Us presidential election 2004

[Acecombat 0]

Kerry Lesbian Remark Angers Cheneys

Here i was thinking Mr cheney was a religious conservative .

[shinRaiden 0]

The Cheney's were rightfully indignant because the entire premise of Kerry's point was Kerry's liberal philosophy of the nanny-state to impound personal responsibility. In commenting on their family relations, Kerry was effectively saying "I know your family better than you do, and how to manage your family better than you do." Of course the Cheney's were offended, any sane person would.

Any way, speaking of skeletons in the closet, now this printed in the NY Sun:

Quote[/b] ]

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163." This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.

The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.

The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.

Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

Any UCMJ scholars in the crowd?

[Balschoiw 0]

The outside view:

Polls: Views of America Worsening

Quote[/b] ]LONDON - America's reputation around the world is hurting, according to a series of coordinated polls from 10 countries, including many of the United States' closest allies.

In seven of the countries where the surveys, commissioned by major newspapers, were conducted more people said their view of America had worsened over the past two to three years than improved. That question was asked in nine countries.

By big margins, those questioned said the war in Iraq did not aid the global fight against terrorism.

And in eight out of 10 nations, those polled said - often in landslide proportions - that they hoped to see Democrat John Kerry beat U.S. President Bush in next month's election. Bush won backing from a majority of respondents only in Russia and Israel.

The polls were conducted in Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia, with results to be published in the participating newspapers on Friday. Not all questions were asked in every country.

On average, 57 percent of those questioned said their opinions of America had worsened over the past two to three years, compared to 20 percent who said their view had improved. That question was asked in nine of the countries, but not in Russia.

Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a worse opinion of America now than two to three years ago.

Only in Israel and South Korea did more people say their view of the United States had improved than worsened in the past two to three years.

In that period, which began just after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the United States has led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While much of the international community backed the invasion to oust the Taliban, Bush's decision to invade Iraq has fueled anger around the world.

However, many of those polled separated their feelings about the U.S. government from their views of the American people. Sixty-eight percent said they had a favorable opinion of Americans.

Asked whether American democracy remained a model for other nations, 52 percent said yes and 42 percent said no.

In Britain, Mexico and South Korea, more people thought the United States was no longer a model, while in Canada, Russia, Japan and Israel, majorities said it was.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in seven nations - including Britain, America's closest ally in Iraq - said the war there was not helping the world fight against terrorism, while 35 percent said it was, as Bush contends.

People in all ten countries were asked who they hoped to see win the White House on Nov. 2, and the result will make Kerry wish they had a vote.

The Democrat was favored by healthy to enormous majorities in eight of the nations - 72 percent supported him compared to 16 percent for Bush in France.

In South Korea, it was 68 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Bush; in Canada, 60 percent to 20 percent; in Spain, 58 percent to 13 percent; 54 percent to 28 percent in Australia and 50 percent to 22 percent in Britain.

Bush came out on top in Israel by a margin of 50 percent to 24 percent and in Russia, 52 percent to 48 percent.

The newspapers involved were La Presse in Canada, Le Monde in France, the Guardian in Britain, El Pais in Spain, Asahi Shimbun in Japan, JoongAng Ilbo in South Korea, the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age in Australia, Reforma in Mexico, Haaretz in Israel and the Moscow News in Russia.

The sample sizes in the ten polls varied from 522 people in Israel to 1,417 in Australia. Margins of error were mostly around 3 percentage points, but varied between 2.6 percentage points and 4.38 percentage points.

The polls were conducted on different dates from September through early October.

Not really surprising.

[denoir 0]

Personally, I believe a person who kills with the intent to kill is always worse than the person who does so accidentally.  I am not saying that it makes things any better for those who directly suffer, only that the person who intends to kill is far worse than the one who does without meaning to.  Just a personal difference of opinion I suppose.

Except for that it wasn't an accident. As Akira put it "You can't drop a 2000lb bomb into the middle of a residential neighborhood and say the killing of civilians was an "accident"."

When you choose to start a war, you can't count the casualties of that war as accidents. When you make the choice, you know that there will be civilian casualties.

So calling it manslaughter is a bit wrong - second degree murder is probably more correct.

An example: You suspect that your wife is cheating on you, so you take your Ak-47 and during lunch-hour go to the restaurant she's usually at. You open fire, trying to kill her. And you succeed, but in the process, you kill 20 other people.

Now in court, you point out that you really only tried to kill your wife, not the others - that you were very careful when you aimed.

Do you really think any judge or jury will let you get away with manslaughter?

Quote[/b] ]BTW, denior, I thank you for keeping this civil. I see so many posts in this thread that are absolutely scathing that I really was afraid to post here.

