mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

October 28, 2004

New Corroboration of Kerry "Caca" Claims (posted by Demosophist)[Humor]

Ironically, reported by Right Wing News:

ANALYSIS: IRAQ EXPLOSIVES EASILY MOVED BY 'WORLD'S STRONGEST MAN' CONTESTANTS
A new scientific study by the French Ministry of Sport and Jejune Ennui reported today that the 380 tons of high explosives missing from an Iraqi site "could have easily been looted by a team of specially trained burly Scandanavian strongmen with 'roid rage.'"

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:19 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

More Documents Reveal John Kerry-Viet Cong Links

A third document has surfaced linking John Kerry's anti-war activities to the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. The documents were found in the Virtual Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech University and reveal some amount of coordination between John Kerry's Vietnam Vetrans Against the War, Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnamese government and the Provisional Government of South Vietnam--better known as the Viet Cong.

The latest document can be found online at a website set up to handle inquiries at the Virtual Vietnam Archive. The website was set up after Chad Evans of In the Bullpen contacted the director of the archive questioning the authenticity of the documents. Chad's analysis of the current document can be found here.

World Net Daily claims that the new document provides context for why John Kerry would adapt the Seven Point Plan of Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh. Kerry has denied any coordination with the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong.

Chad at In the Bullpen is following this closely and will have updates.

Let me just state, for the record once again, that these documents show that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong believed they were influencing John Kerry's group. They also show that John Kerry and the Viet Cong had the same goals and the same solution to the problem of how to bring peace to Vietnam. What they do not show is that John Kerry took marching orders from Ho Chi Minh. As I said in my post on this subject yesterday:

I do not believe [John Kerry] was directed by [the Viet Cong]. They didn't have to. John Kery was on board the ship regardless of who was steering. If the North Vietnamese told John Kerry to jump, yet he was going to jump anyway that says nothing about control or power.

Why would John Kerry need to take orders from people who were working out of the same playbook?

Posted by: Rusty at 11:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 3 kb.

October 27, 2004

Bottom Line on Al Qaqaa (Posted by Demosophist)

Although neither the 3rd ID nor the 101st Airborne found evidence that the 308 tons of explosives were intact when they conducted their searches of al Qaqaa, it is also a fact that they weren't looking for it. It's not entirely clear, either, that all of the material was there when the IAEA made its final inspection before the war, because they didn't actually check the containers, and just assumed that the seals they had placed earlier were sufficient evidence that the material had not been tampered with. I don't know how "safe" this assumption was, but for the purpose of analyzing the credibility of the Kerry attack, that doesn't matter. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 05:56 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You are at least more sane on this one than Professor Chaos.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 27, 2004 06:00 PM (62QDG)

2 Al Ca Ca...now THAT'S funny!

Posted by: Laura at October 27, 2004 07:36 PM (ptOpl)

3 Herr Professor, I read your blog. So your story is that Kerry's hammering this unsubstantiated and unproven claim, during the last week of a nearly tied Presidential election... and it's not politically motivated? You're stickin' with that, are you? All I can say is... thanks... alot. I sure hope you're right that Kerry keeps this front and center, because if not for him the media would drop it like poison. First of all, even though the soldiers in those units weren't tasked with searching that facility according to their testimony they did so. About the only argument you have is that, for some reason, they weren't sufficiently thorough. Nonetheless some of the people in the unit said that they made a fairly thorough search and saw no items tagged by the UN. 380 tons of cannisters with UN seals aren't something you can hide under the stairwell. These soldiers seem pretty darn convinced the items weren't there, and they're also more convincing witnesses than the NYT to most Americans... but that's almost beside the point. The clincher is that the material was definitely no longer there by the time the Iraq Survey Group got around to checking it out a month later, and all roads in the area were, at the time, literally choked with US military traffic, checkpoints, etc. It simply isn't credible that 380 tons of material could have been loaded onto the 40 semis that would have been required to move it (according to Josh Marshall's calculations, not mine), by the hundreds of people required for the loding task over several days time, 24-7, and not have been noticed by anyone. Moreover, for Kerry to raise this issue, even if the fate of the material in question were far more doubtful than appears to be the case, is the height of irresponsibility for a Commander in Chief. What's OK for Josh Marshall or you, or even for a Senate candidate, is definitely not OK for someone running for President of the US. He's back to his old dissident patterns of casting aspersion on the military on the flimsiest of evidence as he did with Winter Soldier, and it's an ideal issue for the President to "ride" from here 'til Tuesday, if you know what I mean. Not only has the Kerry team miscalculated about the validity of the story itself... which most of the press is now soft-pedaling, but he has managed to remind people of the War on Terror (Bush's strongest issue) when the country had recently been focussing on Kerry's strongest issue: the economy. In addition Kerry has provided an opening to explain what could have easily happened to the missing WMD. The same thing that probably happened to the material intended as triggers for nuclear devices at al Qaqaa. And not only that but the only reason that material hadn't been destroyed back in 1995 was that the UN refused to do so, even though the only credible use for such material was to construct a triggering implosion for a nuclear weapon. So it's also a segway for the President to talk about the UN, Oil-for-Food, etc.. Kerry has just opened the door for the President to widen a smallish gap into a broad mandate, and you're helping to keep it open. All I can say is: Thanks! Hope there are more like you around. You've earned a warm place in my heart.

Posted by: Demosophist at October 27, 2004 08:58 PM (OtR16)

4 Has anyone done the math on this 300+ tons of explosives? It's 0.019% of the total munitions that were in Iraq before we started destroying them. Two one-hundreds of a percent. Two ten-thousanths of the total. Good God Almighty!!! When is someone going to start laughing at this instead of fighting over it? Here we have a serious candidate for president who has spent today, one sixth of the time remaining until his election, spewing outrage over 2/10,000ths of the munitions in Iraq, and accusing Bush of almost causing the end of the world because he didn't give a direct order to stop the war and go look for this stuff? He's outraged about there being serious weapons and implying they might have fallen into the hands of terrorists -- anybody remember why we went there in the first place???. Can anyone name a single campaign in the past that has run more on empty than this clown? What about HIS plan for Iraq? (silence) What about HIS plan for Social Security? (silence) What about HIS plan for health care? (silence) He's gotten the most excited all fall about "proof" that Bush screwed up his National Guard service (thanks, Dan Rather), and now this? (thanks, NYT). The only plan I've heard is his economic plan, where he is certain he has found a really, really, really rich country he's sure will marry the US. Whoopee. Now, THAT's a plan I think he can help us with. (Ok, so that's a joke. Just trying to lighten the moment...)

Posted by: deona at October 27, 2004 09:13 PM (gCLmD)

5 .019%, indeed - this is just 2/10000ths of the administrations incompetence when it came to preventing weapons and dangerous materials from getting in the wrong hands! This was just part of a huge screw-up in plannign that did exactly what the administration said it was trying to avoid in the first place - distributing Iraq's weapons into terrorists hands!

Posted by: kiljoy at October 27, 2004 11:37 PM (QRhbq)

6 Um... who says that Saddam wasn't planning on distributing his explosives to terrorists? And who said he wasn't going to use them in further attacks on his neighbors? Have you no sense of history whatever??? The problem with you liberals is you will slash and burn this country to the ground, if that is what it takes for your candidate to win. So you naturally just push facts out of your head... like the fact that Saddam was a very dangerous despot with a history of mass murder and justplain villainy. Your wonderful United Nations and France, savior of the world, had been bought and paid for by Saddam, and you are so blind that you can't see that terrible things would have come out of letting him continue in power.

Posted by: clt510 at October 28, 2004 01:01 AM (0ncpD)

7 I like doing the math the other way: 380 tonnes (metric tonnes, mind you) comes out to 836,000 pounds of explosives. How many "looters" using how many trucks (on roads which were reportedly clogged with U.S. Army-type vehicles) would it take to move that much stuff out? I think Kerry drank the Kool-Aid with this one.

Posted by: Stone Mirror (the Great and Terrible) at October 28, 2004 02:15 AM (8Zino)

8 actually, we do not know what the ISG found when it went to al Qaqaa in May 2003, other than the fact that the site had already been looted. The ISG made no public statement at that time (or in its final report) regarding the fact that HMX (an explosive used to detonate nuclear weapons) was missing from al Qaqaa. Which brings up a question that the Bush administration is deathly afraid will be asked... If the ISG KNEW that the stuff was missing in May 2003, why are we only finding out about it now? Why did the ISG COVER UP the fact that 380 tons of high explosives, including over 100 tons of explosives with specific application to the production of nuclear weapons, had gone missing? There are publicly available, high resolution photographs of the facility---it was under constant sattelite surveillance because of its proximity to missile development sites. IF this stuff was moved before the US invaded, those sattelites would show that movement---they do not.

Posted by: paul lukasiak at October 28, 2004 07:12 AM (4Cuso)

9 Good point Paul...so what the hell DID happen to the stuff????

Posted by: Laura at October 28, 2004 09:23 AM (ptOpl)

10 If the ISG KNEW that the stuff was missing in May 2003, why are we only finding out about it now? Why did the ISG COVER UP the fact that 380 tons of high explosives, including over 100 tons of explosives with specific application to the production of nuclear weapons, had gone missing? I'm just guessing here, but it's just possible they didn't want to alert the terrorists that the stuff was missing before they knew what happened to it. There was at least some possibility that Saddam hid it, after all... and about the last thing we need is an Al Qaeda easter egg hunt. One thing we're pretty sure about though: the stuff was moved before the US got there. Oh, and we're now pretty sure who moved it too. [Note: I can't get the link above to open, but others seem to, so maybe it's just me. There are excerpts all over the net.] There are publicly available, high resolution photographs of the facility---it was under constant sattelite surveillance because of its proximity to missile development sites. IF this stuff was moved before the US invaded, those sattelites would show that movement---they do not. Well first of all, according to ABC News it was more like 3 tons than 380. Maybe a NYT typist was having a bad day. To tell the truth I don't know that much about Satellite surveillance to say for sure, but I suspect it's something less than an all-seeing eye in the sky, especially since it probably didn't suddenly go blind after the US arrived on the scene. And if you recall, the Iraqis had this agreement with the UN inspectors before the invasion that required 48 hours notice of spy plane flights, or they'd shoot the plane down. It's now clear what they were up to, isn't it? But keep retreating to the diminishing spot of uncertaintly, because it keeps the story on the front page. Again there's now no reason this election needs to even be close!

Posted by: Demosophist at October 28, 2004 09:50 AM (OtR16)

11 By the way, the IAEA document says "350 tonnes" so the "380 tons" is probably someone's quick conversion. It's not clear, however, whether it was actually only "3 tonnes." The point is that there were so many uncertainties that the NYT should not have even considered going with this story, and especially not in time to give the bloggers and the Sunday Morning Talks plenty of ammo to shoot it down in flames. Kerry has lost the election, and it was the NYT that led him to the slaughter.

Posted by: Demosophist at October 28, 2004 10:16 AM (OtR16)

12 RIGHT ON!!

Posted by: Laura at October 28, 2004 12:21 PM (ptOpl)

13 KSTP-TV in Minneapolis had an embedded reporter & video guy with the 101st and they have actual video footage of the explosives that were at Al-Qaqaa when the 101st moved through: http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 (with video)

Posted by: News Watcher at October 28, 2004 12:23 PM (eKbzl)

14 are you people on crack? bush blew it. go to ktsp's website and watch the video their embedded reporters shot. http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1 pull your partisan heads out of your partisan asses and consider rejoining the reality-based community.

Posted by: skyguy at October 29, 2004 12:19 PM (Ta6al)

15 Yea sure skyguy. Bush was the one counting the explosives. And Army major who was assigned to the explosives and was there. Claims the US Army used much of the ordinance to destroy other explosives. Same as we did in Nam. And who the hell says the records are correct anyway? Of course you may be like the genius liberal LMAO. Check his posts. He believed a case of mortar shells weights 3 oz and is 40 ft. long. Noticed Kerry seems to have suddenly dropped this agenda. Hmmmmmm. Wonder why?

