LowerCaseRepublican

So wait...it's bad for other countries to sell weapons to dictators that kill civilians...yet we do the exact same thing in Turkey?

Good for you being an anti-free speech fascist. :finger

Actually it was posted on Dem Underground when I went there this morning for a few minutes -- and being lazy this morning (damn debate drinking game f***ed me up good ), I just threw those out there. Just from watching it myself, you could tell that Bush didn't have his A game out there last night

The talking heads had this to say: (I was really f***ing surprised that Scarborough and Kristol said what they did) Joe Scarborough: “As far as the debate goes, I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry." "It was John Kerry's best performance ever." Kate O'Beirne: "I thought the President was repetitive and reactive." Mark Halperin: “The president was remarkably angry seeming" Milbank and VandeHei: "Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others." ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE: Kerry: 45 - Bush: 36 - Tie: 17 CNN/GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE: Kerry: 53 - Bush: 37 CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE: Kerry: 44 - Bush: 26 - Tie: 30 Mort Kondracke: “This is the President's turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don't think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.” Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online's the Corner: "The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night." Bob Schieffer: “The President was somewhat defensive in the beginning” “Kerry got off to a very good start.” Mark Shields: "The President showed a few times obvious anger" Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard: “I think Kerry did pretty well tonight, he was forceful and articulate.” Andrea Mitchell: “This is the toughest we’ve ever seen John Kerry. He attacked the very core of the President’s popularity. He’s basically saying, who do you believe?” (MSNBC) Tim Russert: “Tonight he seemed to find his voice for the Democratic view of the world.” Fred Barnes on FNC: "Kerry did very well and we will have a Presidential race from here on out."

Bush hammering home flip-flopper yet he flip flops all the time. Good goddamn, Kerry...take off the kid gloves.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content...tstub_0909.html

test

Cuz he hasn't turned over the Queen of Diamonds playing solitaire yet.

That was pretty amusing. Neither of these idiots should deserve the honor of being our President.

14:58...14:59... Who gives a flying f*** about Paris Hilton? OMG, she has a sex video! Yeah, and so do millions of other kinky Americans that film their sexual exploits. I don't see "Steve Smith has a homemade porno" on the TV news like it is some sort of news story.

There are many threats to our ecological environment. However I think the most imminent of all of them is Puff Daddy. He, like other rap moguls, serves the music industry oligopoly through subsidized record labels and likes to put SUVs in his video. Throwing a dope MC in the driver's seat gives the impression that these are very cool to drive. Encouraging mass consumption of the sports utility vehicle increases mass production of sulphur dioxide - acid rain. Don't get me wrong, Escalades are very sweet. But you know what else is kinda tight? Trees. Oxygen. Breathing. The environment. --Mack Lindsay www.standupisdead.com

After the flops of Troopergate, Whitewater and the Juanita Broadderick case...just about everything they tried to throw at Clinton didn't stick because there was no evidence. So the media was a bit skeptical of being thrown in the loop again with no actual story to show for it. David Brock (the author of The Real Anita Hill) was the guy who broke a lot of those stories for the Washington Times. His book "Blinded by the Right" goes into a lot of detail about how skeptical even the right wing journals and such that he worked for were about the Monica Lewinsky thing because it, like the numerous others they investigated, would have no merit. It's not so much that this could be damning but when you put your hand on the stove and get burned with Troopergate et al., you may be a little less apt to put your hand on the stove again so fast the next time.

Tex, the US government lies about what "terrorism" is to try to inflate their conviction rate. For example, from Sept. 30, 2001 to that date in 2002 -- the Justice Department maintained that 288 terrorists had been convicted by the US of their heinous crimes. But the General Accounting Office found that at least 132 of these cases (approx. 42%) had nothing to do with terrorism. Out of 174 convictions for international terrorism, 131 (approx. 75%) were not about terrorism either according to the GAO. Due to their methodology, they could not do all the cases, so the current status of those cases is quite, as they put it, "questionable". In 2003, of 56 cases of "terrorism", 41 were bogus according to the GAO. 8 were about the Puerto Ricans protesting the use of Vieques as a bombing range. The prosecutor who handled those cases said that she does not know why they were classified as terrorism. 28 men working at an airport with phony ID were arrested and a spokesman for the US attorny says they weren't even suspected of being involved in terrorism yet were put under the "terrorist" umbrella. And my personal hilarious favorite: the prosecution of a "terrorist" who passed bad checks. The proof he was a terrorist? He had the same name as a former Hezbollah leader. Mass detentions and secret trials -- the illusion of safety.

