Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp....0621414

Quote[/b] ]

GOP 2004: Michael Moore Draws McCain Barb, Taunts from Crowd

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 30, 2004

NEW YORK The biggest commotion at the Republican National Convention Monday night occurred just before 10 p.m. with the entrance of filmmaker Michael Moore, who was repeatedly halted by security attempting to reach his reserved press seat in section #340 facing the side of the stage. Moore is writing a daily column this week for USA Today.

Then, after taking his seat, he watched as Senator John McCain referred to a certain "disingenuous film-maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace," and seemed to glance at Moore above him. Much of the audience erupted in boos and then, turning to Moore, many delegates chanted "Four more years!"

Moore exclaimed, "Two more months!" He also said, "I can't believe they'd mention the film and help the box office."

A short while later Moore exited, accompanied by heavy security. He told E & P on the way out that he was not fleeing: He had to speak to a Planned Parenthood gathering at a theater uptown.

About this time, his first USA Today column, for Tuesday's edition, appeared online, titled "The GOP Doesn't Reflect America."

Earlier, Moore had received more hassling than usual over press credentials on his way upstairs to his seat. Then it took 20 minutes for him to get from the hallway just outside to the seat, as he was stopped by security two more times.

Informed by a reporter that this was highly unusual, Moore quipped: "How well is YOUR movie doing?"

When he finally reached his seat, so many cameramen gathered that reporters already seated complained that the crush was disturbing their work.

Moore, dressed in his trademark red baseball cap and jeans, told E & P, "I don't why they are checking my credentials so much. I have the right credentials." He added, however, that so far this week "the police have been helpful." and "I have had not negative things said to me by any Republican."

Some Republicans nearby, however, were not shy about sharing their views of Moore with reporters. A GOP consultant from Pennsylvania, David Welch, said, "He's a troublemaker. I think he's here to cause trouble."

"I just want to do some work," Moore said. "This is an important historical event."

Finally seated, he wrote on a notepad, not a laptop, with security guards stationed at each end of his row. Then McCain made his reference and suddenly Republicans were not treating him so nicely.

In his USA Today column, Moore congratulated the Republicans for being able to seize power while only representing one-third of the populace. "Our side is full of wimps who'd rather compromise than fight," he explained. "Not you guys."

Noting that the convention would focus on moderates, Moore charged that Republicans know "that the only way to hold onto power is to pass themselves off as, well, as most Americans. It's a good show."

I missed the opening day of RNC because I slept through it (long day.....first day of fall classes).....      

Edit: I see folks are wrapped up in the swift boat thingy like Kerry.... Vote for Bush or I will lose some of my post count!!!!

Also, does Erika Harold (Miss America 2003) speak today (tues.) about faith based programs or something of that nature?  

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]You fantasy from people who were never there

What, now you're a Navy veteran?

Quote[/b] ]You said only PBRs patroled the border with cambodia I have shown that official Naval records prove this to be wrong. I have posted links to those records and photgraphs of the base.

Yes, but you always seem to miss the points:

1. Swift Boats, PBRs, and other types of boats worked together. There's a good list on that site that you're getting the pictures from. However, according to the Commander of the PBR forces in the area, Swift Boats were not allowed to get very close to the border during the time period that Kerry said that he had Christmas in Cambodia.

2. Kerry himself wrote in Tour Of Duty that he spent that Christmas in a mortar attack at a town 55 miles from the Cambodian border. Before you write any more puerile comments about my "moral fibre", please address this issue. Kerry himself contradicted his claim that he spent Christmas in Cambodia with his statement in Tour Of Duty. His own campaign has backpedaled and said that he "might" not have spent Christmas in Cambodia. Walker, it seems like everyone ( Including Kerry + Co. ) now says that Kerry did not spend his Christmas in Cambodia. Are you going to go against Kerry's own testimony and continue insisting that he spent Christmas in Cambodia? That's thickheaded at best.

[denoir 0]

Personally, I'd respect him more if he'd voted against the war and then voted for the bill. I wouldn't have agreed with it completely, but at least he would have supported giving the soldiers the funds they needed. Yes, I'm sure the war is overbudget, but that doesn't make it OK to try to stop a large amount of cash (Which, among many other things, was going to pay for body armor) as a political statement. Give the troops what they need, and go after the one who sent them there in the first place. It's not the common serviceman's/servicewoman's fault that there are US troops in Iraq and that the war is overbudget .