Posted by: greyrooster at October 30, 2004 11:24 AM (CBNGy)

16 DEMOSOPHIST: With respect for you I am posting this to counter any future attacks on your (or whose ever) figures on truck loading. I am experienced in this matter having invested in a small trucking business a few years ago. 1. Warehouses always, always have forklifts to load freight. 2. Semi-trucks in the United States are only allowed approximately 45,000 lbs loads due to an 80,000 lb load maximun that the DOT allows. 3. Many times trucks are only half full due to this weigh restriction. 4. Munitions are heavy. Very heavy. A 55 gallons drum of liquid explosive weight approx. 450 lbs. These drums are 23 " by 35". They can be placed 4 across and 3 high in the standard trailer. This would be only 2' of space in trailer taken up by 12 barrels of explosive weighing 5400lbs. That leaves 50 more feet or 25 rows in a standard 52' trailer. That would be 135,000 lb but you couldn't pull it. 70,000lbs is a more realistic number. I have pulled 80,000 with a special permit. 5. Ammunition is heavy in terms of volumn. Bullets and artillary shells are made of steel, lead and brass. Hand grenades are heavy. RPGS are heavy. Boxed plastic explosive is heavy. 14 trucks good have easily moved 836,000 lbs. 6. NOW THE ISSUE OF TIME TO LOAD: Warehouses, meat packing plants, banana haulers, Walmart etc. etc. etc. Can and do load a truck in 20 minutes all day long. Freight is on pallets and all a fork lift has to do is pick it up drive into the trailer and set it down. 7. Based on this one forklift could have loaded 14 trucks in 4hrs and 40 minutes. BUT WAIT A MINUTE: What if they had more than one loading bay and several fork lifts? Did you see picture of warehouse? Looked like many loading bays to me. 4 loading bays would me 14 trucks loaded in 1hr and 15 minutes.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 31, 2004 10:29 AM (CBNGy)

17 Personally, I don't believe any explosives are missing. Not the first paper work glitch in history. Where would someone hide them and the related trucks? Notice Kerry and crew hasn't been talking much about them lately.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 31, 2004 10:32 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

D'Souza's Advice to John Edwards: Vote for Bush

Great group interview with Dinesh D'Souza in the Washington Post. He gets the prize for most compassionate campaign advice:

Florida: What advice would you give the Bush-Cheney campaign in the waning days of the election?
Dinesh D'Souza: The Democrats think the terrorist threat is confined to Al Qaeda and "the guys who did 9/11." Reminder to John Edwards: the guys who did 9/11 are dead. If you understand that the battle is much broader, if you understand that the problem of terrorism is partly in the bad regimes (Syria, Iran, Saddam's Iraq) that dominate the Muslim world, if you understand that terrorism arises out of the dysfunctional societies of the Middle East, if you see the importance of establishing a democratic example in the Arab world--then vote for Bush.

OK, so he probably didn't hear the question, and I'm taking a few liberties interpreting the response. It's still a good answer. Read the whole thing.

(Simultaneously beamed by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

October 26, 2004

Newly Uncovered Documents Link John Kerry to North Vietnamese/Vietcong (UPDATED)

Via Paul at Wizbang a World Net Daily article reports that recent documents have been uncovered which show that John Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War were being directly directed by the North Vietnamese Communists. The documents were said to be found in archives at Texas Tech Univiersity as part of that university's Vietnam-era archive which holds more than 2 million documents. Some of the documents are translations of intercepted NV/VC communiques.

The first document can be found here. The Winter Soldier Website describes the document as "a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam." From the document:

The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.

John Kerry has admitted to meeting with the Vietcong shadow government during the Paris Peace Talks, though he insists the meeting was simply part of his effort to end the war and that he met with both sides. What was it that Jesse Jackson said when asked if he would go to Afghanistan and negotiate with the Taliban? Oh yeah, that that would be "tantamount to treason."

The second document is described as "a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States." It can be found here. In the document NV sympathizers are urged to step up propaganda activities that demoralize US troops. The document cites John Kerry's denunciation of 'war crimes' and the staged event where he 'gave back' his medals as examples that would help demoralize the troops.

Kevin follows up that post with a NY Sun article which claims that the NV simply looked favorably on Kerry's activities. Paul also muses that the document "smacks of Bill Burkett written all over it" and that the left will cry foul and forgery.

Let me start off by saying the documents appear real to me. But having said that, do we really learn anything new? I'm just not so sure this is the smoking gun that it is alleged to be. In 1995 I attended a May Day rally in Moscow's Red Square. At that rally I heard the head of the Communist Party USA as he denounced Yankee Imperialism, mourned over the loss of the Soviet Union, and lied about how Soviets once had a greater standard of living than Americans. Did the CPUSA have direct links to the Soviet Union? Of course. Did this guy actually believe the vile garbage spewing from his mouth? As far as I could tell, yes.

The phrase Stalin used for people like this was 'useful idiots'. These were people who thought they were doing what was in the best interests of their own country by betraying that country. It always fascinates me when I hear or read what traitors write. Very rarely does a traitor think of what he is doing as treason. Rather, the common thread among traitors is that they believe that they are smarter than officials in government. They believe that their acts of betrayal are in fact acts of patriotism. So when traitors gave away nuclear secrets to the Soviets at the start of the Cold War, they rationalized it as a higher form of patriotism. If the people in the State Department were only as smart as me they would realize that the only way to gaurantee our nation's safety is if the Soviets also have a bomb.

I look at John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in much the same way. The fact that he adopted line for line the policy prescriptions of the Vietcong is enough for me. I do not believe he was directed by them. They didn't have to. John Kery was on board the ship regardless of who was steering. If the North Vietnamese told John Kerry to jump, yet he was going to jump anyway that says nothing about control or power.

Most members of the CPUSA probably did not know that they were being funded and directed by the Soviets. Most members of the German Bund did not know they were being funded and directed by the Nazis. That's besides the point. The point is not who directs you but who you sympathize with. If you go to a football game and route for the visiting team expect a few glares. When your country is in a war and you route for the enemy, expect to be called a traitor. Not because we want to demean you and call you names, but because that is exactly what you are--a traitor. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Critical Update: Chad at In the Bullpen just e-mailed with this, and he has posted it at his site here. Here's a tidbit, there's more that you should read, and from what he says you should expect an update later in the day:

I just got off the phone with a worker at the Vietnam archive. She informed me of the following. There were two people from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth at the Texas Tech University archive within the last two to three weeks specifically looking for documents pertaining to John Kerry's anti-war movmement Vietnam Veterans Against the War. She told me there has been a bit of a buzz around there as of late after these two individuals claimed they found something huge. She would not give me any more information and was pretty nervous concerning the questioning.

Critical Update II: Chad at In the Bullpen has his INDC moment. He picked up the phone and called the head of the archive. The documents are real. The head of the archive vouches for them, and he and several of the employees at the archives saw the Swifties looking for them.

Further, the archive has the documents online. Rob at Say Anything has the links so that you can see the original documents yourselves.

Critical Update III: The director of the Virtual Vietnam Archive has set up a webpage where you can download the documents here. As I just told Chad in an e-mail, it looks like the blogosphere is doing some real journalism again. You'll take note that the director of the archive told Chad that not a single journalist has yet talked to him about the authenticity of the documents yet.

Critiical Update IV: As you can probably tell, Chad at In the Bullpen has been keeping me in the loop so to speak, but I'm just a sideline to his main show--a show I should add started with an e-mail I got from Paul at Wizbang. Well Chad has this critical update, and all of you need to spread the word on this--the director of the archive has actually found one of the original captured Vietnamese documents in their microfilm collection. What we saw earlier was the military translation of the document, now we have the original. The authenticity of the document should no longer be in question. However, I would still be cautious about jumping to the conclusion that John Kerry knowingly worked for the North Vietnamese/Vietcong.

Critical Update V: Mark at Tempus Fugit also does some real journalism and has also communicated with the archives and received this e-mail further verifying the authenticity of the documents: "Adding to the authenticity of these documents, they are also available as part of the Combined Document Exploitation Center Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, MD...These documents are also part of the CDEC Collection on Microfilm " Although the archive director notes it might take some time to locate them at either of those locations, the rest of the e-mail seems to add further evidence that these are real.

UPDATES: I'm surfing around, trying to get a feel for what other bloggers are saying and thinking. Here's some of the reaction: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:01 PM | Comments (59) | Add Comment
Post contains 2233 words, total size 18 kb.

1 Here we go again.. None of this matter's any more.. I mean Everyone basically know's this already... And im not a Kerry supporter...But it's seems as though u bush supporters are getting a little desperate. with a week left and still you posting these post that know one but bush supports will read and go drink a beer. like he did during that Vietnam War.......

Posted by: IraQ at October 26, 2004 09:17 AM (xdHNZ)

2 Hmmm...but Bush evaded serving his country in the same war. Sounds tantamount to draft dodgers who fled their duty and settled in Canada (though Bush used his family connections instead of having to flee). It's tough, which traitor do you vote for? The one who served and fought or the one who resisted serving?

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 09:17 AM (dbxVM)

3 Venom, Service really isn't the question with these two gentleman. It's what Kerry did after he left Vietnam. Unless you've served and been called a baby killer (more than once), you'll never understand the reason I despise Senator Kerry and yes, I'll hold it against that rotten, no good, son of a bitch until the day I die. Nobody shits on me or my brothers and walks away. Nobody.

Posted by: dick at October 26, 2004 09:34 AM (hu9UN)

4 Heh. You guys are missing what the article actually says. It has nothing to do with the service of John Kerry, it's that he was working for the Vietcong to bring defeat to the United States. The authenticity of the documents are in question at this moment, but if true this is huge and not just for John Kerry.

Posted by: Chad Evans at October 26, 2004 09:36 AM (t2lXY)

5 If any one of these losers win the US is going to shit. I'm being serious here. If you switched up the players, hypothetically (I know some ppl don't know what that means and wont be able to see past it) so they were on the opposing team, Bush a Democrat & Kerry a Republican. Republicans would be bashing Bush for his lack of military service during Vietnam and lack of intelligence, Democrats would be bashing Kerry for chronic exaggerating/lying and playing for the other team. When it comes down to it these guys are both unworthy of being President. Honestly, being a Republican shouldn't mean you can't question dubious activities such as Halliburton getting open cheques to "re-build" Iraq. ( I know that's beating a dead horse but sometimes you have to really think and be critical about where your tax dollars are going) And, just because you're a Democrat doesn't mean you can't secretly wish they picked someone else. And, if you support the war then sign up or shut up because whether it was right or wrong they need you over there. I think there are a lot of war supporters who get off being holier that thou to anti-war ppl but won't back up their big fuckin mouths and step up to the plate.

Posted by: LMAO at October 26, 2004 09:49 AM (p5xDI)

6 Added to my post after you looked at it earlier: "I took time to read the rest of the Wizbang post. Not only did the God-damned worthless son of a bitch lie, lie, and keep on lying, the North Vietnamese were telling him what to say. Is there really anyone left in this country so incredibly stupid they could still vote for this jackass?"

Posted by: Bill Faith at October 26, 2004 09:54 AM (qKQwG)

7 John Kerry is a phony and a liar, but who knows if these documents aren't forgeries? Even I have a hard time believing he was a de facto enemy agent.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 10:09 AM (cFrT5)

8 Mr. K, Check out the critical update. It looks like the documents are real.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 26, 2004 10:18 AM (JQjhA)

9 First.. Document about Bush come out and they turn out be be a lie. Now the Republicans some how uncover some documents proofing that kerry was a puppet to the Vietcong. I mean come on Rusty... Are u guys really that Bull headed to feed into such dumb political non-sense. As I said before none of this will matter in about a week. I really hoping we make the right choice. because anything will be better than the last four years..

