17 am:

    Dodi,you allso have a nice day,you deserve it. :)

By Antigone on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 02:15 am:

    Lupe's pretty cool.

    Believe it or not, I had no idea she was gay.

    The former sheriff lives down the street from me. He's republican, but endorsed Lupe.

By Dodi on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 01:06 pm:

    Thanks V!

By Platypus on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 02:01 pm:

    Wisper, I saw this and thought of you. It speaks to the growing importance religion holds for middle America. See, the thing is, this country was founded by a bunch of religious kooks, and religion and conservatism have been a part of it since inception. It troubles me, as well, that religion is such a parmount issue for many Americans. I'm interested in hearing from some of our other international sorabjites about religion and politics in their countries too.

    The separation of church and state does appear to be largely a lip-service thing--look at what happens every time someone actually tries to enforce it...even up here in rural Northern California, one of the candidates attacked his opponent on the church-going issue (he also got laughed out of office, but that wouldn't have been the case in other parts of the country). Bush belongs to a radical and really wacked out sector of Christianity--the man actually believes in the rapture. I've had people tell me, in all seriousness, that getting Bush elected was important because it was part of God's plan for the saved.

    Obviously, religion and "values" are important to about 50% of Americans, since they elected Bush, essentially, on the strength of those things. I found it very interesting, looking at exit polls, to see that people who cited things like the war and the economy as important voted for Kerry--but more people felt that "moral values" were the most important issue, and they voted for Bush.

    I think the division is going to grow even thinner with another four years of the Bush administration. Right now, I am rooting for the electoral college to buck the vote, since a number of the swing states don't have laws forcing the electors to vote for the majority candidate. Of course, if the college borks the vote, the President and Veep get selected by the legislature, which will be Republican controlled very quickly. But still. It's the principle of the thing. Time for some faithless electors to take action.

By V on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 05:46 pm:

    Platypus,you want to hear from me? as a Russian Orthodox Christian?...well I may be harsh,but I say kill any Muslim that trys to take away your religion,NO ONE can order you to pray to Mecca.

By V on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

    Platypus,Russians will not take shit from Muslims,hence the bombing of CHECHENS,they are trash people that deserve to die.

By wisper on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 07:06 pm:

    I ripped this photo out of the newspaper and added a caption. I've been laughing about it all day:

    "Oh, that's....GREAT."

By Dodi on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 07:52 pm:

    Ouch V, that is harsh, but it's the way you feel and your entitled to that, so express yourself.:0)

By RC on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 08:04 pm:

    I am thisclose to sticking my head in the oven.

    If it weren't for the fact that I'd be scared of gassing the cats too by accident...


    I saw plenty of 20-somethings -- & more than few of them were Black -- on line when I went to vote. But all the news reports say 14% of 18-24- yr-olds voted in 2000 & it was the EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE THIS TIME. How can that be when the Citizen Choice & all those other programs registered a gazillion new voters?

    Folks over 30 who want to vote are already registered, for the most part. Newly registered voters are nearly always YOUNG.

    Please... Don't tell me it was all for show. That the kids were caught up in Rockin' The Vote because it seemed cool & they wanted to attend the concerts. Don't tell me it was all about buying the t-shirt & rapping to some cute guy/girl & when Tues. came, the bastards slept in & couldn't be bothered to ACTUALLY VOTE?

    I refuse to fucking believe that!

    But WTF happened to all those young voters on Tues.?

    My head STILL hurts from trying to get my mind around 4 more years of Shrub...

    Fuck It -- I'm moving to France! Maybe Johnny Depp will let me crash with him...

    America is about to become UNBEARABLE for the poor, gays & non-Fundamentalist Christians.

    - RC

By RC on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 08:04 pm:

    I am thisclose to sticking my head in the oven.

    If it weren't for the fact that I'd be scared of gassing the cats too by accident...


    I saw plenty of 20-somethings -- & more than few of them were Black -- on line when I went to vote. But all the news reports say 14% of 18-24- yr-olds voted in 2000 & it was the EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE THIS TIME. How can that be when the Citizen Choice & all those other programs registered a gazillion new voters?

    Folks over 30 who want to vote are already registered, for the most part. Newly registered voters are nearly always YOUNG.

    Please... Don't tell me it was all for show. That the kids were caught up in Rockin' The Vote because it seemed cool & they wanted to attend the concerts. Don't tell me it was all about buying the t-shirt & rapping to some cute guy/girl & when Tues. came, the bastards slept in & couldn't be bothered to ACTUALLY VOTE?

    I refuse to fucking believe that!

    But WTF happened to all those young voters on Tues.?

    My head STILL hurts from trying to get my mind around 4 more years of Shrub...

    Fuck It -- I'm moving to France! Maybe Johnny Depp will let me crash with him...

    America is about to become UNBEARABLE for the poor, gays & non-Fundamentalist Christians.