Oh, come on, tell me that you are that bainwashed.  Yes, Kerry is a bad man who eats small children for breakfast and he wanted American troops in Iraq to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan in only their underware

He voted against a very crappy suggestion for dumping a shitload of money on the wrong things.

I guess this is where the military experience comes in. Bush's proposal for funding prioritized making Haliburton money and not some boring details like providing body armor and armored vehicles for the troops.

Kerry is such an ass for thinking of the needs of the troops, rather than the hard working owners of Haliburton stocks.  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, come on, tell me that you are that bainwashed.  Yes, Kerry is a bad man who eats small children for breakfast and he wanted American troops in Iraq to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan in only their underware

He voted against a very crappy suggestion for dumping a shitload of money on the wrong things.

I guess this is where the military experience comes in. Bush's proposal for funding prioritized making Haliburton money and not some boring details like providing body armor and armored vehicles for the troops.

Kerry is such an ass for thinking of the needs of the troops, rather than the hard working owners of Haliburton stocks.

But, it did pass. Furthermore, the bill did contain 300 million dollars (Army) for body armor (100 million for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles and a billion for Other Procurement, Army) and Kerry looks bad because his so called "amended" bill did not happen.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh, come on, tell me that you are that bainwashed. Yes, Kerry is a bad man who eats small children for breakfast and he wanted American troops in Iraq to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan in only their underware

He voted against a very crappy suggestion for dumping a shitload of money on the wrong things.

I guess this is where the military experience comes in. Bush's proposal for funding prioritized making Haliburton money and not some boring details like providing body armor and armored vehicles for the troops.

Kerry is such an ass for thinking of the needs of the troops, rather than the hard working owners of Haliburton stocks.

But, it did pass. Furthermore, the bill did contain 300 million dollars (Army) for body armor (100 million for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles and a billion for Other Procurement, Army) and Kerry looks bad because his so called "amended" bill did not happen.

What the hell were the troops sent in for without the right equipment?

So basically, your fearless war leader sent masses of ill-equiped, unprepared soldiers into harms way?

Gee. That's a great war president there.

EDIT: Did you also know that on Dec. 9 Kerry and Daschle introduced a bill requiring the Armed Services to reimburse soldiers and familys that had to buy their own body armor? (S.1991)

That Kerry also introduced a bill for the stabilization of Iraq by temporarily suspending partially the tax reductions for the very highest tax bracket? (S.1634)

More in a sec....

[denoir 0]

But, it did pass. Furthermore, the bill did contain 300 million dollars (Army) for body armor (100 million for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles and a billion for Other Procurement, Army) and Kerry looks bad because his so called "amended" bill did not happen.

Maybe he looks bad politically, but that beats Bush who has blood on his hands because he prioritized making Haliburton rich over the safety of American soldiers.

$300 million and $100 million out of a bill of $87 billion ? ?? I had no idea it was so bad. No wonder that Haliburton stocks have skyrocketed while American families had to buy body armor for their loved ones serving in Iraq, because the US Army couldn't afford.

I'm completely serious when I say this: What the fuck is wrong with you? Look at what the man has done, what he is doing and who is paying for it.

It's disgusting enough not giving a fuck about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that Bush is responsible for. You Bush fanatics try to pretend that you at least care about American soldiers dying - but apparently you don't give a fuck about them either. Instead of debating how they were underfunded and betrayed, you area busy discussing if Kerry was getting shot up inside Cambodia or inside Vietnam, 30 years ago.

That is a perfect display of your character. You've hit the moral gutter. Go an like that, and I guarantee you that far less extreme people than bin Laden will try to kill you. And nobody will shed a tear for you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe you should just go and ask the troops that are actually serving in Iraq what they think about George W. Bush, his holy crusade and the war in Iraq. They speak a very clear language about that now once the press officer is not in reach. I´ve seen a lot of that interviews lately. They didn´t sound specially freaky about GW and his warmonger herd.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK – President Bush has gained ground on Democrat John Kerry in the month of August because of "relatively small but unmistakable" shifts in the political environment, Democratic strategists said in a memo released Monday.