Posted by: IraQ- was it really about Iraq at October 26, 2004 10:28 AM (xdHNZ)

10 I think I am gonna puke...

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 10:44 AM (cFrT5)

11 Good call, LMAO. It's a tough choice between which of those two idiots ought to run the world's superpower. Seems pretty fishy that this sort of document emerges now. Sounds like a desperate act. dick: A man is entitled to change his opinion if his experiences convince him he did something wrong. And I think service is definitely a big part of it. How do you leave the keys to the one of the biggest nuclear arsenals (if not the biggest) in the world in the hands of someone who didn't feel it was his duty to serve his country in Vietnam?And you want defend this guy? Sounds like he shit on you and your brothers, too.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 10:52 AM (dbxVM)

12 I found the online Vietnam archive and downloaded both of the documents in question. http://sayanythingblog.com/archives/004694.php

Posted by: Rob at October 26, 2004 10:56 AM (fcqpB)

13 Without the documents, I said he was a traitor and guilty of treason. If the documents are genuine, it is proven. I think it would be fitting, if after he loses the election, he is tried for treason and expelled from congress.

Posted by: Bill at October 26, 2004 10:58 AM (EPsu8)

14 Venom: Go tell a Guardsman or Reservist that they are evading service to their country. Take LMAO with you, as he can then give you a ride to the hospital.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 11:02 AM (cFrT5)

15 Well, if that's the best argument you have, let's go back and examine Clinton's successful efforts at dodging the draft all together. He held those keys for eight years but, you forgot about that, I guess. Or, is it not a conveinent time to bring him up? Also, considering that I once held the postition of B-man at a nuclear site during the Reagan administration, (I literally had those keys you speak of on my person, EMAS and CTSA certified) you might not want to bring up the nuke argument at all. It won't wash with me.

Posted by: Dick at October 26, 2004 11:08 AM (hu9UN)

16 Mr.K - as long as he doesn't mind me driving my gas guzzling SUV while I'm throwing Big Bacon Classic burger wrappers out the window.

Posted by: LMAO at October 26, 2004 11:33 AM (p5xDI)

17 Agreed, Dick - Clinton was a poor choice for president, too. The U.S. electorate has been batting 0 for the last few presidents, and looks like they will this time around, again, regardless of who wins. Pretty sad. Mr.K. - no, I have respect for reservists and guardsmen, not for presidents that shirk their duty (I mean, come on - Bush was given a nice gig in Alabama and he even managed to fuck that up.).

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 11:48 AM (dbxVM)

18 It appears the documents are extremely legit per my conversation with the document curator. The intelligence might be in question, but not the documents themselves. See my post for details that Rusty Linked above.

Posted by: Chad Evans at October 26, 2004 12:11 PM (t2lXY)

19 Venom: Actually, you show a complete lack of respect for the service of Guardsmen and Reservists. You compared them to draft dodgers in an earlier post. I would really like to introduce you to some reservists I know. No one really knows what Bush did in Alabama. My guess is he was goofing off, at least part of the time. What we know he did not do, is falsely testify before the US Senate...possibly after receiving coaching from the Viet Cong...concerning "war crimes " committed as a matter of offical military policy. If Bush "fucked up", I see a huge contrast between his "fuck up" and John Kerry's "fuck up". And I think goofing off when you are 26 years old is a lot more forgiveable that betraying your fellow countrymen.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 12:12 PM (cFrT5)

20 Nope, Mr. K, wrong again. I said Bush was evading his service to his country because (as per your own opinion) he was goofing off. Doesn't sound like serving one's country to me. I compared Bush to draft dodgers, not those who actually served FULLY in the guard. If he was actually serving his country in the air national guard, the records would be there, right? But why are his so mysteriously gone? Let me re-emphasize what I said: Bush, as a person EVADING his service in the air national guard, is akin to a draft dodger who does not serve his country. I have all the respect in the world for those in the national guard and reserves who DID and CONTINUE to SERVE their country, not those who shirk their responsibilities. Service in the reserves is honourable; to be AWOL from it (when kids are dying in Vietnam) is not. Great, so Kerry lied in front of the Senate. Doesn't change my original point. Which is that I don't think either Kerry or Bush are good leaders for the U.S. and that it's a sad state of affairs when you have to choose between these two idiots.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 12:33 PM (dbxVM)

21 Venom, not only do you show a lack of respect for Guardsmen, as Mr. K pointed out, but you also have you facts wrong. Bush VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam but was denied his request because of a lack of flying hours.

Posted by: Editor at October 26, 2004 12:34 PM (adpJH)

22 Correct me if I am mistaken, but if true, this would disqualify him for service in the Senate. Let alone allow him to run for POTUS.

Posted by: Ricky V at October 26, 2004 12:35 PM (AHaCg)

23 Is this going anywhere on its own? Probably not. Sadly, no one cares. However, it might possibly provide the last bit of impetus needed to focus attention on the questions about Kerry's discharge and the petition to disqualify him from office on the basis of his post-war meetings with the VietCong, both of which were also going nowhere before this: http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/ "Thus, in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," We, the People of these United States, believe John F. Kerry is unfit for public office. It is for this reason -- for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of this oath -- that Senator Kerry should be prosecuted and disqualified for national office." \end flogging of dead equine flesh.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 12:37 PM (nkNzG)

24 Well dang Ricky... I must learn to type faster.

Posted by: Cass at October 26, 2004 12:39 PM (nkNzG)

25 Mr. K What the hell are u talking about. You have to be one dumb fuck to actually believe that Kerry document. If it was true there wouldnt be a election next week. Oh that's right you do believe it so you are a dumb ass.... and as far as guardsmen and women go. my brother is one and all of them dont have the same views. WKhy do you think we are having such a hard time getting recruits in now a days. Most of these kids signed up so this can pay for school and help with their income. Not fight a war.... if you are so gun ho why arn't you inlisted

Posted by: IraQ -was it really about iraq at October 26, 2004 12:40 PM (xdHNZ)

Cass - Given the length of your comment, I imagine you started before I did! Yeah, that confirms my thoughts. Thanks for pasting that. I thought I had read that before somewhere!

Posted by: Ricky V at October 26, 2004 12:43 PM (AHaCg)

27 IraQ - Perhaps your sign in should be LoIQ. Maybe the documents are true, maybe they aren't. Judging from your writing skills, my guess is your brother in the guard is also your cousin. As for enlistment, they don't accept 41 year old guys, though the possibility of going over as a contractor is definitely intriguing. I don't know where you get your information on recruitment. It is not what I have read. Or seen. I have two nephews headed into the service. They are fine, tough young men. Not little candyasses like you and Venom. I can see both of you, pants hanging on your ass, stringy, oily hair, a tatoo to let us know how tough you are, and pierced toungues to enhance you partner's orgasm when you perform fellatio...

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 12:59 PM (cFrT5)

28 I read the majority of the documentation. I was just wondering though, could this circular be considered enemy propoganda? I mean it sounds like these guys are just trying to take credit for something someone else is doing. Also, John Kerry comes across as a chronic liar, so one may tend to believe he didn't meet with these people in Paris. I don't know, it just seems everyone is calling him a big liar but then when it suits their fancy they believe what he says. In times of war propaganda is a huge morale boost, used on both sides. This just seems like propaganda to me. And how do you back this up? Yeah, it could have been typed up in '71 or whatever, but who typed it? where is the original circular? these questions need to be asked before this becomes the republican version of a Dan Rather incident.

Posted by: LMAO at October 26, 2004 01:08 PM (p5xDI)

29 Mr.K did i strike a nerve. Well for your info i am currently with the lapd. so your last comment doesn't really refer to me. And im pretty sure that when you were your two BRAVE nephews age you didnt sign up. that's why at 41 years old your getting so pissed at the comments people are sending you.. But we understand...

Posted by: IraQ at October 26, 2004 01:13 PM (xdHNZ)

30 Oh, boo-hoo, Mr. K does't like my opinion of Bush. Someone argues with you, so they must be homosexual? Oh, and while you're picturing me, try to keep your hands above the equator. You always bring up the "gay" response when someone starts to shoot you down. And that's quite the description, one can only guess where you saw that, huh? You must have some kind of repressed urges huh? Hahahahaha!!! Anyhow, you can believe what you want, but my words are there. I said Bush was akin to a draft dodger, not guardsmen. If people can't read (either the original post or the explanations that followed), that's not my problem. I know that twisting them around and make homo-comments is the only way you feel you can win an argument, but that's your gay issue to deal with.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 01:16 PM (dbxVM)

31 Venom, the records on Bush are there - he has released them and the media have poured over them for years and have found.... nothing. Nada. Zip. He missed a few drill periods and made them up. That is par for the course in the Guards and Reserves - everyone has a civilian job, and anyway if you're in a non-flight status that is no biggie. People keep making the mistake of equating the Reserves/Guard with AD and they aren't the same. One of the first things my husband used to quantify whether a drill was successful or not was...how many showed up. If you think on that for a second, you'll see that implicit in that little statistic is the suggestion that...people often don't show up for drill! And they don't fry. They just make it up. It drives the AD staff nuts, but these people do have lives you know. Get over it. And it is well-documented now that many, many people have come forward to say they saw Bush at drill - I have documented it several times. The lamestream media, sadly, seem unable to find their own rear ends even with a microscope and GPS.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 01:16 PM (nkNzG)

32 The documents are real. End of story. But they do not prove that Kerry knowingly worked for a foreign government. But, as I said in my post, that is besides the point. Kerry did give comfort and aid to the enemy in a time of war. That is enough to convince me he is unfit for command.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 26, 2004 01:22 PM (JQjhA)

33 Cassandra, many people have come forward to say that what Kerry did in Vietnam is legit, but many Republicans don't believe it. Both sides are responsibile for their share of bullshit, and both sides have candidates that spell a losing situation for whoever wins.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 01:24 PM (dbxVM)

34 ...and while we're on the subject of missing records... Form 180... 94 pages of missing records... all pertaining directly to disputed aspects of his military record... a broken promise on Meet the Press to release ALL HIS RECORDS... Ladies and Gents: I give you: John...Forbes...Kerry: He claimed one entire month of Ted Peck's command history on his web site and then had to erase it. The darned guy was only in 'Nam for 4 months for Pete's sake... He claimed he and BOBrother's dude David Alston "saved each other" numerous times.... But Alson was injured in the same incident that took Peck out of commission and led to Kerry's taking command. According to the after action reports, they could only have been together a max of 7 days... during which there were... 2 combat incidents. Obviously seared...seared I tell you into the man's memory. He and old what's-his-noodle (the guy he fished out of the drink - no, not the Hamster) can't agree on which boat he was even on (Jim Rassmann - I think his name was). I documented this one a while back - it's hilarious. Kerry keeps adding in spurious details about what Rassmann is EATING fer Chrissakes. If you're going to lie, KISS. 3 words: Christmas in Cambodia He doesn't even lie well. Or even entertainingly. And in the end, that's what I can't forgive.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 01:28 PM (nkNzG)

35 LoIQ- Who says I am pissed. And even though you are in LAPD, you are not necessarily excluded from any commentary. You may be undercover vice officer involved in busting up male prostitution rings, and are really dedicated about maintaining your cover. Ok. I was too scared to join the military back in 1981. The US was engaged in wars all over the place. Plus, that full ride scholarship to play defense looked more interesting than going into the military to get a free education...I might have gotten called up to, uh, wherever it was we were waging war back then...but I was too shit scared to go in. LAPD. Aren't you the guys the let OJ off the hook? Or were you the ones that beat the shit out of Rodney King? Or are you the other LAPD?