It generally goes both ways. It's people that start off rude that get personally attacked.

And then there's billiybob who has over time earned his position as a punching bag

[denoir 0]

The Cheney's were rightfully indignant because the entire premise of Kerry's point was Kerry's liberal philosophy of the nanny-state to impound personal responsibility. In commenting on their family relations, Kerry was effectively saying "I know your family better than you do, and how to manage your family better than you do." Of course the Cheney's were offended, any sane person would.

While I think it would for stylistic reasons better to keep family members out of the debate, Kerry didn't do anything wrong really.

First of all, the Cheneys are being inconsistent. When Edwards mentioned their daughter, Cheney thanked Edwards for "his kind words". And now he's outraged when Kerry does the same thing?

Secondly, she's part of the campaign and while ones' sexuallity is normaly a private issue, it is the Cheneys that brought it up in the first place. She is an active proponent of gay rights and it was her father that in public broke off from Bush's agenda.

I think also it reflects the fact that they on some level in fact are ashamed of her. Had she been a teacher and Kerry was talking about vouchers and said "Cheney's daughter is a teacher, she knows what I am talking about", then it's unlikely that they would have been 'outraged'.

Finally, to answer to your statement, it is the government's job to (within limits) regulate families and protect children. The kids arn't property. They're human beings with rights - something that the state has to protect. Or do you think for instance that a parent has the right to beat up his kids?

Quote[/b] ]Any way, speaking of skeletons in the closet, now this printed in the NY Sun:

I see that the R-emote control is working quite well. I see that Vietnam is again popular this season. Be careful though, people may be stupid, but there's a limit to that too. While Bush certainly won the previous Vietnam round, it's questionable if he'll do so again. I think that the debates pretty much invalidated lots of the Bush campaign's negative ads. Just making up stuff about the other side won't work that well.

And on the Vietnam issue, you have a candidate that can't prove that he didn't desert from his NG duty in Texas, while they have a decorated soldier who served in Vietnam on theirs. While the Bush side waged a brilliant anti-Kerry campaign on the Vietnam issue, the problem is still that Kerry has reality on his side. Bringing it up again is really pushing your luck and it can backfire badly.

[Blake 0]

I agree, when you have proven decorated Vietnam veteran in one hand and effectively rich Vietnam-evading NG pilot who's full service in doubtful at least I think wheter Kerry was honorably or dishonorably discharged is not an issue.

They should really concentrate on issues more because I think voters are getting fed up with such propaganda when they obviously see what are the main facts behind it. If that anti-Kerry ad like that with some vets speaking against Kerry keeps going on viewers could easily think of them criticising Bush with even harsher words...

But I predict the last weeks of the race will see every means of dirt-throwing since the real issues have been rolled in TV for many times.

Quote[/b] ]Despite unprecedented popularity from this military and diplomatic triumph, Bush was unable to withstand discontent at home from a faltering economy, rising violence in inner cities, and continued high deficit spending. In 1992 he lost his bid for reelection to Democrat William Clinton.

Maybe there's a pattern emerging...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And then there's billiybob who has over time earned his position as a punching bag

Yes!!! Wait a second.... I have become a punching bag for a german, frenchman, swede, belgian, finnish, and some americans.... sorry if I left some countries out.. WooT!!!!  

BTW, Kerry sucks! Here is a picture of my school's Kerry supporters after the first debate.... The university paper talked how they cheered for everything that Kerry said...(not all but many were)....

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

Something I never saw before...

Quote[/b] ]1.  Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%)  Click here for info

2.  Bush, President George W. - Republican   (68%)  Click here for info

3.  Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat   (54%)  Click here for info

4.  Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian   (37%)  Click here for info

5.  Cobb, David - Green Party   (31%)  Click here for info

6.  Nader, Ralph - Independent   (31%)  Click here for info

7.  Brown, Walt - Socialist Party   (20%)  Click here for info

8.  Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party   (6%)  Click here for info

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]BTW, Kerry sucks!

Thats the most mature thing ive seen you say yet

[Akira 0]

Yes!!! Wait a second.... I have become a punching bag for a german, frenchman, swede, belgian, finnish, and some americans.... sorry if I left some countries out.. WooT!!!!

You forgot Poland.

[Bernadotte 0]

BTW, Kerry sucks! Here is a picture of my school's Kerry supporters after the first debate....

Did anyone see the Daily Show following the first debate where Stewart was asking one of his correspondents about the reaction from the Bush campaign?  The correspondent replied, "John, the Bush team are celebrating as an enormous success the fact that their candidate, a functional retard, was not reduced to tears by Kerry, the former head of the Yale debating team."