    - RC

By RC on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 08:12 pm:

    Sorry for the duplication -- my damn computer keeps hiccupping.

    - RC

By rev.kazu on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 09:15 pm:

    "America is about to become UNBEARABLE for
    ...non-Fundamentalist Christians"

    and for every other denomination ...

By Platypus on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 09:24 pm:

    Fascinating news roundup courtesy of the Chronicle. Check out the Guardian's coverage of the election, too, some of it is quite interesting.

    American is about to become unbearable for everyone but Fundamentalist, wacked out Christian sects, I think it is safe to say.

By Nate on Thursday, November 4, 2004 - 11:03 pm:

    a lot of young people voted for bush, oddly enough.

    it isn't the bush or the kerry that make me sad so much as the division. the ivory tower liberals who are so dumbfounded that bush could have possibly won. i was listening to KMUD this morning (which is the left of the left, in the great green north,) and one woman basically said that she could not believe that bush didn't do something to steal the election, because she believes in the goodness of the common man. in other words, bush is evil and you'd have to be evil to vote for bush; therefore, bush cheated.

    and i'm not saying he didn't cheat, because he damn well might have. but it is the fucking idea that if you consciously vote for bush you're evil that gets to me. it's not the case. more likely than not, you're just a little stupid. or misguided.

    it's simple: the red states are sub-100's. almost all of them have an average IQ that is below the national average. all of the blue states have an average IQ that is over 100, over the national average. there are a few red states that break 100. by a point. like ohio (101).

    i'm not pointing this out to be patronizing or superior or anything of that sort. it is the reality of the national situation.

    now if you're a polarized lefty you probably harrumph and run into some pseudo-intellectual babble about how we should be saving the idiots from themselves.

    in other words, the lefty of the left: fascism.

    and then, at the mention of fascism you probably harrumph again and smooth out your sierra club sweatshirt and start drawing lines from bush to hitler.

    but the truth is, most liberals would like to see some sort of totalitarian aristocracy rather than a real democracy.

    but i wander off on a tangent, because i don't want to talk about totalitarian aristocracies, but rather our so called democratic republic. if we, those with IQs exceeding the national average, want to get our candidates into the oval office, we need to convince the rest that ours is the best choice.

    and that means we need to stop trying to save them from themselves. they're slightly less bright, not children. you can be stupid as wet concrete and you still have moral sense. in fact, i'd argue that stupid people, for the most part, have a stonger moral sense than we ivory tower types. they don't suffer the pangs of creative rationalization to the same degree. fucking creative rationalization. bastard.

    the holier than thou attitude of the left is what kills our candidates. it happened with gore, the holier than thou poster boy. it happened with kerry, who largely ignored the south. it's going to happen again and again.

    well, at least, until the tri-lats put hillary into office. which i'm betting is the reason bush got another 4.

    right hand, middle two fingers together.
    left hand, ring finger down, index and middle finger splayed "V"-esque (the way you'd sport the shocker if the woman had two vaginas, vertically aligned.)

    right hand, "W", left hand "IV". four more years you sorry, arrogant left wing pricks. i blame you.

    i blame you and the cardinals.

    the air is starting to smell like the apocalypse.

    what color horse do you think arafat is going to ride after he's reincarnated? how about rehnquist? i bet cheney rides the white horse. and who's the fourth? sharon?

    or avril. cross your fingers.

By eri on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 12:05 am:


    Either way I personally resent the comment about Bush getting red areas with a lower IQ. I live in Texas for fuck sake. My IQ is not concidered low by any stretch of the imagination. Nate, how long have we known each other, am I stupid? Am I mentally impaired? Come on.

    I am not a leftist or a rightist. I am a realist who bases decisions not on emotions but on psychology, aligned with research. I make my decisions based on what I think is best for my family. I don't follow any party lines. For fuck sake I'm a liberarian, that would be useless. But I am not a sheep either. Just remember that not ALL of the population of a red state is ignorant.

    I don't think that Cheney will run in 2008. He doesn't stand a chance in hell. But there is talk about Rice challenging Hillary. Only the next four years will tell.

    My daughter is very concerned with the elections. The schools have taught her that if she is a conservative then she will get drafted. It's hard to explain to a ten year old, but there is a lot to explain. She can't grasp it all now because she is a ten year old.

    One good thing is that our kids are learning to care about elections, presidents, etc. They are learning to care and encourage now instead of when they are old enough to vote themselves. So here's hoping that when my ten year old votes two elections from now she will be able to make an educated decision for her future.

By agatha on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 12:18 am:

    Liberarian? I said that out loud, and Cleo goes, "did she mean Libertarian, or librarian?"


By Nate on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 12:25 am:


    i wasn't saying you are mentally impaired, eri. just that the texas average is, apparently, 92. it would probably be a little lower, too, if bush hadn't executed the retarded when he was governor.

    it looks like i was wrong about ohio. no states with +100 averages went red-- but a few 99s went blue. yea michigan! wait, isn't that a provence of canada?