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 01:31 PM (vsvV/)

36 Venom: You may be right. I have to say for the record: I'm an officer's daughter and an officer's wife. Right now we have Marines who are seriously wounded and they are hitchhiking back to the front so they won't let their buddies down. Kerry had 3 bandaid wounds and he used them to flee the field and avoid combat. An officer doesn't do that. My father in law had a wife and 3 kids and did 2 tours in the same brownwater Navy John Kerry served in. He's dead now, at 58, of liver cancer. We think it happened from Agent Orange. So you see, I don't look too kindly on what Kerry said about Vietnam vets like my father in law or my Dad (who was also Navy and also served in Vietnam - one WHOLE tour). And I don't look too kindly on an officer who puts himself in for a medal, gets denied, and goes behind his CO's back and gets it resubbed. In the Navy and Marine Corps that is viewed with disfavor. And then on top of it all, he came back and spit in the faces of his fellow vets. And he's had 33 years to correct the record, but he had not been a big enough man to admit his error. I don't have to know much else about the man - that tells me all I need to know about his character. If you are charged with the welfare of your men and you run out on them, you are not fit to lead. And if you do not respect the rules, you are not fit to lead. And if you lie, or putting the best possible face on it, if you permit yourself to be used by unscrupulous people and you cause hurt to good and honorable men, and you do not have the courage to face them and apologize, and try to put right the harm you have done, like Steve Pitkin did at the KerryLied rally, then you are not fit to lead. He, at least, was a man. It's really quite simple.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 01:38 PM (nkNzG)

37 Venom: I actually just enjoy insults of all sorts, whether getting them or receiving them. And I don't single out anyone based on sexual preferences. However, if the shoe fits, you may wish to shove it up your ass, becuase you are backpedaling big time from calling W and all guardsmen by association, draft dodgers. "but Bush evaded serving his country in the same war. Sounds tantamount to draft dodgers who fled their duty and settled in Canada (though Bush used his family connections instead of having to flee). It's tough, which traitor do you vote for? The one who served and fought or the one who resisted serving?" There are your own words...used his family connections to do what?

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 01:41 PM (vsvV/)

38 Ok Mr.K... Now I really believe i hit a nerve... Now you bringing up OJ and Rodeney Now your funny. You must have been one of those who cried when OJ won his case. and i also see you are one of those with the excuse of a Fooseball scholarship rather than fight for your country.. i see people like you all the time. Please bring something else up that has nothing to do with the subject....

Posted by: IraQ at October 26, 2004 01:44 PM (xdHNZ)

39 Fair enough, Cassandra. I respect any man/woman who does their duty for their country, and I am sorry to hear that Agent Orange might have been responsible for his death. If Kerry lied, he has no business being the Commander-in-Chief. But I haven't been impressed with Bush during his time in office, either.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 01:47 PM (dbxVM)

40 Mr. K, I will explain ONE LAST TIME because you apparently can't read too well. "but Bush evaded serving his country in the same war." was in relation to Bush allegedly going AWOL during his Alabama National Guard, not for actually being ENLISTED in the National guard. I have explained this several times. You, unfortunately, will not be content until you have twisted what I've said into something you can use. The family connections were in relation to friends the Bush family had that kept Bush out of the draft. Do you finally understand, or do we need some hooked on phonics for you?

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 02:03 PM (dbxVM)

41 Be careful Venom... he's 41.....

Posted by: IraQ at October 26, 2004 02:11 PM (xdHNZ)

42 Venom, I have to step back in and mention something. Those boys that left the States and went to Canada? They evaded serving their country. Bush was in the Guard and flew fighters. I respect him for that. I'm sorry that you don't, that's your opinion. If you will look around, you'll see that it's the Vets and their families who do support Bush. As a native and current resident of Texas, we've seen this draft evasion crap drug out time and again and nothing but bullshit speculation is made of it. Until you have proof, don't bother bringing it up. It's old news. As a former member of the US Army Infantry, I take serious offense to Kerry and that bitch Jane Fonda for what they did. When he spoke in front of Congress, that was recorded and played back to NVA troops. It emboldened them to kill American soldiers. There were plenty of soldiers killed directly as a result of what Kerry said. Your words, "Great, so Kerry lied in front of the Senate." No, he shit on every soldier that ever put on the uniform and we will not forget that. One other thing, I still have every decoration that I was awarded. What about Kerry? Until you've been there or done that, in all honesty, your opinion on Kerry's military service or bush's service really doesn't matter.

Posted by: Dick at October 26, 2004 02:40 PM (hu9UN)

43 Dick: I don't respect Bush for going AWOL. Learn to read. You want proof? How about this site: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm I've read it, why don't you? Or will it matter? I mean, are you an objective enough person to consider (even for a moment) that Bush isn't the man you claim (hope) he is?

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 02:49 PM (dbxVM)

44 Venom. Okay honestly, I just tried the link. It started off screaming Deserter! Obviously written by a left winger and I will not give it my time. It equated to Lawrence O'Donnell screaming "liar!" In other words, not only will I not read that trash but, I have no respect for the author or for you for when it comes down to it. The only reason you cruise this site is to cause trouble and get folks hot under the collar. You and your cronies are mentally weak if you buy into that tripe. As for your "learn to read" remark? Get over yourself, you've got nothing I want or need. Once again, your opinion does not matter.

Posted by: Dick at October 26, 2004 03:13 PM (hu9UN)

45 I am a Vietnam vet and a biker and have proudly worn a small "Vietnam Vet" patch on my vest for several years. Lots of bikers wear similar patches. It isn't meant as a boast. We don't gather and tell war stories. It was a way to identify a brother. You don't get drunk and pick a fight with a brother, for instance. We stuck together, outlaws and vets. I think that we all hoped that someday a Vietnam Vet would make a run at the Presidency. Someone with the dignity to quietly say, "I served." That person would have my vote. Instead, the first vet to run for that high office is the one who sold us out. It's sad. I can't vote for Kerry. It makes no difference to me who his opponent is, I cannot vote for John Kerry. Whenever I think of John Kerry with his three Purple Hearts, Bronze Star and Silver Star, all earned within a three month period of time, I think of Carlos Hathcock. White Feather didn't earn medals as fast as Kerry and in Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock was GOD. If you don't know who he is, ask a Marine. Any Marine. Any age. Kerry is a piece of garbage. His running mate is the modern day Dan Quayle. Bush isn't much better, but he was not a draft dodger. He was a Guardsman. I was drafted. If I could have gotten into the guard, I would have. If I could have pulled strings, I would have. Nam was not a vacation spot. It was a duty. I'm rambling, so I'll close this post. But first let me ask one question. Substitute Iraq for Vietnam. Substitute Taliban or Al Quida for North Vietnamese Delegation. Would you vote for that man?

Posted by: Breaux at October 26, 2004 03:14 PM (AT1j2)

46 Dick, one question: what is the harm in reading/listening to an opposing viewpoint? At least then you can make an objective opinion. If they're lying, you can at least point out why and how. If not, maybe you're better off knowing the truth. Sure, a site like that may have been written by someone who is left-wing. It might also have been written by someone like me - a conservative who is ashamed that someone like Bush got elected. You know, in all honesty, I just want people to question the world around them. I wish people wouldn't just make up their minds without objectively hearing both sides. Seriously, is that really too much to ask? Too many people these days (on both sides of the political spectrum) immediately ignore anything that even approaches a different perspective. As for the "Learn to read" comment, it was directed at you because I have repeatedly explained what I wrote. And, as you've demonstrated in your last article, you won't listen because it's not what you want to hear.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 03:26 PM (dbxVM)

47 Breaux, very eloquent. I've got no sympathy for Kerry either, but I think you've written one of the most intelligent things yet in this thread.

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 03:32 PM (dbxVM)

48 I am literally amazed at the human ability to simply discount information like this, as though the consequences of voting for a traitor are minimal, and one's allegiances are of modest importance. Frankly, I don't know what issue would be of greater importance... and the notion that something like half the public simply don't care, as long as he's "not George Bush" suggests to me that we have a serious "democracy malfunction." Of course, all this assumes that the documents purporting to prove Kerry's complicity are valid... but what amazes me is that so many people don't seem to care. Which will be the first media outlet to take this story seriously enough to check it out?

Posted by: Demosophist at October 26, 2004 03:54 PM (OtR16)

49 Demosophist: People who have swallowed the Michael Moore blather, as posters like Venom (MoveOn?) and LO-Iq will not hear of anything that even remotely breaks down the case for Kerry, or builds a case for Bush. Really, I don't know why I bother with guys like that, except that it is fun. Every now and then, I go over to Atrios and do the same thing. But no matter how many facts you write, and how much logic you may bring forward, two simple laws of will always govern with guys like these: you cannot pour a gallon of knowledge into a one quart brain, and a fool convinced against his will, will have the same opinion still. So, just get out and vote, and hope that most Americans are intelligent enough to make the right decision. Kirk

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 04:33 PM (y/Bac)

50 "Really, I don't know why I bother with guys like that, except that it is fun." Funny enough, that's kinda why I like poking holes in your walls (and people like you). Admit it, you're as incapable of objectively listening to a different opinion as you claim I am. By the way, I notice again you can't read: I've repeatedly said I don't support Kerry (or Bush).

Posted by: Venom at October 26, 2004 04:47 PM (dbxVM)

51 I just wanted to stop in and tell you how impressed I am with the work you have done so far. Thanks for checking my blog.

Posted by: Gullyborg at October 26, 2004 04:52 PM (Vxg4n)

52 Venom: Given that someone has to be President and it is kind of an important job, don't you think it's important to decide which one of them is, I suppose from your point of view, the least harmful? My neighbor (whom I very much like) is saying the same thing you are, and it really disturbs me. There are very important things going on right now: people are fighting and dying and someone has to make the big decisions. I'd like to think we have the right man in place (and frankly, I do think that right now). This is a hard job and we're in it for the long haul. No one (including the President, if anyone bothered to actually read his speeches instead of MoDo'ing them and misquoting them) ever said this would be easy. Abstaining from the process is, in my opinion, not an option when there are people prepared to give their lives for this country. I'm sorry if I'm laying a guilt trip on you, but I'm trying to make a point here. I've been to too many funerals in the past year. Those families, in spite of their grief, continue to support what we're doing, and they continue to support the President. You may disagree, and you certainly have that right. It's a free country. It strikes me, over and over again because I suppose I'm a bit closer to this issue than some (and less than others) that the first responders: police, firefighters, military: the people who have to pick up the piece of a terrorist attack - all support Bush by at least 3-1. The FOP endorsed Bush. The FDNY endorsed Bush. Most of the 911 families did too. My son's a cop and my husband is a career Marine. By rights, we could be sick of this whole thing, but we understand why we're being inconvenienced, if that's the right word for it. It seems to be the civilians who are bi*ching and moaning about losing the war. I don't get it. The people on the ground aren't losing heart. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't losing heart. It's the morons who are safe in their homes in the cities in America who are. Why is that? What the heck do they have to complain about? If we get it, why can't they?

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 05:25 PM (nkNzG)

53 And I'm truly sorry if that sounded disrespectful, Venom. I meant no offense. I get so frustrated sometimes. This election has me more upset than I have ever been in my entire life.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 26, 2004 05:31 PM (nkNzG)

54 Venom: You are wrong. There is an awful lot about Bush's I don't like, but it has nothing to do with what Michael Moore tells you to believe. I am with him on the big issue, which is the aggressive stance on dealing with the Islamists, the Arabs, and the Middle East in general. If the Libertarians had a hawk, that is where my support would be. Unfortunately, that agenda does not exist. Thanks for all the fun!

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 05:54 PM (y/Bac)

55 If anyone want to look into the veracity of the SwiftVets diiging into the Texas siles, its on realtime chat archives at Swiftvets.com. MOnday, SEpt. 13, Navy Chief decides to go take a look. http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9071 By DoGooder

Posted by: DoGooder at October 26, 2004 08:22 PM (+y3aN)

56 In 1972 every Marine knew Kerry was a traitor. Can't believe how soon people forget Kerry and Hanoi Jane. Neither one has been accountable for what they did to the US serviceman. I've never blamed the LAPD for the OJ Simpson verdict. The blame is on the jury, prosecutors, money and the black public. People dancing in the streets after the murderer of two innocents set free. Remind anyone of Iraq?

Posted by: greyrosoter at October 26, 2004 09:23 PM (CBNGy)

57 BREAUX: Semper Fi Bro. Good post and god bless Carlos.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 26, 2004 09:29 PM (CBNGy)

58 Greyrooster: LAPD and the OJ mess is way OT on my part, but you can add bungling of evidence handling to the reason OJ got away with murder. Furhman being a notorious bigot was another, and I agree with your other reasons. My uncle is Charlotte PD, and is a staunch Bush guy. I don't know any law enforcement that support Kerry, and don't understand why even one from LA would.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 26, 2004 09:37 PM (y/Bac)

59 Critical Update V: Matt at Tempus Fugit Actually, the name is Mark. :-) Thanks for the ping.

Posted by: Mark J at October 26, 2004 10:00 PM (ykFk5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 25, 2004

Watch 'Stolen Honor' Online--yes cheapskates, it's free!!!

