end of an ERROR

[Ducknut]

[Fat_Teddy]

speaking of fat teddies, according to google they now make specially obese dolls for fat kids in the name of inclusivity.

 

That's great! Now you'll feel like "one of the gang"!

[MervGriffin]

Hey Pope.

 

Quit embarassing yourself with this pro-John F'ing Kerry nonsense. If most so-called Kerry supporters were honest, they might admit that the only reason they're voting for Kerry is because they don't like Bush. Who is really pro-Kerry because they actually think he is the best guy for the job? I think he's a BIG LOSER and once again the American people are presented with weakest possible choice since we got to select between Al Gore and Baby Bush. I'd vote for Gary Coleman before I'd vote for Kerry.

[chucK]

Given our choices, Kerry is the best man for the job. That's the heart of the matter.

 

I think it is no secret with many Kerry "supporters" that they/we are actually anti-Bush. What's with the strawman jive trying to turn that into some big evil secret that needs to be outed?

[Fat_Teddy]

Given our choices, Bush is the best man for the job. Unless you want a wishy washy war criminal as POTUS.

[johndavidjr]

This thread entertains some utter fantasy about the war record of Mr. Kerry, who I don't particularly like. But Bush II is a disaster of intriguing proportions, if you like car wrecks. (see Dubya arrest record.) Also, suggestion that Bush II sought his cherry appointment to the Texas Nat'l Guard because he disagreed on principle with the Vietnam War, is equally weird. I thought mushroom season out there wasn't until September.

[Fat_Teddy]

Fantasy? Information on Kerry's war record comes from his Commanding Officer and himself. I guess you're suggesting Kerry is a liar. That's one more reason to vote against him.

[klenke]

I tell you what, Kerry better get himself a better platform than "Bush sucks this, Bush sucks that" come November 2 or he's going to find himself on the short end of the election stick.

 

I'm no fan of Bush or Kerry and I don't particularly care who wins the election at this point. If Kerry would prove to me that he's worthy of the POTUS position, then I'd vote for him. But he has not done so. I get tired of hearing him (and Gore and all you liberal losers on this site for that matter) spraying anti-Bush venom as their only modus operandi. It only goes so far (how many times can you go to that well of stating the obvious?) and I'm willing to bet most discerning voters know this.

 

I want Kerry to stop focusing on Bush bashing and start focusing on providing a more Kerry-oriented plan for the United States' future. It will be interesting to see what tact he uses in the Presidential debates come fall. Anyone of you have an itemized list of his plan that I can read through?

[chucK]

Anyone of you have an itemized list of his plan that I can read through?

 

You might try http://www.johnkerry.com/

[klenke]

Thanks, chucK.

I'll read through his stances on the issues. I better not read anti-Bush venom in those stances.

[Fat_Teddy]

Thanks, chucK.

I'll read through his stances on the issues. I better not read anti-Bush venom in those stances.

 

Go ahead and read his stances on the issues. Then go look at his voting record. Then go review his speeches.

 

You'll find a lot of inconsistencies.

[Scourge]

Instead of Gary Coleman, how about voting for Hank the angry drunken dwarf?

[johndavidjr]

Dear Mr. F. Teddy:

 

Fantasy? It appears so, with regard to claim that Mr. Kerry is guilty of "war crimes." I'm not a fan of Mr. Kerry, nor to I particularly care about the severity of his injuries in Vietnam, with which the article you cite seeks to quibble. It does make a brief, & seemingly irrelevant mention of Kerry's view of war crimes at the time (he said victims should be compensated).

 

The article you cite is published by "Insight Magazine" a unit of Washington Times daily newspaper, founded by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Insight is generally regarded as a step up from Matt Drudge, and puts out stuff that would damage the already limited credibility of Washington Times. I also note that the article was picked up by a number of looney-tunes right-wing Web sites, which may be where you originally saw it & possibly where you picked up the notion of Kerry committing war crimes.

--------------

------

[Fat_Teddy]

Dear Mr. F. Teddy:

 

Fantasy? It appears so, with regard to claim that Mr. Kerry is guilty of "war crimes." I'm not a fan of Mr. Kerry, nor to I particularly care about the severity of his injuries in Vietnam, with which the article you cite seeks to quibble. It does make a brief, & seemingly irrelevant mention of Kerry's view of war crimes at the time (he said victims should be compensated).