By Antigone on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 01:52 am:

    People really are more stupid here.

    We can only hope that the first genetically targeted plague will wipe out mostly stupid people. That's doubtful, though. I don't think we've isolated any genes that correlate with high IQ.

By Czarina on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 02:00 am:

    Well, they're still not as stupid there,as they are here! AND we have a decisivley lower dental count.

By dave. on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 02:22 am:

    i'm so completely wrung out.

    nate, you're wrong about the left wanting fascism. we just lost a battle against it. what we want is benevolence. we may hold the red states in contempt for their anti-intellectualism but we want to educate them (or, at least, their kids) -- not rule them. we think it's sad and a great loss that their culture embraces base selfishness and rejects independent, critical thinking. that might sound haughty and snobbish, but it's sincere. contrast that with the crony capitalists who are using their numbers solely for their own enrichment. these are the fascists who blur the lines between business and government. that's who we just lost to. defeated by the sheer numbers of their red army.

    fuck, man. it's all so fucking stupid.

    this article says it better than i ever can.

    from sfgate:

    Oh dear God please not again.

    Oh dear God please don't let it be all convoluted and depressing and messy and stupid and please don't let it all embarrass us on an international level all over again even more than it already has and even more than it already is and even more than we've endured lo these past four debilitating and soul-crushing years. Hello? Please? Is it already too late?

    Why yes, yes it is.

    And lo and behold, it was apparently another completely tortuous and entirely knotted presidential election, unfinished until the wee hours and reeking of E-voting suspicion and exit-poll miscalculation and it all came down to, what? Ohio? Are you serious? What a thing.

    And now Kerry's conceded and the white flag has been raised and we are headed toward the utterly appalling notion of another four years of Bush and another Republican stranglehold of Congress and repeated GOP chants of "More War in '04!"

    Which is, well, simply staggering. Mind blowing. Odd. Gut wrenching. Colon knotting. Eyeball gouging. And so on.

    You want to block it out. You want to rend your flesh and yank your hair and say no way in hell and lean out your window and scream into the Void and pray it will all be over soon, even though you know you're an atheist Buddhist Taoist Rosicrucian Zen Orgasmican and you don't normally pray to anything except maybe the gods of really exceptional sake and skin-tingling sex and maybe a few luminous transcendental deities that look remarkably like Jenna Jameson.

    It simply boggles the mind: we've already had four years of some of the most appalling and abusive foreign and domestic policy in American history, some of the most well-documented atrocities ever wrought on the American populace and it's all combined with the biggest and most violently botched and grossly mismanaged war since Vietnam, and much of the nation still insists in living in a giant vat of utter blind faith, still insists on believing the man in the White House couldn't possibly be treating them like a dog treats a fire hydrant.

    Inexplicable? Not really. People want to believe. They want to trust their leaders, even against all screaming, neon-lit evidence and stack upon stack of flagrant, impeachment-grade lie. They simply cannot allow that Dubya might really be an utter boob and that they are being treated like an abused, beaten housewife who keeps coming back for more, insisting her drunk husband didn't mean it, that she probably had it coming, that the cuts and bruises and blood and broken bones are all for her own good.

    And this election, it might be all be very amusing, in a Mel Gibson-y, blood-drenched hamburger-of-Christ sorta way, were it not so sad and dangerous. It might all be tolerable and cute, in a violence-engorged, sexist, video-game-y sorta way, were it not so lopsided and wrong.

    This election's outcome, this heartbreaking proof of a nation split more deeply and decisively than ever, it simply reinforces the feeling among much of the educated populace: It is a weirdly embarrassing time to be an American. It is jarring and oddly shattering and makes you rethink what it really means to be a part of this country. The answer: It doesn't mean much at all. Not really. Not anymore.

    This is the common wisdom on the progressive Left. Those first four toxic Bush years? A fluke. A phantasm. A stolen election. A gaff, a mugging, a crime. But this? An election this close makes you reconsider. Maybe, after all, we aren't nearly as far along as we think. Maybe we're not all that sophisticated or nuanced or respectable a nation as we sometimes dare to dream.

    Maybe, in fact, we're regressing, back to the days of guns and sexism and pre-emptive violence, of environmental abuse and no rights for women and a sincere hatred of gays and foreigners and minorities. Sound familiar? It should: it's the modern GOP platform.

    Here's the thing: for tens of millions of us, it is simply unconscionable that we could possibly be led for another four years by a small and spoiled little man who has very little real idea what he's doing and even less of how the hell he got there. It would be funny, in a Adam Sandler, toilet-humored sort of way, were it not so poisonous and depressing. And yet it looks like we're stuck with it, like a shard of glass buried deep in the eye.