I was on The Memory Hole looking at the pics and vid from Gitmo on the Hudson during the RNC and found this story: http://www.alternet.org/rights/19948/ With the latest Detroit convictions overturned, Ashcroft has not convicted a single person of terrorism since 9/11. ... Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in anti-terrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the attorney general was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many "suspected terrorists" had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists.

Yeah, that whole "We can't win the war on terror" and the next day flip flop of "We are going to win." Or saying we'll catch bin Laden dead or alive and then he's not a priority... Just because Kerry endorsed giving Bush the keys does not mean that he endorsed Bush crashing the car.

It's the first step in the journey to a SuperSteve presidency!

I worked fast food for 4 days. In these 4 days I had: -the owner's 5 year old bite me in the leg -got locked in the freezer with another co-worker cuz my boss shut it thinking nobody was in there despite my co-worker and I talking -was forced to stay 5 hrs. overtime without getting paid (boss would clock us out at 9 and expect us to stay and clean everything and stay til everybody was all done which was usually 1-2 am) -got paid a training wage of $4.60 an hour -had to pick up 3 pizzas straight out of the oven with my bare hands after dumbass boss dropped them on the floor yelling "Holy s***! I didn't think they'd be that f***ing hot!" (as she is pulling them out of the industrial pizza oven) -got yelled at for swearing by my boss who told me: "Goddamn, there is to be no f***ing swearing in this restaurant." -got yelled at for going to the bathroom after being on the clock for 5 hrs. After 4 days of that bulls***, I just stopped showing up. Getting bitten by that little bastard who should have been a blow job was the last straw. I got another job working for an independent farm which paid really well and was a lot easier workwise.

Yeah, when the rigged e-voting machines made by Diebold who declared that they would deliver votes to Bush, you may be right. Remember what candidate from what party got the majority of the votes in 2000?

It's the new WMD.

Nuke, the fact remains that Bush used forged memos of Saddam getting nuke material from Africa despite being told by the CIA that the info was not 100% certain and that he should not use it in the SotU speech, but he still used them anyway. The information that Powell used in his UN speech came from Downing Street and ended up being plagiarized from 12 year old work done by a graduate student. If you think that these things could not have been researched and realized, then you're a lot more gullible than I thought. (Let's not forget that Powell called a lot of the evidence "f***ing bulls***" when he met with Bush and Blair the morning of the UN speech) I don't care who backed up the information if they failed to investigate it well. The CIA told Bush not to use the memos for his case and he did. They also told him not to make up a UN Atomic Energy Agency report and cite it as a reason that Saddam was persuing nukes. (Yeah, Bush cited a UNAEA report that does not exist in his evidence for the war) That can be found out and is either a lie or just being lazy in researching for reasons to justify the war. And let's not forget that Ahmed Chalabi, from the Iraqi National Congress, was outed as an Iranian spy and he was also one of the top people giving us intel about the Iraqi "WMD". So, we got the evidence to invade Iraq from an Iranian spy...good to know. (You know...that's on par with a group/person who hates the Republicans...A guy who has a vested interest in the toppling of Iraq giving information to the US that the US refused to investigate well) Bush has destroyed what respect the US has now with his cowboy tactics and imbicilic behavior regarding coming up with reasons for the war. There is the same throughway here. You believe that Rather and CBS have destroyed their reputation with their lax behavior and f***up using the memos yet you believe that Bush's lax behavior and f***up allows him to deserve four more years as the President.

The New York Post said that local New York political circles and Hill insiders were thinking that the documents could have come from a guy who worked for the Nixon administration and is a big Republican backer (can't remember the name off the top of my head now -- damn staying up all night ) But I am getting so f***ing sick of the bulls*** that both candidates are focused on Vietnam. Yes, George W. Bush was born on 3rd and thought he hit a triple. Yes, his daddy used his connections to get Bush into the TANG instead of serving in country. The Vietnam debate should end with the idea that while Kerry was getting shot, Bush was in Texas doing shots. I mean, the Not So Swift Boat Vets have been busted in a s***load of lies and the only TV news that I've seen call them out on it is The Daily Show. The reason both of these candidates are focusing on 'Nam is because neither of them have any issues to run on. They both have the same policy record and the same policy aspirations for foreign and domestic policy. They can't run on catching terrorists because according to The Nation, with the overturning of the recent Detroit court cases, Ashcroft is 0 for 5000 in catching terrorists (in all those arrests right after 9/11) They can't run on making us safer because Al Qaeda is lauding Bush as one of the greatest recruitment officers they ever had saying that they hope he wins the election because "they'll never find a bigger idiot" to help them more than Bush. They can't run on education because No Child Left Behind has been one of the biggest flops ever. Both Kerry and Bush are f***ing idiots.