Washington Times:

The controversial documentary on Sen. John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities will be made available free to the public, it's producer said Friday.

The New Soldier blog provides the following links. I recommend right-clicking then downloading the entire video by clicking "save as". I downloaded the entire 42 minute documentary in about two minutes!!

Stolen Honor Video Download Here
Or Here
Larger, better quality version here (slower download)

HT: AIR

Spread the word.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Every single American voter should see this film as I did over the weekend. If after seeing this film you can vote for Kerry without feeling somewhat guilty, you are a very select few.

Posted by: Chad Evans at October 25, 2004 02:04 PM (wqDy4)

2 You can view The Video Stolen Honor Here for Free http://www.annointed.net Col George E. "Bud" Day is the nationÂ’s most highly decorated soldier since General Douglas MacArthur. He served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, receiving more than 50 combat awards and the Congressional Medal of Honor. What he wants now is to stop John Kerry from being elected President. For more than five years, Day resisted the North Vietnamese guards who tortured him. On one occasion in 1971, when guards burst in with rifles as some of the American prisoners gathered for a forbidden religious service, Major Day stood up, looked down the muzzles of the guns, and began to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner." The other men, including James Stockdale, the ranking U.S. officer in the prison, joined him

Posted by: marine at October 28, 2004 07:03 PM (muo6d)

3 You can view The Video Stolen Honor Here for Free http://www.annointed.net Col George E. "Bud" Day is the nationÂ’s most highly decorated soldier since General Douglas MacArthur. He served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, receiving more than 50 combat awards and the Congressional Medal of Honor. What he wants now is to stop John Kerry from being elected President. For more than five years, Day resisted the North Vietnamese guards who tortured him. On one occasion in 1971, when guards burst in with rifles as some of the American prisoners gathered for a forbidden religious service, Major Day stood up, looked down the muzzles of the guns, and began to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner." The other men, including James Stockdale, the ranking U.S. officer in the prison, joined him

Posted by: marine at October 28, 2004 07:04 PM (muo6d)

4 Yea and during 71 & 72 Kerry was meeting with the Cong and North Vietnanese. Why Kerry wasn't fragged is beyond me.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 31, 2004 09:32 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Voter Fraud Update: 60,000 registered to vote in 2 states

Via Jeff Quinton: As many as 60,000 people may be registered to vote in both North and South Carolina, according to an investigation by The Charlotte Observer and WCNC-TV.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry Lied, Jawas Died!!!

Wait, so the "big news" was that Kerry lied about meeting with the UN Security Council? I thought news, by definition, had to be--you know--sort of "new" or something, or at least something out of the ordinary. The video over at Daily Recycler is good for a few chuckles. Bill at INDC has some pretty interesting thoughts.

As for me, I'm not so troubled by Kerry's alleged meeting. Far more troubling to me is his naive belief that if only we had a different President, the UN Security Council would have acted different. This personality theory of foreign policy is unprecedented and dangerous. Instead of assuming that nations act out of their own national interests, it assumes that nations do each other favors based on personal relationships. Yeah, the French may be John Kerry's homies, but they aint gonna do him no props. Cause when it gets down to it they gots to get paid and national interest is thicker than malt liquor.

PS-my prediction on the left blogosphere reaction: Yeah, Kerry lied, but the TRUTH writ large is more important than the truth of the details. Oh, and at least when Kerry lied no jawas died!! (that and a week of scrambling showing how Kerry didn't really lie because, you know, he was in New York and did have beers with the ambassador from Zimbabwe).

Double-PS: Best photoshop ever!!

At what point does it stop being a PS?? Aylward and Spoons equally underwhelmed, but Bill and Kevin both pointed me to NZ Bear's reaction which is making me rethink this.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:02 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Here's where you analysis steers in the wrong direction: Far more troubling to me is his naive belief that if only we had a different President, the UN Security Council would have acted different. What leads you to believe that that's Kerry's "belief?"

Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 25, 2004 09:13 AM (ft4e3)

2 I don't think Kerry actually believes it, any more than any other accomplished prevaricator believes their latest whopper. The democratic faithful, the Michael Moore knob-gobblers, and other assorted dumbshits will swallow it whole, though. It doesn't matter what John Kerry says. His glazy eyed, anybody but Bush followers will believe it.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 09:50 AM (bTm4N)

3 Was there ever a post on here about Cheney lying saying he never met Edwards before the debates? Oh ya and this is funny, with that the IQ post below and all. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/22/divide_seen_in_voter_knowledge?mode=PF I'm not a Kerry supporter either I just like the holier than thou attitudes everybody has. M.Moore is just a fat guy in a clown suit too, but its Bush who has the emperors new clothes on.

Posted by: LMAO at October 25, 2004 10:08 AM (p5xDI)

4 Yep. Cheyney lied about meeting Edwards. So is it "Laughing My Ass Off" or "Love My Anal Orifice" ? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 10:33 AM (bTm4N)

5 I don't know... Did Cheney lie or did Edwards just not leave an impression? There are degrees: Being mistaken, lying, and premeditated lying.

Posted by: Key at October 25, 2004 11:07 AM (waMhq)

6 Moonbat: It is entirely plausable that Cheney simply did not remember meeting an insignificant Senator who rarely shows up to work. John Kerry, however, is alleging that he actively sought out and met with the worldÂ’s top diplomats. Which he did not. ItÂ’s omission vs. comission. Next time put down the cool aid and pull your head out of your ass before commenting.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at October 25, 2004 11:07 AM (TEUoH)

7 Come on !!! almost a week before elections and every other blog is a Kerry post... None of this is going to matter to the voters by now i mean. i'm pretty sure just about everyone has really made their decisions. And we really shouldnt be mad at kerry for lying.. Because we never really found (WMD) now u tell me what lie really means more. oh know i got it we just went over there with the wrong facts. u guys are really funny.

Posted by: IraQ at October 25, 2004 11:12 AM (22t5y)

8 Leopold>.. who really cares if Kerry had the meeting or not Pull your nose from Bush's anal. and smell what's really cookin.. yeah the guy has a backbone. but he can at least have the a set of balls to admit when he's wrong Rusty i really enjoy these a-hole comments. keep it up..

Posted by: Every 1 is a Lier at October 25, 2004 11:19 AM (22t5y)

9 It does not matter whether Cheyney omitted or committed. The impact of the statement on national television at that moment is what is important. No one gave a shit about the fact that he had met Edwards, and I bet few undecided voters will be swayed by whether or not Kerry talked to UN Sec Council or not. He was never in Cambodia, either. Kerry made his impression. That is all he is, an impression. Underneath that botox skin is a slimy green ooze.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 11:24 AM (bTm4N)

10 Mr. K. seems i struck a nerve. But still your grade school humour is cute, don't think i don's appreciate it. Leopold... rarely showing up for work sounds like Bush pre-9/11

Posted by: LMAO at October 25, 2004 11:26 AM (p5xDI)

11 Bill, Kerry's entire foreign policy agenda is one predicated upon his personality theory. BTW-patent on "personality theory"!! All of his statements, so far, have been that if he were President things would be different--even when he claims he would have done the same stuff as Bush.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 25, 2004 11:33 AM (JQjhA)

12 Perhaps it is Lying My Ass Off? You write you are no Kerry supporter, but you are certainly anti-Bush...reading between the lines, I'd say it is I who struck the nerve...sorry 'bout that.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 12:18 PM (bTm4N)

13 hmmm... where did i lie again? maybe you should stop reading into things. I think in this world I can be anti-Bush and anti-Kerry at the same time. Keep up with the name calling though, I do find it funny. And don't be sorry, the only thing you struck was my funny bone. You just resorted to name calling so I figured i struck a nerve. Are we done with this banter yet?

Posted by: LMAO at October 25, 2004 12:37 PM (p5xDI)

14 yes, you can be anti-both, but in a two horse race, you gotta choose one or the other. when you say Bush was not around pre-911, I smell a FatnWhite 911 movie lover. Banter? I never struck anything. I wouldn't touch your "funny bone" with a ten foot pole! Can I ask, were you born that way, or did you learn it somewhere?

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 01:12 PM (bTm4N)

15 your sense of smell is as good as your line reading. horrible. and it seems that your knowledge of anatomy is as well. Bwahaha...was i born that way? I hope you graduate past the kindergarden comedy act so I can have some better laughs.

Posted by: LMAO at October 25, 2004 01:53 PM (p5xDI)

16 so, you WERE born that way...well, to each his own!

Posted by: Mr. K at October 25, 2004 02:05 PM (bTm4N)

17 HAHAHAHA!!! I didn't even answer that question. Now I know you were one of the people Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed to get their results that Bush supporters aren't as smart as Kerry supporters. At least Bush is a genius, thank your lucky stars for that Corky. Life Goes On.

Posted by: LMAO at October 25, 2004 02:17 PM (p5xDI)

18 I can't believe liberal dumbasses are still bring up the WMD thing. Doesn't anyone realize it doesn't matter. WMD (liberals nitwits favorite word) was just one of many reasons to show force in the middle east after 9/11. The Islamic assholes are in one region. Most of the fanatics are now in Iraq. Better there than here. There would have been more serious attacks thoughout the world if the Islamic assholes were not expending their troops and equipment in Iraq. The religious war (and that's what it is) will continue if we left Iraq tomorrow. Does anyone think these fanatical creeps will quit until destroyed? This is all they know. It is their job. Their chosen way of life. No more terror means no more money from their supporters. No more hero worship by misquided, backward animals who don't deserve to be called human. Bringing the fight and action to the middle east was the smartest thing we could do at this time in history. To keep talking about WMD is stupid.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 26, 2004 09:00 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 22, 2004

O'Donnell vs. O'Neill

MSNBC's Scarborough Country was co-hosted tonight by Pat Buchanan and Larry O'Donnell, and their guest was Swiftvet John O'Neill. I just came in toward the latter part of the interview, but was treated to quite a show. Instead of allowing O'Neill to make a point O'Donnell deliberately yelled over him: "Don't let him talk! He's a liar. Everything in his book is a lie, and it's all been disproved! Liar, liar, liar, liar, etc., etc." It was quite awe-inspiring to see someone who supposedly has press legitimacy, and whose face most people identify as at least superficially objective simply doing his best to prevent a guest from making a point by drowning him out. During the exchange O'Neill calmly, and politely, asked if he was going to be allowed to finish his statement, and finally, after an intervention by Buchanan, made his point about evidence that Kerry was the author of his own (unsigned) "after action reports."
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:51 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

1 RE: LAWRENCE O'DONNEL HE'S AN"MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST" YEAH! DID YOU SEE HIS OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR RE GOD/ GEORGE BUSH'S RELIGION EARLIER THIS WEEK AND THE FOLLOWING LESBIAN TANTRUM HE'S A DEM INSIDER - THEY MUST BE WORRIED O'DONNEL'S BEGAN YELLING LIAR, DIRTY LIARS, PROVEN LIARS FROM BEGINNING OF SEGMENT, JOHN O'NEILL AT ONE POINT SAID ~PARAPHAZING "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO SUPPORT PEOPLE THAT ACT LIKE THAT?" PLEASE POST TRANSCRIPT IF YOU CAN GET IT

Posted by: WYNN at October 22, 2004 11:46 PM (aE6QM)

2 The funniest thing on that show was Pat Buchanan's comment after a break, when he re-identified himself, and Lary O'Donnell as "an MSNBC political consultant" (or some such title; I don't remember), and then a short pause, and he finished with "... at least until later on tonight." Buchanan had looked bewildered during O'Donnell's short fit of outright insanity, and apparently during the break after that segment he firmed up the opinion that the maniac ought to be fired. His comment was not subtle, nor was it intended as a joke, IMHO.

Posted by: deona at October 23, 2004 12:11 AM (LpoyP)

3 Is it any suprise that all they have left (he he he) is to shout "LIAR!!" "FABRICATOR!!!" Personally, I can't wait to see what they come up with next. It has become ridiculous. Go Bush/Cheney!!!