    And the rest of the world? Well, it can only watch us and shake its collective head and wonder just what the hell is wrong with us, why so many millions of us would even consider re-electing the world's most inept and war-hungry and insanely inarticulate man to four more years of unchecked power, why our much-hyped much-coveted supposedly ultrasuperior democratic system is so very deeply blotchy and knotty and spoiled.

    So then, to much of Europe, Russia, Asia, Canada, Mexico, the Middle East -- to all those dozens of major world nations who want Bush out almost as much as the educated people of America, to you we can only say: We are so very, very sorry. We don't know how it happened, either. For tens of millions of us, Bush is not our president and never will be. That's how divisive. That's how dangerous. That's how very sad it has become.

    The GOP steamroller appears to be just too powerful, just too well oiled and blood soaked and fear inducing to be stopped just yet. After all, the Right has been working on this master plan and building their takeover strategy for about forty years. It's gonna take those of us working for change and progress and raw spiritual juice a little more than one or two years to dissolve it away like the cancer it so obviously is.

    Apparently, there are lessons yet to be learned. Apparently, we must hit some sort of new low between now and 2008, attain some sort of seriously vicious status in the world before we will snap out of it. You think?

    This much is clear: We are not, with a grim Bush victory, headed for buoyancy and friendship and sincere hope for something new and refreshing. We are not, with another four years of what we just endured, headed toward any sort of easing of bitter tension, a sense of levity, or sexual openness, or true education, or gender respect, or a lightness of spirit and of step.

    Maybe the best we can hope for, at this ominous and slightly sickening moment, is one hell of a lot more patience.

By Antigone on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 02:33 am:

    A couple of my friends are emigrating to Australia. They have immigration quotas for technology workers.

    If Bush nominates a few Scalia lookalikes for SCOTUS I might do it myself.

By Czarina on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 02:47 am:

    I don't care what Bush say's. I always have been,and intend to remain, sexually open.

By Dougie on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 08:39 am:

    Great article, dave. Who wrote that?

    I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they were talking about the democrats, and if they want to win, they've either got to pick a candidate from the south (ala Clinton or Carter) and/or, instead of focusing on the south, focus on the southwest and the hispanic vote.

    Wow, this is too cool -- Cz, Spunky and Eri are back all at once -- just like old times, and Sarah's getting married to boot!

By Gee on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 10:59 am:

    tragedy has a way of bringing people together.

By dave. on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 03:52 pm:

By eri on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 04:31 pm:

    Agatha got me......damn it......I misspelled Libertarian as I claimed to be one!!!! That's good.

    I will admit that the general populace here is extremely idiotic. Stupidity runs rampant. Ignorance is proclaimed. And they need to get off their asses and do something about the educators and the fact that are kids are so busy studying all year for their damned "no child left behind" tests that they miss out on lots of critical learning. Sorry, but I have a pair of shitty teachers this year, that are the antithesis of what Bush proclaims is going on in this state. I am royally pissed about the condition of the education system out here. Looked into homeschooling, but not only is it fucking expensive as hell, all I find is christian propaganda in all of the curriculums and that drives me insane!!!!!!

    I swear, the next Waco type incident with a group of relgious psychos WILL TAKE PLACE IN TEXAS!!!!!

    Of course, the people were even more stupid in Missouri. There just isn't any escaping it here anymore.

    Hell, I have been trying to figure out what country to move to, but you know it isn't just that easy. Besides, I can't leave the country without the courts fucking permission anyways.

    This is probably off topic, but still related enough I hope.

By wisper on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 07:11 pm:

    "I can't leave the country without the courts fucking permission anyways."


By semillama on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 07:17 pm:

    didn't the last Waco-type incident
    take place in Texas?

By eri on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 07:34 pm:

    Yes, Sem, that is why I referred to Waco, but there were others, some of whom left the country....oh wait, what about the hailbop group....that was in Cali.

    Wisper, Hayley is from my first marriage. Per my divorce I have to have permission to leave the country for anything more than a vacation. Now my ex wants to sign her away which would eleviate that, but we don't have the moolah for all of the court proceedings, nor do we have enough "friends" who would write letters of recommendation for Spunky to be her legal father. It's a big expensive mess. So until we have that kind of extra money we can't move out of the country and bring Hayley with us. And since I am her sole guardian, I can't leave without her.........damned court systems.

By semillama on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 07:48 pm:

    Since I love tangents, I want to know how a bunch of kooks
    offing themselves compares with the BATF storming a
    compound and flames and bullets and sexual molestation of

    You know? A waco-level event should, well, be like Waco was.
    The Hale-Bopp nuts were sort of a mini-Jamestown Massacre.

    anyway, it's meaningless. carry on.

By Nate on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 08:16 pm:

    i think jonestown was more like waco than hale-bopp.

    i mean, in jones town they shot a congress man and killed 270+ children.

By Nate on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 08:18 pm:

By RC on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 08:34 pm:

    "it's simple: the red states are sub-100's. almost all of them have an average IQ that is below the national average. all of the blue states have an average IQ that is over 100, over the national average. there are a few red states that break 100. by a point. like ohio."