The polling memo by Democracy Corps, a group led by pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville, said the subtle gains by Bush have knotted the race again after Kerry had a slight advantage after the Democratic National Convention in late July.

"There is no doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (attacking Kerry's Vietnam service) have had an impact on the race," according to the Democracy Corps memo. Those attacks combined with the Summer Olympics have combined to "shift the focus away from Iraq and worrisome economic trends."

The Democracy Corps analysis averaged numerous national and state polls to come up with its assessment that Bush is doing slightly better against Kerry, a judgment supported more by internal measures such as issues and candidate qualities.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday supported the Democracy Corps findings. Bush and Kerry were tied at 48 percent apiece while independent Ralph Nader was backed by 1 percent among likely voters. They are also tied among registered voters, a larger group.

Kerry has lost ground on several measures in the ABC-Post poll such as voter enthusiasm for his candidacy, his personal popularity and his ratings on such issues as education, the economy, Iraq and terrorism. Bush has gained trust on these issues during that time.

The ABC News-Post poll was taken Aug. 26-29 of 945 registered voters has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, slightly higher for likely voters.

[Akira 0]

945 registered voters??

Puh-lease....

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]945 registered voters??

Puh-lease....

That's what a poll is, a "representative sampling". Though the only poll that really matters is the one in November .

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]945 registered voters??

Puh-lease....

That's what a poll is, a "representative sampling". Though the only poll that really matters is the one in November .

I can guarentee you a poll of 945 voters ain't gonna represent shit...

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]...

"There is no doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (attacking Kerry's Vietnam service) have had an impact on the race," according to the Democracy Corps memo. Those attacks combined with the Summer Olympics have combined to "shift the focus away from Iraq and worrisome economic trends."

...

This may be as good as it will get for Bush.

- Olympics are over and the Iraq saga is ongoing (think quagmire).

- Domestic economic forecast is worsening (think Bush Sr losing re-election).

- Likelihood of a pre-election terrorist attack within the US is said to be high (think Madrid).

- Swift folk have done their worst and are now, themselves, the target of growing scrutiny (think backfire).

Sure ain't easy being a Republican these days.  

[denoir 0]

I hope you are right. I'm getting the impression that Bush is currently the probable winner. While it may be tied in the popular vote, the EC vote situation seems to favour Bush significantly.

[kerosene 0]

Has anyone heard of James L Hart?

Hes this awesome white supremacist who just got nominated to run for congress in tennesee. This pricks belifs are truly stomach turning, Eugenics, banning mixed race marriages, it just goes on and on.

type his name into google and as well numerous left wing sites criticising him, you can find white supremicist sites like the national vangaurd describing his nomination as a "victory for whites". (this site also describes a National Front parade in scotland as a "patriotic parade" to give you an idea of where they stand.)

If your white and vile racist scum, then this definatley a victory for you, but otherwise not so much. It really speaks volumes about the republican party and how much they'll pander to shitheads to get a vote.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Has anyone heard of James L Hart?

Hes this awesome white supremacist who just got nominated to run for congress in tennesee.  This pricks belifs are truly stomach turning, Eugenics, banning mixed race marriages, it just goes on and on.

type his name into google and as well numerous left wing sites criticising him, you can find white supremicist sites like the national vangaurd describing his nomination as a "victory for whites". (this site also describes a National Front parade in scotland as a "patriotic parade" to give you an idea of where they stand.)

If your white and vile racist scum, then this definatley a victory for you, but otherwise not so much.  It really speaks volumes about the republican party and how much they'll pander to shitheads to get a vote.

He is a disgrace to this country. Anyway, GOP has not given him full support (from what I heard). It is sad that people voted for him but not the veteran/current guardsmen. Also, both parties play on race. Furthermore, the democrat he is facing is a shoe-in to win it. I guess democrats never had any racist in the Senate or in the house.....b..y....r...d....

[kerosene 0]

The problem for me is the number of republicans who are overtly racist is too many.

And yeah there are always gonna be racists in just about any group, but this prick should be ejected from the party, its not like were talking about someone whos predujiced, no one like this should be in a major political party in a civilised country. Its the 21st century godammit!