Posted by: David Bowman at October 23, 2004 01:52 AM (GY2aj)

4 He really lost it! Screaming Larry yelled of screamed "LIAR" a total of forty-six(46) times in about a 7 minute segment. The beautiful thing about it is that O'Neill showed complete calm and composure during the entire segment and showed what a classy MAN should act like! Screaming Larry, as I have named him showed his complete lack of class(not that he had any to begin with!)and could not refute any of the points that his opponent was able to get through the storm of yells thrown at him. Pat took Screaming Larry to task about the VN war too, telling him that a democrat, John F Kennedy had initiated it and had expanded under another democrat, LBJ. Larry did not take this too kindly. However, this individual's complete partiality toward Long Shanks showed and badly, to say the least. MSNBC should be embarrassed to have such a person on their show. I e-mailed Joe Scarborough and Pat Bchanan that if this person were ever again on their show it was lights out as far as I was concerned. This is almost the only show I watch on MSNBC and it is a shame that it has to be ruined by such a faracial and stupid performance!

Posted by: Lee Herrera at October 23, 2004 08:22 AM (U5cQu)

5 I had the (dis)pleasure of being able to watch that last night and I don't believe I've seen too many confrontations like that. I only wish that they would have been in the same room. That, would have been priceless.

Posted by: Dick at October 23, 2004 08:26 AM (hu9UN)

6 The country owes John Oneill another debt, since he served the nation twice: once in Vietnam and once during this election.

Posted by: Jane at October 23, 2004 09:02 AM (hoo48)

7 so put your money where your typing fingers are, go to the swifties' website, and cough up some money for their ads...I did. ...first time I EVER contributed any money in a political race, after 23 years of being an elegible voter.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 23, 2004 09:18 AM (7x3vz)

8 You guys are missing the forest for the trees once again, never considering the point that O'Donnell was actually right. These guys are lying liars. By the way Rusty, regarding what I think was your "home field" argument regarding the "liberal media." Could we stop with the sports analogies please? I don't remember the last time a home town crowd purposely leaned against their own side in order to appear objective, which is exactly what most journalists do.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 23, 2004 12:13 PM (1miw1)

9 O'Donnell is just the democrat prototype: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pglitch23oct23,0,3825651,print.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

Posted by: Mr. K at October 23, 2004 12:27 PM (PP78T)

10 and still more prototypical democrat behaviour: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008274.php of course, these are all lying liars who lie, lie, lie, lie.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 23, 2004 12:33 PM (PP78T)

11 Prof. Von Nostrand, If Mr. O'Donnell had something intelligent to say that supported his point of view then he should have said it. His actions were shameful and childish. My nine-year-old can get his opinion across having a fit like that.

Posted by: Dorothy at October 23, 2004 12:35 PM (b8eAh)

12 You guys are missing the forest for the trees once again, never considering the point that O'Donnell was actually right. Because we must never forget, boys and girls, that any sort of behavior, no matter how outrageous, is completely justified as long as you're doing it to express the right opinion. This comment is on par with the reader on my blog who told me that because I was voting for Bush, I deserve any harassment or abuse that comes my way. Nice. These guys are lying liars. Well, if that's the case, then if you're interviewing them, let them lie, then respond with the proof that they ARE lying, and hoist them on their own petard. But even if I agreed with you that they're liars (and I don't), that does NOT excuse O'Donnell's behavior. I do hope to God you're not an ethics professor.

Posted by: Brian B at October 23, 2004 12:36 PM (PuHU/)

13 I have recommended that hosts have three buttons in front of them - one to kill the mike of a screamer until they agree to answer the question, a second to kill the mike and honk a klaxon in their ear, and a third button to flush them.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at October 23, 2004 12:59 PM (7XPVo)

14 Hey professor: I wonder if O'Donnell screamed liar, liar when Clinton told the nation (I did not have sex with that young lady, Ms Lewinski, No, never, not one time).

Posted by: greyrooster at October 23, 2004 01:24 PM (CBNGy)

15 Legendary SEAL or Lying Liar who lies? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210532/posts and see http://www.kerrylied.com/ and the decide who is the lying...and btw, who lied about employment statistics? Kerry and his legions of lying liberal losers.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 23, 2004 03:05 PM (CeCjv)

16 Forest for the trees Dorothy. Who gives a rats ass about Larry O'Donnell. Nice work in making a mountain out of a mole hill Rusty.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 23, 2004 05:42 PM (1miw1)

17 Come on Professor Von Nostrand, what are you afraid of here? If they are lying, refute the points and offer proof -- just as the Swifties have offered documentation to back their points. The behavior of O'Donnell was unprofessional for a reporter, and reprehensible in a five-year-old.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at October 23, 2004 06:21 PM (k3fvZ)

18 Hey all, this was actually a post by the "Demosophist" who will be posting here from time to time. Actually, when I sat down to check the post I thought he meant "Rosie O'Donnell--it's the kind of behavior I'd expect from her!!!!

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 23, 2004 06:49 PM (JQjhA)

19 I notice the Professor Nostrand forgot to put his Phd, MA, SJ at the end of his name. Bob Dole said that the 254 officers from Swift Boats Veterans for Truth who support John O'Neill, all but two of the all the Vietnam era Swift Boat commanders, can't all be lying Republican liars who lie.

Posted by: Craig Nelson at October 23, 2004 07:47 PM (lmOdt)

20 Brian. Cheer up. Help is on the way.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 24, 2004 02:06 AM (1miw1)

21 I count 24 times that O'Donnell screams liar ...

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at October 24, 2004 10:07 AM (xFNZD)

22 I just saw a BookTV session on CSPAN with O'Neill and the author of an anti-Bush book titled Unfit Commander that's supposedly about Bush failing to show up for Guard duty in either Alabama or Louisiana (I think the latter, but I'm not sure). The two were very civil, and O'Neill even had the grace to plug the other guy's book. But when it came to the truth of the allegations in O'Neill's book, which he had just spend close to 15 minutes outlining, the other author couldn't offer so much as a single substantive criticism. (He quoted the LA Times accusation that they were "lies," which also demurred on a serious attempt to back up that allegation factually.) I don't know what conclusion one could draw from the quality of the responses to O'Neill other than that most of what he says is probably true.

Posted by: Demosophist at October 24, 2004 12:11 PM (OtR16)

23 The democrats should have stayed with their first choice. The lunatic Dean. He might be crazy but most Vietnam vets didn't hate him.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 24, 2004 05:29 PM (CBNGy)

24 Brian. Cheer up. Help is on the way. Translation: "I got nothing so I'm just going to be a smarmy asshole." Way to revert to form. Unless the "Help" is psychological counseling for leftwing sociopaths, it's too little too late.

Posted by: Brian B at October 25, 2004 11:59 AM (CouWh)

25 To the Crazy Prof: Man, I hope you teach your students better on how to employ logic and documentation in a debate than you exemplify here thru your ranting. If not, somebody's getting ripped off. Great example of why most folks consider a huge percentage of professors nothing more than educated idiots. Those who can - do; and those who can't get a PhD and teach those who don't know any better (and rant on other peoples blogs!)

Posted by: michael at October 25, 2004 01:18 PM (uv41X)

26 greyrooster: Which crazy prof are you talking to? I don't think you can swing a dead cat around here without hitting one.

Posted by: Demosophist at October 25, 2004 08:33 PM (OtR16)

27 All I have to say is Chris Mathews look out, your days are numbered as was O'Donell.Both of you are two peas in a pod. You reflect a bad influence on the true goodness of our great country and you should be ashamed of yourselves.You could do a lot of good for this country but you are too negative, which generates a lot of unnecessary hate and bitterness in our wonderful country. You and others like you need a lot of prayer

Posted by: Polly Salisbury at October 25, 2004 11:10 PM (M7kiy)

28 Don't you guys worry too much about the good perfesser. He's a liberal, see. Liberals don't need no stinking proof. Their own obvious personal and intellectual excellence is, all by itself, proof that Bush, O'Neill & Co. are all lying liars. They are liberals because they are smart, and you want proof? It is this: they are smart because they are liberals. That would be called circular reasoning if a conservative did it, but conservatives are not good people anyway, and the proof is that they are conservatives. What do liberals call a conservative who defeats the Soviet Union and rejuvenates a moribund economy? A doddering simpleton, of course. What do liberals call a liberal who, like O'Donnell, craps his diaper on national television? Why, he's an astute journalist who can consider both the forest and the trees. You can't argue with someone who is right by definition.

Posted by: Lee at October 26, 2004 08:06 AM (Eg8sk)

29 I wonder how many resumes are flooding MSNBC? Probably a good time to apply as a political correspondent since they should ahve a vacancy soon.

Posted by: Greg Myhre at October 27, 2004 12:23 AM (7toyJ)

30 Wow. This lil' jawa blog might just have the stupidest, most ill-informed biased ninnies this side of the Drudge jackoff files. Too bad all you fools we be left out to dry on November 2nd when we fire President Cheney's ass and his caddy, Shrub. BTW A Star Wars geek AND a Republic ... do you EVER get laid by anything other than two chick cutlets in a couch?

Posted by: MCF at October 28, 2004 09:20 PM (tt51G)

31 Wow. This lil' jawa blog might just have the stupidest, most ill-informed biased ninnies this side of the Drudge jackoff files. Too bad all you fools we be left out to dry on November 2nd when we fire President Cheney's ass and his caddy, Shrub. BTW A Star Wars geek AND a Republican ... do you EVER get laid by anything other than two chicken cutlets in a couch?

Posted by: MCF at October 28, 2004 09:21 PM (tt51G)

32 > Wow. This lil' jawa blog might just have the stupidest, most ill-informed biased ninnies this side of the Drudge jackoff files. Oh, please pardon us all, MCF. When the left-wing intellectual challenge rises to name-calling and epithet-tossing, why, we poor conservative ninnies just can't hang in there with such Socratic figures as Mr. O'Donnell and your august self. Admittedly, name-calling is an improvement over most leftist arguments. "O'Neal is a liar!" and "biased ninnies" at least possess the modest virtue of being coherent. Keep plugging away one small virtue at a time, MCF, and pretty soon you may even rise to the level of solving timeless riddles like, "What does 1 + 1 equal?", and "Who's buried Grant's Tomb?" I wonder when the exact moment occurred when leftists finally, unambiguously, embraced finger-painting their opponents with their own ordure as a constructive argument. My theory is that their brain cells shorted out sometime during the Clinton impeachment. Maybe it was having to discuss the meaning of "is" at the bit level. Maybe it was having to remember too many arcane rules for when a lie under oath constitutes perjury, or when it just means a poor beleaguered president is trying to reclaim the Constitution... I think the situation just crossed a few too many brain cell wires in their magnificent little brains.

Posted by: Lee at October 29, 2004 10:23 AM (Eg8sk)

33 ONeill is a lying hack. ODonnell called a spade a spade. Deal with it you ostriches.

Posted by: GK at October 29, 2004 12:10 PM (LKJZ5)

34 It's just hard to argue with logic like that, GK. Have you ever thought of teaching philosophy? Or math? Physics? I'd love to watch you prove a theorem... "The limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity, because anyone who disagrees is a lying hack or an ostrich, is..."

Posted by: Lee at October 31, 2004 07:38 AM (ki5kY)

35 After wathching the show with Lawrence Odonell five of us, in our household, decided to vote for Bush. Thanks, glass eyed, temper tamtrum thrower, Odonnel, you need tranquilizers and a life. That was pathetic! You're finished as a credible TV personality

Posted by: garyoliveira at November 16, 2004 06:29 PM (he+Og)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 20, 2004

Zogby speaks on the 'Armageddon' election in Hong Kong

Simon was there and reports:

Blogs: Zogby saw these as important, with each having its own constituency. However they are unlikely to change minds; instead "they serve to stoke the fires of anger." In other words, blogs are preaching to the converted.