    NATE! Surely you don't really believe that?

    You know better! People's IQ is NOT based on where they live -- it's something that gets determined by the time you're, what, 5 or 6? IQ has more to do with good prenatal nutrition & who your parents are than anything else.

    Shrub ain't all that bright himself -- not compared to his father & brother Jeb. I never said intelligence was the factor in why people voted for Bush. And it certainly wasn't because they're evil, regardless of what some left-of-left radio host says. Janeane Garofolo (sp?) was talking BIG shit on Air America Tues. about how Kerry would sweep the country. And I like the bitch, but even *I* got tired of her being so cocky & disparaging Republicans as idiots.

    I honestly can't figure out WHAT the hell the deciding factor was. But I'm telling ya, a sudden uptick in religious sentiment was NOT the real reason. People don't suddenly become more religious because of an election -- it takes some major, life-changing shit to make folks get all godly all of a sudden. Like a heart attack. Or 9/11.

    Folks know in their hearts that gay marriage is NEVER gonna be a real issue in America! Passing laws against it is like buying a shotgun to protect yourself from bigfoot.

    I'm gonna keep following what has posted. They've been saying for more than a year that Bush could steal the election with those Diebold machines. But I can't believe it would happen so seamlessly, with no telltale signs beyond what the exit polls said vs. the outcome.

    And I can't beleive we've got 11 states with such large homo-hating populations! (I no longer use the term homophobic. It's NOT a phobia -- it's flat-out hatred.) I thought after Matthew Shepard's death, folks had opened their eyes & gotten their minds around the idea that hating ANYONE who isn't harming you is WRONG.

    It's like the country is moving backwards morally... What's next -- banning interracial marriages again?

    It's my birthday & I've got a kickass cold (1st one in, like, 7 years!) & I can't get drunk because my head is all stuffed up & I don't know anyone to come over & get me drunk even if I could! FUCK!

    I'm fucking sick of America... I wanna move & be an expat.

    - RC

By Nate on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 08:44 pm:

    huh? sometimes you confuse the hell out of me RC. your weight has nothing to do with where you live, but some states do have heavier averages than others. i'm not saying it is the fault of the state that people aren't as bright, it's just the way it is. it's the gene pool.

    "Yeah, we rocked the vote all right. Those little bastards betrayed us again."

    hunter thompson

By RC on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 09:26 pm:

    Huh? Who said anything about weight??

    I was merely saying that I don't believe folks in the Northeast have higher IQs than in other parts of the country. If you look at Cali or places like the Raleigh-Durham N.C., IQs are higher there too. It ain't a red state/blue state thing -- it's a geographic thing based on where the college towns & high-paying jobs are. If any city in Alabama had as many universities within a 100 mi. radius as Raleigh-Durham does, the IQ would be higher there too, regardless of how those people voted.


    - RC

By Nate on Friday, November 5, 2004 - 11:03 pm:

    uh, no.

    i'm not stating some opinon here. they have IQ data and they've broken it down by state and the average IQ of connecticut is 113 and the average IQ of mississippi is 85 and every other state is somewhere in between. are you saying it isn't possible that different states have different average IQs ?

By wisper on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 12:59 am:

    85 is damn low.

By dave. on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 02:52 am:

    here's another one dougie.

    i'm starting to feel better. i almost feel like going militant. lifting weights, getting a heavy bag, martial arts training.

    gettin' all ninja on their asses.

    provoking conflicts. altercations. bringin' it.

By RC on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 03:02 am:

    NO -- I know there are different avgs. in different places, Nate. But I don't think anyone can say definitively that "people with X level IQ voted for/against Bush".

    We know who won which states, but not the IQs of the people who voted for which candidate. Maybe everyone with IQs of 100-119 voted for Bush & everyone with IQs over 120 voted for Kerry -- in EVERY state. But we have no way to know that.

    Anyway, I'm gonna watch a bad movie now & hope my head stops pounding. If I drink anymore Red freakin' Zinger tea, I will puke.

    - RC

By Nate on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 11:53 am:

    i never said that RC. i said that the states with above average IQs went blue, and all the states that went red had below average IQs.

    considering you accept both data sets (there are average IQs in states, and we know which states went which way) you're not really able to disagree with this.

    so, whatever.

By semillama on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 12:31 pm:

    it might be more informative if you could break it down to the
    county level. Although, my hometown is a college town and it
    nearly always goes red, while the other big college town in the
    UP goes blue.

By kazu on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 12:44 pm:

    "Folks know in their hearts that gay marriage is
    NEVER gonna be a real issue in America! Passing
    laws against it is like buying a shotgun to protect
    yourself from bigfoot."

    I don't understand this comment. For gay couples
    it's a very REAL issue, and even more so now that
    states are implementing laws that are rendering
    anything that even approximates a marriage or
    legal domestic partnership illegal.