He should be denounced rather than not supported.

[theavonlady 2]

It really speaks volumes about the republican party

It doesn't. The GOP didn't field a candidate and he walked up to the plate uninvited. The Republicans are in fact embarrased and are doing their best now to make him lose.

See, for example, This ABC News article on the subject.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's disgusting enough not giving a fuck about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that Bush is responsible for. You Bush fanatics try to pretend that you at least care about American soldiers dying - but apparently you don't give a fuck about them either. Instead of debating how they were underfunded and betrayed, you area busy discussing if Kerry was getting shot up inside Cambodia or inside Vietnam, 30 years ago.

I'm digusted that you accuse me for not caring about the troops over in Iraq and civils. Furthermore, Kerry has made vietnam a topic not me. I will continue my rant later on.

[ericz 0]

Bernadotte:

Quote[/b] ] Olympics are over and the Iraq saga is ongoing (think quagmire).

- Domestic economic forecast is worsening (think Bush Sr losing re-election).

- Likelihood of a pre-election terrorist attack within the US is said to be high (think Madrid).

- Swift folk have done their worst and are now, themselves, the target of growing scrutiny (think backfire).

-War on Terror and  war on states or peoples who aid and abet terrorists  in any way shape or form will take years and years perhaps even past my lifetime.

-economic forecasts have been up and down, kindly inform what Kerry will do differently, I have yet to hear any concrete details from him.

-Americans by and large (except for some pansy liberals and isolationist conservatives) do not believe in appeasing, ignoring or  compromising with terrorist rabble.  

-Swiftboat Veterans are AMERICAN VETERANS and therefore entitled to tell their version of the events and give voice to their political opinions much moreso than than the mostly NON-VETERAN groups such as moveon.org.

[EiZei 0]

-War on Terror and  war on states or peoples who aid and abet terrorists  in any way shape or form will take years and years perhaps even past my lifetime.

I thought we were talking about the Iraq situtation?

Quote[/b] ]

-economic forecasts have been up and down, kindly inform what Kerry will do differently, I have yet to hear any concrete details from him.

Not start really f*cking expensive wars and increase the deficit further?

Quote[/b] ]

-Americans by and large (except for some pansy liberals and isolationist conservatives) do not believe in appeasing, ignoring or  compromising with terrorist rabble.

So if you don't support pre-emptive warfare on unrelated nations you are a terrorist appeaser? What the hell?

Quote[/b] ]

-Swiftboat Veterans are AMERICAN VETERANS and therefore entitled to tell their version of the events and give voice to their political opinions much moreso than than the mostly NON-VETERAN groups such as moveon.org.

So being a veteran gives you right to free speech than not being a former member of the US armed forces? Starship troopers?

Why are the swiftvets making claims contradictory to their quotes in reports etc.?

[Bernadotte 0]

-War on Terror and  war on states or peoples who aid and abet terrorists  in any way shape or form will take years and years perhaps even past my lifetime.

What does the Iraq conflict have to do with the War on Terror (ie. Al Qaida)?

Quote[/b] ]-economic forecasts have been up and down, kindly inform what Kerry will do differently, I have yet to hear any concrete details from him.

And what exactly did Clinton promise to do differently before defeating Bush Sr during a minor economic slump in 1992 ?

Quote[/b] ]-Americans by and large (except for some pansy liberals and isolationist conservatives) do not believe in appeasing, ignoring or  compromising with terrorist rabble.

What does that have to do with the impact an attack could have on the election? Are you saying it wouldn't?

Then I sincerely hope you are right.  Unfortunately, history has shown otherwise.  

Quote[/b] ]-Swiftboat Veterans are AMERICAN VETERANS and therefore entitled to tell their version of the events and give voice to their political opinions much moreso than than the mostly NON-VETERAN groups such as moveon.org.

What's your point?  What does this have to do with the possibility of a smear campaign backfiring?

[kerosene 0]

In what way are the republicans doing there best to stop Hart from being elected?

The Tennesee Republican party website makes no mention of him, ditto for the G.O.P site, all team GOP did was criticise a democrat who said that the Tennesee Republicans should publicly denounce him and that he should have looked into the E-mails sent by republicans.