 

The article you cite is published by "Insight Magazine" a unit of Washington Times daily newspaper, founded by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Insight is generally regarded as a step up from Matt Drudge, and puts out stuff that would damage the already limited credibility of Washington Times. I also note that the article was picked up by a number of looney-tunes right-wing Web sites, which may be where you originally saw it & possibly where you picked up the notion of Kerry committing war crimes.

--------------

------

 

Do you read anything you don't find at moveontocommunism? I'll say it again, only this time I'll type more slowly in hopes you can comprehend. KERRY ADMITTED TO COMMITTING WAR CRIMES more than once. Meet the Press

[johndavidjr]

It is quite readily apparent to a reasonable person that the comments were hyperbole used in the context of late 1960s by an opponent (Kerry) of the Vietnam War. By the way, that's a really great Web site you managed to locate. But I'll stick to the one provided by my employer, which gives me at least a look each day at the five biggest U.S. newspapers.

[willstrickland]

The question is not whether Natl Guard service is honorable - it is, no doubt. The question with Bush is: Was it immoral and/or cowardly to use his family influence to bypass the waiting list when he otherwise stood a very good chance of going to Vietnam.

 

As I've said before, any legislator will have his voting record used against him because voting records do not necessarily represent their stance on issues. EX: You vote against a military spending bill that has tons of pork riders and ridiculous projects (the rental of fueling tanker planes comes to mind) and you are labeled "weak on defense". It's the curse of the legislator.

 

I don't like Kerry. I don't like Bush. If I were living in WA or OR, I'd vote for Kerry. With a GOP controlled congress, he can't inflict much radical change and I can't stomach the idea of 4 more years of Bush. I think he can hold down the fort until McCain can take the helm in '08.

 

Since I live in AK, where Bush will easily win the state, I will vote my true preference - Libertarian.

 

I'd love to see a McCain/Powell ticket in 2008. I would volunteer for that campaign.

[Fat_Teddy]

It is quite readily apparent to a reasonable person that the comments were hyperbole used in the context of late 1960s by an opponent (Kerry) of the Vietnam War. By the way, that's a really great Web site you managed to locate. But I'll stick to the one provided by my employer, which gives me at least a look each day at the five biggest U.S. newspapers.

 

You want to see the quote printed on another source? That's your argument? A quote is a quote. How many sources would you like to see it from?

 

Dodge Parry Thrust SPIIIIIIIIIN

[johndavidjr]

A non-story, as they say.

[Fat_Teddy]

A non-story, as they say.

 

A candidate for President of the United States ADMITTING to committing war crimes is only a non-story if your stupid enough to support him.

[willstrickland]

Fat Teddy, as a staunch supporter of the Bush admin, tell me:

 

Will Condi Rice and Colin Powell serve another stint if Bush is re-elected? And if no (because everything I'm hearing indicates that they will not) why would they decline the honor?

 

I have my own cynical beliefs of why, but I want to hear from the pro-Bush side.

[Fat_Teddy]

Fat Teddy, as a staunch supporter of the Bush admin, tell me:

 

Will Condi Rice and Colin Powell serve another stint if Bush is re-elected? And if no (because everything I'm hearing indicates that they will not) why would they decline the honor?

 

I have my own cynical beliefs of why, but I want to hear from the pro-Bush side.

 

How the heck would I know? I left my crystal ball at home. I can see that past, though. Did you see where Kerry admitted to committing war crimes?

[marylou]

Condi and Colin have already indicated that they will not be serving after the elections.

[Fat_Teddy]

Condi and Colin have already indicated that they will not be serving after the elections.

 

When and where?

 

Not that I anticipate a response. You're great at tossing out claims the running away when called on them.

[marylou]

I heard it on a report on All Things Considered the day Tenet announced his resignation. If you were to do a search of NPR's website, you might be able to find a transcript.

[Fat_Teddy]

I heard it on a report on All Things Considered the day Tenet announced his resignation. If you were to do a search of NPR's website, you might be able to find a transcript.

 

You made the assertion. Let's see the link.