    In Ohio the laws they've passed will make it illegal
    for any state organization to offer domestic
    partnerships. Ohio State University currently offers
    domestic partnership, but not for long. I can't think
    of anything more REAL than knowing that you're
    about to lose your health insurance and whatever
    other benefits you obtained because your partner
    was a professor at OSU.

    Also, Sem thinks that low state IQs may have something
    to do with brain drain. Not that there aren't any smart
    people in the south, but if you were really smart, Would
    you want to live and raise kids in Mississippi? And
    that's not just being elitist, you'd probably get a better
    job and have access to better schools in the northern
    urban areas.

By Nate on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 02:17 pm:

    i'd agree with Sem on that one. brain drain compounded over multiple generations.

    if we could only get colonies of the intelligent to strike out and gather in red states across the country.

By agatha on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 02:34 pm:

    Kazu, I don't think RC is saying that it shouldn't be a real issue, I think she's just saying that according to the majority in this country, it will never actually be a real issue.

    If I'm misinterpreting, then whatever. That was how I read her statement.

By kazu on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 06:38 pm:

    But it current manifestation, however "unreal"
    it is, passing laws against it has REAL effects.
    Yes, homophobes are stupid to think that banning
    gay marriage actually does anything to affect *gayness*
    if that's what the bigfoot example means.

    But on the flipside, you can't fight Bigfoot with a shotgun,
    but you affect the well-being of individuals with this kind
    of legislation. In this case, I am concerned with what
    happens to bigfoot. The analogy is flawed because
    it equates gay marriage with Bigfoot and while bigfoot
    can storm your property and eat the babies, gay
    marriage doesn't affect anyone in a comprable way.

    I've also had too many arguments with people
    who suggest that these constitutional ammendments
    (state and federal) are just symbolic gestures that
    really don't mean anything.

By Antigone on Saturday, November 6, 2004 - 07:04 pm:

    Well, one anecdote: when I worked at Bell South in Birmingham, all of the smart contractors were hired from out of state. All of the dumb as rocks union people were locals. I can't remember a single smart, talented person who wasn't flown in from out of state, at great expense, to work on the project.

    Then the dumb as rocks union folks decided to cancel the two year old, multi-million dollar project and start over from scratch...

By TBone on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 12:39 am:

    One of the things I like about Spunky and Eri is that you'll fucking argue your points--especially Spunky--and give reasons and not just close up when confronted with differing opinions.

    Whenever I get into a conversation with a local who doesn't want gays to get married or who thinks Bush is God's candidate, or whatever, they just close up and "whatever" me if I start disagreeing with them.

    A red state voters' justifications seem to be limited to "Because it's Right," "Whatever," and "'Cuz God Says So."

    Yeah, I'm overgeneralizing. I don't care. I thumb my nose at them. Bite my thumb, even.

By dave. on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 12:56 am:

    spunky totally pisses me off. i mean, i get SOOOOO pissed. but it's not because i don't like him, it's because i don't think he really believes in his arguments. because when he talks about his own feelings, they often contradict the positions of the people he supports.

    it's like, "i support so and so hecause he's a total hardass. i'm not necessarily a total hardass myself but i think everyone else needs some hardass policy shoved up their ass."

    that and the kool-aid factor. pisses me off. look, you can be moral, you can be conservative and respectable and honorable without capitulating to the right wing slime machine. plenty of high profile conservatives came out against the bushies this season.

    but i'd offer my assistance to trace and eri and their family if they were ever needing it.

    doesn't mean i won't cuss you out the next time you piss me off.

By wisper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 02:52 am:

    I said once that spunky is like Hank Hill to me, and at the time i meant it as mostly a joke but now i realize it's mostly true.

    Similarities include:
    He infuriates me. His sometimes mindless dedication to country and family are things I'd normally associate with a mental disorder. I can picture spunky getting into a situation where he'd recite one of Hank's trademark "America..." speeches.
    But he's not evil or anything.
    He pisses me off and is at the same time totally endearing and real. He's a good guy, works hard, etc. And if he was ever in trouble I'd do anything I possibly could to help.
    Awwww, spunky. I missed you.

    But Hank's dad, Cotton, now there's one cartoon character I would not mind seeing stabbed to death. He's just awful.

By eri on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 11:53 am:

    Spunky as Hank Hill.....OMG.....ROFLMAO. But I do have to say that the America speaches ala Hank Hill are seriously out numbered by the "I'll put my foot up your ass" lectures ala Red Foreman...

    It's interesting to see you guys thought processes as to why you react to Spunky like you do. It sheds a lot of light. It makes me laugh, cuz I can just see it now. But then again I have a very warped sense of humor.

    But I concider MOST of the sorabjites like extended family or something, where we would do whatever we could to help out if you needed it, and we love pics and all that annoying shit too.