I cant find public, on the record criticism of him, the one write-in candidate who unfortunatley failed in his attempt to stop him getting nominated isnt enough.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I will continue my rant later on.

Ok. Kerry has come out said that he was glad that he did not vote $87 billion and that means he not glad that 40,000 got the good body armor; Hummers got armor kits; increase military pay; continue funding for development of better weapons; and etc. (maintance; health care bah bah). The bill has a lot of more things that does not deal with Halliburton. There is a reason I bolded...looks bad. Kerry's amendment was about how it was going to be paid.

Quote[/b] ]It's disgusting enough not giving a fuck about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that Bush is responsible for.

Quote[/b] ]

That is a perfect display of your character. You've hit the moral gutter. Go an like that, and I guarantee you that far less extreme people than bin Laden will try to kill you. And nobody will shed a tear for you.

You need to put down the fucking bottle before trying to personal insult me, ass. Do not bring your bad day in to this forum. I have never posted any insult that personally goes after you. You know shit about my character.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I will continue my rant later on.

Ok. Kerry has come out said that he was glad that he did not vote $87 billion and that means he not glad that 40,000 got the good body armor; Hummers got armor kits; increase military pay; continue funding for development of better weapons; and etc. (maintance; health care bah bah). The bill has a lot of more things that does not deal with Halliburton. There is a reason I bolded...looks bad. Kerry's amendment was about how it was going to be paid.

The point being that of the $87 billion somehow there was not money to supply troops with body armors or that Hummers got armor kits. These are problems in Iraq today, a long time after that bill was passed. Halliburton and others on the other hand has had no problems cashing in on "reconstruction" projects that have gotten nowhere.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's disgusting enough not giving a fuck about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that Bush is responsible for.

Quote[/b] ]

That is a perfect display of your character. You've hit the moral gutter. Go an like that, and I guarantee you that far less extreme people than bin Laden will try to kill you. And nobody will shed a tear for you.

You need to put down the fucking bottle before trying to personal insult me, ass. Do not bring your bad day in to this forum. I have never posted any insult that personally goes after you.

I'm havning an excellent day, and I mean every word I say. Tell me what you have a problem understanding:

1. Bush invaded Iraq, a country that was no threat whatsoever to America. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed for no reason.

Do you understand that? I'm sure you noticed the invasion, the civilian deaths and the lack of WMD or anything else that could pose a threat to America. Bush is responsible for the deaths of those people and you want him re-elected. Hence, you don't give a flying fuck about the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You want to award Bush for a job well done by electing him again. What does that make you?

2. Bush's $87 billion bill for Iraq and Afghanistan did not in any way solve the shortages of body armor, vehicles, ammunition etc in Iraq. Plenty of big companies did very good business with "reconstruction". I'm using quotes because very little has actually been reconstructed, but that didn't stop various corporation to cash in.

Bush won't provide the American troops the most elementary resources they need. How many US deaths could have been avoided were the troops properly equipped? Not only did Bush betray the American soldiers by putting them in harms way for no reason, but he won't even supply them the necessities they need to survive.

You are supporting Bush and want him elected. You want the man who wants to send Americans in harms way without proper equipment. What does that say about you?

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's disgusting enough not giving a fuck about the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that Bush is responsible for. You Bush fanatics try to pretend that you at least care about American soldiers dying - but apparently you don't give a fuck about them either. Instead of debating how they were underfunded and betrayed, you area busy discussing if Kerry was getting shot up inside Cambodia or inside Vietnam, 30 years ago.

I'm digusted that you accuse me for not caring about the troops over in Iraq and civils. Furthermore, Kerry has made vietnam a topic not me. I will continue my rant later on.

Yes, but you who never served for a moment and have done nothing better than take care of your own personal needs feel no compunction whatsoever in criticizing those who have served and sacrificed. Tell me, what gives you the right?

Who do you think you are that you can sit in judgment of anyone who's given more to this country than you probably ever will?

Where do you get the balls and the arrogance to doubt anyone when you yourself are nothing compared to them?

You think you have a right to judge the character of someone's combat experience or their morals for going or for trying to stop the war when you've never seen more combat than a playground fist fight?

I find people like you the lowest form of coward.