Using my Sith mind powers, I command you to go read this!!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

October 19, 2004

Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri Charged With Incitement to Murder in UK

Hallalujah!!!! ABC News:

British authorities pre-empted a U.S. bid to extradite radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, charging the fiery preacher Tuesday with urging followers to kill non-Muslims, in some case specifically targeting Jews.
On what was scheduled to have been the first day of his extradition hearing, al-Masri, 46, sat in court to face 10 charges of soliciting or encouraging the murder of others, "namely a person or persons who did not believe in the Islamic faith." Four of the charges added: "in particular Jewish people."

Posted by: Rusty at 02:57 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Rusty, You'll never make a good Islamofacist. They're called Zionists, not Jews. BTW; what's wrong with his eye? Did someone biatch slap him or something? Did a rival cleric take his eye out? (an eye for an eye)

Posted by: Jeremy at October 19, 2004 04:14 PM (PJ4Iq)

2 'An eye for an eye'? No! He just wanted a scratch, but forgot he's got a hooked arm !!

Posted by: splog at October 19, 2004 04:32 PM (iNiOD)

3 Boy!! is cougaruk going to be mad about this. Hey James, Roopesh, ever had the feeling your ship is about to sink? Is this guy Bush's fault? Heh, Heh. Love it.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 04:57 PM (CBNGy)

4 At last. This one-eyed, hook-fisted bastard has been an embarrassment to the UK for ages. He preached his vitriolic bullshit seemingly unopposed for years in the middle of the street, right under the noses of "normal law-abiding citizens" for years. All this whilst living off enormous state-benefits from the UK government. Seriously, if the UK could time warp back a wee while, this guy would have been hanged for high-treason but this is the 21st century so we aparently have to play the "PC card", "Human Rights", "Freedom of Speech" etc etc etc. Someone should chop this guys head off forthwith with a rusty spoon and send the video to Zalwaqi or OBM... whoever is still alive to see it.

Posted by: Red Devil at October 19, 2004 05:06 PM (/sNX3)

5 In my excitement I made a couple of typos... See if you can spot em :-)

Posted by: Red Devil at October 19, 2004 05:07 PM (/sNX3)

6 RED DEVIL: I hate the bastard so much it stood out like a sore thumb.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 05:12 PM (CBNGy)

7 what a horrible picture

Posted by: baf at October 19, 2004 05:14 PM (9TN4Z)

8 Now, Now BAF. That is what you guys look like.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 08:05 PM (CBNGy)

9 greyrooster, Im not muslim, so dont target your comment at me. fool.

Posted by: baf at October 20, 2004 04:56 AM (jhTRf)

10 BAF: Muslim, muslim supporter, America hater. All the same to me. Fool!!

Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 08:13 AM (CBNGy)

11 BAF: Defend them, support them, same as being one of them. Read some of your past posts. Fool!

Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 05:38 PM (CBNGy)

12 Wouldn't it be great to watch this cocksucker's head explode as a 7.62 bullet passed through it? The people who don't understand that we are at war with the same kind of true believers that we ran into in places like Neimagen, Eindhoven, North Africa, Sicily, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Chosin, and Khe Sanh are fooling only themselves. The only thing that someone like this jackass understands is someone bigger and meaner with a better gun. Even then, you have to prove it by killing him. He is welcome to his 72 Virgins. Who hell wants virgins anyway?

Posted by: Dave Bowman at October 22, 2004 01:04 AM (5lMJa)

13 Roopesh: That did it. I'm sending my buddy DAEWOOD in Bombay to see you. Maybe he can figure out where you stand. Or does he live in Pakistan now? Anyway he's still got connections.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2004 06:42 AM (CBNGy)

14 why the fuck dont you say all that bulshit speech to his face then we'll see what action we have because im tellin yeah that huck is goin threw your heads

Posted by: awais at February 06, 2005 01:39 PM (siFAl)

15 'i hate abu hamz he does this this that. losers dont you have anythin better to do go on and suck on somthing keep yourselfs busy good doggys

Posted by: abbas at February 06, 2005 01:49 PM (siFAl)

16 WAR ON IRAQ IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY,CONSCIENCE AND JUSTICE

Posted by: Dike Princewell at March 14, 2005 03:04 AM (Rrhhf)

17 Al-salamu alako. I am wrtting this message just to tell you what have you people done to Islam , evry one is tallking about sheikh abu hamza ,and saying his terrorest , will let me tell you something , if there is 5 people like sheikh abu hamza all the world will become a Muslime country. and it will . if its not with the words of sheikh abu hamza , then it will be with the sourd and guns of us becouse we muslims dont play around . you will see , we Muslims go were ever Islam go . no goke..................

Posted by: abu bader at March 19, 2005 11:16 AM (/PVhG)

18 Hey Abubader. You people are sick, plain and simple. How can you, in the name of your God, kill people in order to convert them to your religion? Do you really think your God approves of this? I think not. What is cool about America is, you can worship to anything or one that you want an no one really cares, as long as you don't force it upon others. Freedom of religion most folks would call it. But you people are just sick. No better than Hitler. This is not something I or anyone I know would ever think of participating in and will die before I ever accept your twisted religion. You should be ashamed of yourself as you seem to condone the killing of others to get your way. You big fucking crybaby. And yet Muslims are supposed to be peaceful and tolerant of others. You have zero tolerance and only hatred for others that don't see things your way, and this is not making a more peaceful world, only a world of hardship and trouble. I would rather be friends with someone who accepts me as I am even if I don't share thier religious views, than with some sicko who wishes to kill me because I do not believe the same as they do. You and you kind disgust me as well as the rest of the free world. Please dig a hole in the sand and try to convert the roaches, and if they don't convert, please smash them, but leave the people alone you twisted fucks.

Posted by: steve at July 20, 2005 08:44 PM (hd1OX)

19 Hay out there all you parisite muslims i have no objection to you LOVING the muslim culture but you don;t really and are jelous of the USA that is why you come here and scrounge like the underclass you are

Posted by: james at August 18, 2005 05:26 PM (F1nba)

20 JIHAD AGAINST THE KUFFAR AND THE MUNAFIQEEN, MURTADEEN IS FARD SO OH MUSLIMS MARCH OUT TOWARDS THE BATTLEFIELD OF AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, JAZERATUL ARAB, KASHMIR, SHESHAAN, PALESTINE

Posted by: Yahya Ayash at October 14, 2005 08:33 AM (Xzct2)

21 JIHAD AGAINST THE KUFFAR AND THE MUNAFIQEEN, MURTADEEN IS FARD SO OH MUSLIMS MARCH OUT TOWARDS THE BATTLEFIELDS OF AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, JAZERATUL ARAB, KASHMIR, SHESHAAN, PALESTINE

Posted by: Yahya Ayash at October 14, 2005 08:33 AM (Xzct2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yes dhimmis, they KILL YOU for for blasphemy

Every day I get e-mail from readers who say pretty much the same thing, "Yeah, but aren't all religions just basically the same?"

The answer, of course, is NO. Ever hear of a fundamentalist Amish ordering the death of a wayward soul because they became one of those blesphemous Mennonites? Under Islamic law blasphemy is punishable by death.

Asia News:

Hamid Pourmand is a Protestant minister of the Assemblies of God Church. He converted from Islam several years ago. Since September he has been held in prison at an undisclosed location and under Iranian law he can be put to death for Â“apostasy against IslamÂ”. He was arrested on September 9 in Karaj, a town 30 km west of the capital Tehran during a police raid against the annual General Council of the Assemblies of God Church.

BBC News:

A Pakistani man has been sentenced to life imprisonment for burning a copy of the Koran. A court in Lahore found Mehdi Hassan, 36, guilty under Pakistani laws covering offences against Islam, the prophet Mohammed or the Koran.

Let me just throw this one in for good measure--Aus. Bahai Faith:

The Australian Baha'i Community has spoken out against the destruction of sacred and historic sites in Iran. In a statement released today, the Baha'i Community describes a series of demolitions that point to a campaign of "cultural cleansing" by Iran's ruling authorities, who are determined to remove all traces of the Baha'i Faith, the country's largest religious minority.

Hat tip: Robert Spencer

Posted by: Rusty at 02:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Dear Limey assholes

That's the actual title of this Guardian article which has responses to the Guardian's efforts to meddle in the Presidential election:

Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah - and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals.

Read the rest. Not funny, funnay! Hat tip: Mr. K

Editorial note: This and the other letters printed here were responses to something the Guardian was doing. The online version of the Guardian had started an online campaign to get British citizens to write voters in Ohio urging them to vote for John Kerry. This explains the tone of some of the responses. Also, notice the title of the article? A ploy by the Guardian to explain how we 'tards and rednecks could actually vote for that mean and stupid Bush-Hitler.

PS-Now I know why the Guardian is so pro-Kerry.

Double-lizzle PS-Bill say's the Guardian got "Not exactly the results that they expected." Nope, not exactly. And Kevin is wringing his hands in anticipation of Ohio districts to start voting. Yeah, I can't wait either!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:10 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

1 That is the funniest shtuff. Eh-var. Hold on, I need to go change my shorts....

Posted by: SparseMatrix at October 19, 2004 12:31 PM (935pb)

2 I am English and proud of that fact, I am saddend to read how American people truly view us "Brits". I did believe the UK and US people, despite the "needling" I have read on this site, quite liked and respected each other, I have had my eyes opened.

Posted by: Dotty at October 19, 2004 12:40 PM (q1oAV)

3 P.S. The American election is each American citizen's affair, not mine. I wouldn't dream of trying to influence anyone but....If you don't vote for Bush I will post a photo of my "yellow" teeth.

Posted by: Dotty at October 19, 2004 12:46 PM (q1oAV)

4 Everyone from England is just like Austin Powers.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 19, 2004 01:01 PM (V/FDE)

5 Dotty, before you go off the deep end on the lack of respect, remember that the responses are to an obvious lack of respect from the Guardian. The one thing we learn in the US when growing up is to mind our own business. (Unless we are liberals) Everyone replying was seeing the Guardian as the representative of Great Britain, and we don't take kindly to unasked for advice.

Posted by: Bill at October 19, 2004 01:30 PM (0BhZ5)

6 Hi Bill, Yes that is true, the Guardian panders to all the middle class "know it alls" in the UK. I wouldn't give two hoots to anyone from overseas telling me who to vote for, I suppose I'd drone on about glaring shortcomings in some iconic figures in America, tarring everyone with the same brush. Bye for now, Dotty

Posted by: Dotty at October 19, 2004 01:38 PM (q1oAV)

7 Dotty, I second Bill's sentiments.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 19, 2004 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

8 I am from the UK. The Guardian is the most reviled newspaper amongst "real" Brits on the news-stands. The reasons are many and varied but basically, it is left-wing. Honestly, although a member of the "gutter press", The Sun is the most read newspaper in the UK and the writer "Littlejohn" speaks for most UK readers. Check him out.

Posted by: Red Devil at October 19, 2004 05:44 PM (/sNX3)

9 DOTTY: A few do go over board. Jolly ole England is much respected is the US. We have always considered the Brits to be the bravest nation on earth. We do know that the America haters on these blogs in all probability not true Brits anyway. We do wonder at times if Jolly Ole England is still there? Please remember some of us are attacking English bloggers back. Not attacking first. Why do the English let the few assholes continue their tirades against our country and its leaders? Since people like you do not defend us it's not hard to believe the America haters are in the majority. So we retaliate. Don't take it so seriously. 99.99% of Americans would come to England's aid without even thinking about it. An attack on England, is an attack on America. Shouldn't is be the other way around too? I'm proud of England and it's brave stance in helping us end global terror. PS France stinks.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 06:09 PM (CBNGy)

10 I like Brits! I just hope that "they" aren't still sore 'bout the "Revolution..." ... ya' know, like france and the Louisiana Purchase or Russia 'bout Alaska. As for "yellow teeth," one can always keep their mouth shut? Mike

Posted by: Sergeant America at October 19, 2004 07:21 PM (d//26)

11 How do Aericans expect the UK to keep out of US politics when it effects us so much? Actually, how do you expect the world to stay out of US politics. If you want to act like the world police expect everyone to want a say on how its run. America has never, ever, minded its own business. As for the Guardian being the most reviled newspaper in the UK, that's completely false. That accolade belongs to the reactionary right wing paper The Daily mail, a paper that has been dragged through the courts more time than a little for making up stories about left wing politics. As for The Sun, well, it's a tabloid, a comic, and anyone who takes their politics from it really shouldn't be allowed out of their homes without an adult.