    BTW, I haven't seen a thing out of Patrick since I got back here. What's going on with him, I wonder?

By spunky on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 01:21 pm:

    Red Forman is my hero.

By spunky on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 01:45 pm:


    My Post Mortem Commentary on the 2004 Election.

    I have heard over and over again that what was on most people’s minds was moral values when they went to the poles on November 2nd.
    I don’t buy that for a minute. That assumption was based on the Exit Poles.
    Those things were as wrong as you could get. The Media was certain that Kerry was way ahead of Bush, based on those same exit poles. The numbers were simply wrong. So, if those numbers were incorrect, then why would the reasons for voting be correct?

    From what I have seen, it was the War on Terror.
    Right or wrong, that appeared to me to be the primary motivator. The “moral” question is nothing more then a distraction by the media from the real reason their candidate lost.
    Kerry was never consistent in his message; he was all over the map on several issues from abortion to the War in Iraq, to same sex marriage, and economy. He appeared indecisive and appeared to not have conviction that he was right. He was not a leader, he was a politician. Politicians are perfect for the Senate or House, but they do not belong in the White House. There is a clear distinction between Legislators and Executives. You have to be steadfast, and self assured, and a leader to be a President or Governor. You have to be able to step away from the back and forth that goes on in the House and Senate and make a final decision. Kerry did not appear to have those qualities. In my humble opinion.

    Oh, and one final thing. A president cannot be Left or Right. S/he must not be a strong conservative or a strong liberal. Because s/he must stand for all sides of the country. Again, it works great in the house and the senate to have strong conservatives and strong liberals, but not in the White House.

By RC on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 06:09 pm:


    My Bigfoot comparison was to say that those 11 states where the hertero-only-marriage laws were passed is akin to buying a shotgun to kill a creature that doesn't exist & therefore poses no threat to you.

    Gay marriage or civil unions pose no threat to Christians, Conservatives or anyone else who is worried that churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples & recognize those marriages. THAT'S what I think the real issue was, but it's a non-issue.

    It's a smoke screen. The truth is that there are a LOT of hard-core conservative Christians who flat-out HATE gays. And they're scared of the gov't trying to force them to 'accept' homosexual couples if gay marriage is made legal anywhere. But no one can force you to accept someone you choose to dislike. And neither federal nor state gov't will ever be able to force ANY religious group to allow gays to marry in their church or to recognize gay marriages as valid within their church. Separation of church & state prevents that.

    So it's a non-issue IMO & not something states need to be passing laws about. But as Shrub proved, when you appeal to people's fears, you can get them to vote for damn near anything, no matter how ridiculous.

    As far as the loss of benefits goes, private industry can't be forced to rescind any benefits it chooses to offer gay employees & their partners. As far as state & federal employers go -- well, if a state college is offering health insurance to the partners of gay employees, I guess someone would have to be willing to file a lawsuit & challenge those benefits as being 'illegal' under the hetero-only-marriage law. But I don't think such a case would be considerd a valid claim -- it would be thrown out before it got past the hearing stage.

    - RC

By Rowlfe on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 06:55 pm:

    spunk, record numbers of voters dont come out because 'the other guy isnt consistent enough'. I mean jeezuz spunk, Pat Robertson says Bush told him there'd be no casualties, and he still supports him. Buchanan was very much against the war, but he still supports him based on morality and his platform. And the only reason McCain supported him was the moral issues, he couldnt leave his party to support a pro-choice candidate.

    the voters had their buttons pushed, period. they looked past all other problems and voted their faith. it just makes sense.

    This aint based on exit polls. More people voted for Bush than any other president in history. Way more people voted for Kerry to get rid of Bush than vice versa. Kerry wasn't the divisive figure here. Kerry's a moderate, as most senators are, people did not come out to vote against him. If you look at the slope of how people vote over the last twenty years you'll see right wingers get more and more votes each time. Would Clinton have won if it werent for Perot?

    Thats why I'm not buying the Diebold tinfoil, although it one fine piece of tinfoil, especially with the exit polls turning out the way they were.
    Americans dont know that up here we get to see different exit polls than the US does for some legal reasoning, and they put Kerry even further ahead than the ones you heard about in the US. Fine tinfoil indeed.
    I'm pushing this shit to the back of my head and pretending its not possible, Bush is now the legit president, and whatever happens in the country now is the responsibility of the electorate who put him there. Barring some absolutely unforseen crazy shit, my Bush bashing is over. The American people are accountable for his actions.

    I expected myself to be really really bummed if Bush won, but after just a couple days its like "whatever". I look back and see I was much much more upset when the US finally invaded Iraq.

By kazu on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 07:22 pm:

    RC, I kind of figured that's what you meant.

    I don't know the details, but I think the problem
    with state universities is the threat that they will
    lose funding if they offer domestic partnerships. It
    won't take a lawsuit if the state can *actually*
    pull funding. The position of private universities
    in this respect is precarious because they also
    recieve state/federal funding. I've got oodles of
    crap to read to get caught up on the details of
    all of this. What a beaurocratic nightmare all of this
    is, regardless of its social implications.