I got a David Gill for Congress sign in my room and also a Badnarik/Campagna 2004 poster up as well.

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor 1) given documents he thought were true 2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an investigation 5) number of Americans dead: 0 6) should be fired as CBS News Anchor George W. Bush, President of the United States 1) given documents he thought were true 2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts 3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case 4) when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and stonewalled an investigation 5) number of Americans dead: 1000+ 6) should be given four more years as President of the United States www.outletradio.com/grantham/archives/000753.php

The reason Bush I didn't go in was: 1. He knew it was totally and completely illegal for him to engage the US in doing. 2. In his book, he discusses how there would be endless urban warfare, numerous US soldiers dying trying to do the equivalent of putting a fire out with a water pistol in controlling riots etc. and that deposing Hussein would lead to a military quagmire for years after and it was not in the best interest of the US to put the military and the US through something like that. (And technically, if we were worried about "liberating" Kuwait...why did we give it back to a bloodthirsty dictatorial royal family to rule? ) As for the committed mass murder and even if he didn't have WMD he should have been taken out for what he could possibly do. Um, Hussein couldn't have committed the magnitude of mass murder if the US did not sell him the weapons. So, if we're gonna go invade/prosecute Saddam for that -- are you advocating prosecuting the companies that sold this bloodthirsty dictator chemical/biological agents? (And it's not like suing a gun manufacturer -- there's not really many things you can do with chem/bio agents other than murder people) As for "what he might do" in the future...that's pre-emptive war -- a doctrine condemned as a result of the Nuremburg Tribunals. Even in early 2001, Colin Powell and Condie Rice made the TV media rounds saying Saddam was not a threat. I don't see the logic of taking out Saddam when there are more important threats to the nation as a whole (Kim Jong Il having nukes -- I just say we give him laserdiscs and DVDs to increase his expansive movie collection in exchange for ending his nuke program) except that PNAC said in '97/'98 that they wanted control of oil resources and to use it as a tactical pivot to take out Saudi Arabia and Egypt and that it was a cheap ass 3rd world country that Bush could show off his military prowess and defeat the specter of "Vietnam Syndrome" that his daddy was so intent on destroying. And as far as knowing where the WMD are...um, we were told by Powell that we knew where they were and Rummy was on TV saying the US knew where they were right before the war started. Well boys, if you know...where the hell are they?

They are in it for ratings and advertising dollars, plain and simple. Robert McChesney, an author and well respected expert in media studies by people of just about all political stipes (and a UIUC professor. w00t w00t) He and Neil Postman in their books explain pretty well that people tune in to see fights and struggles which in turn dumbs down the media. It increases the preponderance of talking heads like Moore, O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, Colmes, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough et al. where nothing really gets accomplished on the show except two opposing douchebags get on the air and spew their venom with neither of them really hitting an actual policy point to inform viewers. Actual policy debates are relegated to channels like C-SPAN where viewing numbers equals the people who are subscribed to American Grocery Monthly Magazine. It's also a nice explanation for why there is no talk of policy in this election cycle (and others). It's not about their stance on issues, it's become more of a pro wrestling match commentary. "Will the tag team of John Squared be able to take out the English Mangler and Tricky Dick Cheney?! Tune in to find out!" As for the Not So Swift Boat Vets for Smearing Kerry... SBV's anti-Kerry letter includes around 300 names as signatories. However, several vets whose names appear on the letter have stepped forward to state that they never approved the use of their name in that letter and that they do not support SBV. Three days after Media Matters pointed out that SBV's website contradicted the account of their star "witness" William Schacte that he was in the boat with Kerry at the time Kerry won his first Purple Heart, SBV coolly revised their website. Here is a site of documented evidence of the Not So Swift Boat Vets coming up with a lot of contradictory stories about Kerry (they can't even lie consistently): http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/sbv_v_sbv.htm There is plenty to hit Kerry with than to resort to making s*** up.