[kerosene 0]

Daily show rules, the correspondents are great too. John Stewart does a great impression of John Kerry too.

Did you see the recent one where they laid into Dr. Phil, that was funny as f***. I cant figure out whether all of the people being interviewed are real or actors on some of the sections they have.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You forgot Poland.

hmm... coalition of the haters...  

Bern:  

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have become a punching bag for a german,

You´re trying to victimize yourself ? Poor, poor billybob.

Fits your attitude. Besides that you are so uninteresting for me that I don´t really bother if you declare yourself a victim...

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]hmm... coalition of the haters...

Yes ? Elaborate !

Ah no...

See above.

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry 228   Bush 284

source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Crap, Bush is leading  

[shinRaiden 0]

Sweet, Bush was only at 270 last week. Roll on!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry 228   Bush 284

source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Crap, Bush is leading  

Nah, don't worry. The guy who takes care of the Electoral Vote Predictor stopped with pollster averaging on popular demand. So now he posts the most recent poll reslut. The last week a Republican polling service called Strategic Vision has presented their results last and hence is being used in the EVP.

Strategic Vision results completely diverge from the larger polling organizations. So simply put, the map is wrong.

I hope he'll introduce averaging again.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]reslut

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry 228   Bush 284

source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Crap, Bush is leading  

Don't worry. I seriously doubt Kerry will lose NJ, NH, FL, NM, IA and MO. Just those would give Kerry 297 vs the 270 needed to win. AR, WS, OH and VA are also shifting to Kerry and would give him another 49.

[EiZei 0]

At this point saying that candidate x will win is shooting at your own feet.

[DanAK47 1]

This Virginian isn't shifting to Kerry.

He wins in the debates because he uses shady numbers which play on people's assumptions.

Rather than attacking a princple or strategy on logical terms he uses small, damning incidents, and exaggerates the frequency or impact of them to try and prove the strategy is fundamentally flawwed.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]He wins in the debates because he uses shady numbers which play on people's assumptions.

What is shady on his numbers?

[Akira 0]

This Virginian isn't shifting to Kerry.

He wins in the debates because he uses shady numbers which play on people's assumptions.

Rather than attacking a princple or strategy on logical terms he uses small, damning incidents, and exaggerates the frequency or impact of them to try and prove the strategy is fundamentally flawwed.

Yeah. Thats not Bush at all....

*rolls eyes*

[denoir 0]

Rather than attacking a princple or strategy on logical terms he uses small, damning incidents, and exaggerates the frequency or impact of them to try and prove the strategy is fundamentally flawwed.

I wouldn't call the economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, social security, education, health care for "small incidents", but hey - that's just me.

Bush has failed on so many points that just by looking at the issues it is incomperhensible how anybody would vote for him. Bush is however in luck since apparently a significant portion of the US population like empty ideology over reality.

[shinRaiden 0]

Editorial written by professor Mathew Manweller of Central Washington University's PoliSci department for the Ellensburg Daily Record Oct. 6th, 2004.

Quote[/b] ]

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Serfs vs. Pioneers. We left or were kicked out of old Europe and Asia because as Americans we refused to accept the notion that we were to be serfs and dictated to. That is why the quaint notion of liberty and freedom is such an alien concept to you. We call your attention what still remain as the God-given human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. John Kerry does not support any of these.

John Kerry does not support life. In arbitrally picking and choosing what is and isn't life and who deserves it based on passing whims of convienence and political expediency, he denegrates all life. This arbitrary selection, whether abortion in the beginning or euthansia in the end deliberately attacks the idea that life is good, and should be valued, and not discarded lightly as a prison or bundle of excess tissue.

John Kerry does not support liberty. By ignoring the former soviet republics and soviet sattelites that have pledged their lives in defense of those freedoms so new to them, and by trampling on the dreams of those repressed masses throughout the middle east - who up until the proclivities of Bill Clinton dreamed of sending their children to our shores as students, not bombers - and by despising the cause of liberty in the very theater of combat he once served in, he has proven that he neither values nor respects liberty.

John Kerry does not support the pursuit of happiness. To pursue something is to be activiely engaged in seeking of your own volition. The liberal nanny-state mentality says that the citizen is only a mindless serf to be managed because they are not capable of making informed choices. This constant brainwashing, instead of designing to fix the problem and give opportunity to make choices and choose your own destiny, instead incarcerates generations in the psychological prisons of subserviance.

John Kerry boldy stands for the antithesis of all the American values, the principles on which this country was founded. If you wish to attack those principles in the interest of feeding your hedonistic world-views, that is your choice for citizens legally registered to vote. But bear in mind that choices do come with unavoidable consequences, and you may not be able to dictate what effect those consequences will have on you.