By kazu on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 07:33 pm:

    Oh, and I get the *bigfoot* thing now.

    Seeing as my boyfriend is descended from
    Yetis, i respond as though bigfoot is real,
    when some think that he's not.

By dave. on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 09:04 pm:

    regarding the e-voting "tinfoil", i'd really like to keep the pressure on until a non-partisan group of experts can prove there was no tampering or errors. these machines, as well as any machine they communicate with, need to be siezed and the software, transaction logs, event logs, etc. need to be audited. the exit poll discrepancies and stories of glitches and odd behavior point to, at best, a very poorly run election at the polls. it's been said to death but we trust an atm to work for us, why can't we trust a voting terminal to accurately record a transaction and print out a receipt? because a vote isn't a dollar?

    back to the tinfoil, i think they did rig it and i think they told mccain about it. basically saying, "watch it, john. we are going to win and you will want us on your side when we do."

    so prove me wrong and i'll shut up about it.

By RC on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 09:40 pm:

    I think Bush rigged the election too. There were way too many problems with too many of those voting machines all across the country. 19 states reported problems by my last count:

    In Columbus, OH:
    "A Danaher ELECTronic 1242 computer error with a voting machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct."!!!!

    But there's nothing to be done about it now.

    - RC

By Nate on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 10:53 pm:

    violent revolution?

    too bad the liberals are so afraid of firearms.

By dave. on Sunday, November 7, 2004 - 11:06 pm:

    we'll see. if these guys go too far, we can definitely look forward to ireland-style conflicts.

    i'm up for it. i'll fight against a theocracy.

    although it'll likely stay pretty tame in these parts. our state legislature made democratic gains in the election so we appear to be staving off the kool-aid. but for other places, it's not hard to imagine things turning violent.

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 01:09 pm:

By Rowlfe on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 01:41 pm:

    now why'd you have to go and make me throw up like that?

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 01:52 pm:

    Actually, RC, there's a lot that can be done about it, but now it can be done under the radar. That article I linked said the "official" count was yet to be done. If Kerry really wants it he can still fight, and maybe catch the other side by surprise.

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 04:23 pm:

By Nate on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 05:21 pm:

    democracy is dead.

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 06:03 pm:

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 06:08 pm:

By kazu on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 06:39 pm:

    The thing that pisses me off about all of it:
    the rigging, the intimidation is that EVERYONE
    should be outraged, not just the party that lost.
    I don't care if the kazu party is safe and secure in
    office, if they get there by rigging and voter supression,
    then it means that they are only interested in maintaining
    power and not at all in representing my positions.


    Randi Rhodes is going through all kinds of stories and
    articles like the ones Antigone posted. It's making me

    I want Chinese food. Something spicy, but I really
    can't afford it, so it will probably be a stir fry I make
    on my own.

By wisper on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 06:56 pm:

    Nate, we may be afriad of firears, but we do have a board with a nail in it.

By dave. on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 06:59 pm:

    check this.


    what's with the stained glass, father bush photo?

    this is how it begins. "everything's fine. don't think bad thoughts. relax, things are gonna get real good now."

By Nate on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 08:15 pm:

    i don't get it. right after polls closed they announce "electronic voting proves successful!" hello?

    america, wake the fuck up!

By Antigone on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 09:13 pm:


    Florida is reporting more votes in the presidential election than it is reporting citizens that turned out to vote. Adding all the presidential race votes reported by the Florida Department of State here yields a total of 7,588,422 votes. The Florida Department of State reports here that voter turnout totalled only 7,350,900. That's a difference of 237,522. 3.1% of Florida's presidential votes were in excess of the number of voters in the election. 380,952 votes separate the President and John Kerry in Florida.

By RC on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 10:10 pm:

    Yeah, but who do we GO TO with that info?

    Do you have to be a fatcat with lawyers on retainer & file a lawsuit against the FL Board of Elections?

    What redress do ordinary voters HAVE?

    - RC

By dave. on Monday, November 8, 2004 - 11:32 pm:

    not much. one party rule at the federal level means we'll need smoking-gun level evidence, like a confession, or it's all just . . . tinfoil.

By dave. on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 - 01:23 am:

    it hear nader's been enlisted to help. how ironic that the dems have to crawl back to ralph after treating him like a leper all year.

By Antigone on Friday, July 10, 2009 - 01:50 am:


By Dr Pepper on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 12:55 am:

    Hi Antigone, haven't heard from you for while, hoped things went well for you and your wife.

By J on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 01:44 am:

    Dr. Pepper don't you know who Antigone really is?
    He's busy trying to help us earthlings repopulate
    to the nearest star.He's kind of busy.Respect the MAN!!!

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS . torturechamber . . receipts . contact