Posted by: Matt Bing at October 20, 2004 05:59 AM (OnjMB)

12 Matt Bing: America became the world police when England no longer could. You should praise us for picking up where you left off. Someone had to. Is England still there? Or are they on the way to being just another jealous country?

Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 08:36 AM (CBNGy)

13 Dotty, the Brits used to be known for their good sense of humor. Your ultra-sensitivity at American responses to British meddling smacks of a complete lack of same. Laugh, Dotty. Brits are not That important, nor that self-important (I hope). Lord knows you've had to swallow some pride on your Brussels Adventures in the last few years; have you learned nothing from the experience? A little humility and savoir-faire, please. Nex

Posted by: Alan at October 20, 2004 05:24 PM (LuRui)

14 I've been watching the death of true England since 1963. When she decided to open the flood gates of immigration onto that tiny island. Their decision to allow immigration is not what's wrong, it's the incredible attitude of thinking by being nice to any and all would solve immigrant problems. Now she's just like France, she's got a huge unassimilated population they don't know how to handle without some kind of violence. So, for any of them to think they are in any situation to be giving out advice to another country on how to handle their voting is not ridiculous, it's insane.

Posted by: mshyde at October 20, 2004 07:30 PM (kCnpw)

15 MSHYDE: What bothers me is did the US liberal government at the time have anything to do with prodding the Brits into more immigration. Shit! some of it might be our fault. Kennedy, Johnson and the peanut farmer were constantly sticking their noses in other countries immigration policys. I'll never forget the day Mao se Tung shut Carter's mouth. Carter asked him if he would allow people to freely leave China. Mao's answer! How about 10 million next monday morning.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 09:02 PM (CBNGy)

16 It had much more to do with old colonies, the definition of British nationality and from there it just ballooned. Nothing wrong with immigration. Everything wrong with doing it blind. But I disagree that immigration has a lot to do with the changing of British ways and customs. Seems to me that other social forces were and are at work there. But despite having lived there for a few years, I'm not much of a a meddler like these Guardian folk and leave it up to the Brits themselves to discuss the thing. I'd join in, but I don't see a lot of them here talking about it. The Guardian type of Brit seems very interested in us, perhaps because it's loads of fun to demonize. It's also an easy way to define themselves. Too bad so many of them misjudge so much, even to the extent of mistaking their true friends for their enemies and their enemies for their friends. Nex

Posted by: Alan at October 20, 2004 11:04 PM (LuRui)

17 I think some Americans heard " The redcoats are coming." Since the Revolution many og us detest any help from outsiders who really do not know what a Representative democracy is with an Electoral College. And yes, we've had a chance to learn from Europe in particular over the years...A practice of Facism,communism, scocialiam, like the National Scocialiat Party and others, Nazism. Sadly, we are the Worlds Police...I wish it weren't so. But we've been called on over the years to do so and have the best we can in this complicated world.Bush is not the problem. Many have appeased before and still do. Their rights to criticize even the French's are still protected and fought for by the U.S. and it's Allies...To this I wish to Thank you and the Good ol England, from the depths of my heart I' shall always remember you as will my family...Hey and you Aussies..Man I love you guys. Not one country has supported us more than you guys, it seems now like forever. We are surely kin in more than ways we understand.... Central Europeans seem to realize this more than those to close to France. P.S. on request of my missus I did not post my e-mail Thanks it's getting late..G'night..

Posted by: Cutterjohn at October 20, 2004 11:17 PM (T39qU)

18 England was never the world's police, simply a strong nation with a strong sense of moral outrage. We were involved in the beginning of the FFirst and Second World wars because we decided to stand up agains tyranny, much in the same way that America have done the same, after, however, a direct attack on its shores. England is not another jealous country, especially not of America. We still have good traditions and, though our health service can be slow, we seem able to look after the majority of our inhabitants. Brits feel strong links to America through the moral stance both have taken and our shared sense of freedom. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that America believes in and we feel a need to get involved in America's politics when so much the country does affects us. From foreign policy to the Kyoto treaty, the USA has a massive say in the way Britain acts. As for immigrattion, I've not heard many sillier things. Britain has not been dying since 1963, it has been getting stronger. Immigration has enriched our lives, taken us away from the colonial attitudes of the past and allowed us to view the world with a different perspective. No longer are ethnic miorities treated as second class citizens and I for one am glad of it. If people expect Brits to be sitting on the vilage green drinking tea whilst wearing a bowler, they are living in the past, a time we have left behind , thankfully.

Posted by: Matt Bing at October 21, 2004 03:55 AM (OnjMB)

19 Talk about looking at the world thru rose colored glasses. This guys looking at England thru blinders. You may not believe it but Americans get film clips and newspaper articles from overseas. I haven't heard such goodie, goodie myopic crap since the hippy movement of the early 1960s. What are you taking?

Posted by: greyrooster at October 22, 2004 06:44 AM (CBNGy)

20 Those two Brit posts demonstrate the thing better than anything an American could say. Nex

Posted by: Alan Pollock at October 22, 2004 09:17 AM (djFIP)

21 > PS France stinks. Hey greyrooster, the US gonna give back the Statue of Liberty then?

Posted by: Auntiedom at October 25, 2004 06:17 PM (hPjuj)

22 Bend over then. (you gotta tell these euros Everything). Nex

Posted by: Alan at October 26, 2004 12:12 AM (TEzHM)

23 You prove the point valiantly. Yanks think they *have* to tell the rest of the world everything.

Posted by: auntiedom at October 27, 2004 02:56 AM (V+0RI)

24 I think it's simply splendid that 850 British troops have been sent to look after the 130,000 or so US troops stationed in the Baghdad area. I imagine the yanks will be very relieved to have some professional expertise to call on at long last.....

Posted by: Lawksamizzen at October 27, 2004 05:34 AM (8gxfv)

25 Americans are just Mad That The Black Man is screwing their wives, sisters and Mothers, Cause they all have small cocks and homosexual tendencies, So they have to attack other countries. Go Black

Posted by: Black at January 24, 2005 10:02 PM (C1M0o)

26 Americans are just mad because the Black man is fucking his wife, mothers and sister cause they have small cocks, so they have to attact some poor country, If they attacked Korea, they get their asses kicked. Go Black

Posted by: Jimmy at January 24, 2005 10:48 PM (C1M0o)

27 Hmm.. America's always bragging about how great they are. I think they need to pull their heads out of there 'arses' and see the daylight. And what the hells up with Bush? Do you really call that a world leader? More like cunt of the month!

Posted by: a bitch at February 10, 2005 11:31 AM (Y1u2A)

28 And get this.. The only reason british soldiers are dieing in iraq is coz blind 'trigger happy' americans keep shooting them 'by mistake'..........?

Posted by: a bitch at February 10, 2005 11:36 AM (Y1u2A)

29 all americans are like george bush: brainless, small dicked, stupid, tendency to blow up things,

Posted by: fuk da usa at March 01, 2005 04:49 AM (aaXcx)

30 oh and by the way yanks its The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland not "england" you stupid wankers! look at a map!

Posted by: fuk da usa at March 02, 2005 04:26 AM (aaXcx)

31 I think we should be involved to a certain extent in eachothers political interests for example could either country function as well as they did in the war on terror with different leaders in power, im not so sure, had it been the wanker (Michael Howard) UK has running for conservative now it could have been a different story altogether.

Posted by: Koochie at May 05, 2005 10:51 AM (F1nba)

32 It is as bad an idea for one country to set itself up as the "world police" as any other. That one arguably used to be, but is no more, and that another didn't used to be, but now is, has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. The problem that some Americans perceive, which is echoed by some Europeans, is that there is now an arrogance alive in the present US administration which seems able, not only to disregard the views of its opponents, but also to deliberately take actions that provoke negativity. From this point of view, the politics of GWB are not that dissimilar to those of Thatcher. Where the two diverge are also where the ability of Brits and Americans to accept alternatives to the status quo are different. There are voices on both sides of the spectrum on either side of the Atlantic. But the majority of voices that are heard from America seem to prove that they are able to swallow horse shit in the name of the Stars and Stripes. There are no longer many Brits at all who would be prepared to do the same for the Union flag, and there have not been for several decades. But they do have something in common. Let one from another country try to tell them how to run things, and there will be plenty of spit and blood flying.

Posted by: itchybrain at May 28, 2005 01:55 AM (IU2AI)

33 see, this is why everyone hates america. they are so arrogant and big-headed. this is what drove some people to drive a plane into the twin towers, and if this atitude carries on, it won't be long before someone tries to do something like that again. Even I can see that and Im only 17.

Posted by: Ollie at May 28, 2005 07:12 AM (rByZX)

34 (i'm from the UK) I find the whole 'yellow teeth' thing hilarious - come to think of it my teeth are quite bad... anyway, the US rock!!!

Posted by: USA is ace!!! at June 02, 2005 07:43 AM (nxLZJ)

35 who give a shit about america and yuor outdate views on us brits.if it was'nt for us you would be germans you stupid yanks.

Posted by: colin at August 06, 2005 06:41 PM (6b4sB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 18, 2004

Electoral Vote Predictions

(Post by Bravo Romeo Delta)

So far, you've probably are already familiar with some of the more popular electoral vote predictors and election guesstimation sites. Two of the bigger ones are Election Projection (pro-Bush), and Electoral Vote (pro-Kerry). While both these sites seem to be making a solid effort to be, like, fair and stuff, they aren't bastions of statistical accuracy.

But there are some places to get much more accurate and thoroughly reasoned analysis of the elections with some links and current predictions, based on current polling data.
more...

Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at 05:41 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 3 kb.

I Just Voted, early but not often

My state allows 'early voting' which started today. This is where you mosy on down to the County Courthouse and vote in the two weeks prior to the actual election. I'm not so sure if this is good news or bad news for Bush, but I had to wait in line to get my ballot. If there is an easy way to distinguish between Bush and Kerry voters, I don't know it. However, I will say that most of the people there were older--whatever that might mean. Also, the ballot had Bush's name on top and the Senate race also had the Republican on top. Which might seem insignificant until you remember the 'tards who voted for Buchanan in 2000 because they were confused.

Who did I vote for? Kodos.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats Disenfranchising Soldiers?

James Joyner:

So, to recap, the Democratic Party is:
1. Trying to disenfranchise Nader supporters
2. Effectively disenfranchising American soldiers in harm's way
It makes you wonder why they call themselves the "Democratic" Party, no?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

October 15, 2004

Kerry's Worst Lie--The bad job market debunked

(This post will stay on top for awhile)

I was stunned last night as John Kerry continued to retell a falsehood over and over and no one called him on it. In fact, it was the biggest whopper of the night. His lie was not a simple twisting of words. His lie was not a faulty memory. It was a down and dirty lie. What was it? From the WAPO transcript:

And this is the first president in 72 years to preside over an economy in America that has lost jobs, 1.6 million jobs.
Eleven other presidents -- six Democrats and five Republicans -- had wars, had recessions, had great difficulties; none of them lost jobs the way this president has.

In a number of earlier posts I thought I had disproved this myth, but perhaps John Kerry just hasn't gotten word yet. So, let me restate some of the conclusions drawn in those earlier posts. Also, will the rest of the blogosphere do their damn jobs and call Karl Rove, Fox News, and the rest of the VRWC so we can finally put the 'worst job recovery ever' lie to rest!

Let's look at the numbers, keeping in mind that the job numbers have improved since I last analyzed them. If we were to include the latest numbers, Bush's record would look even better. All numbers were gathered from the official Bureau of Labor Statistics website. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 1439 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Whew. Good job Rusty.

Posted by: Digger at October 14, 2004 10:11 PM (FYEx6)

2 Ditto. Can you email it to the White House?

Posted by: Jane at October 15, 2004 12:25 AM (AaBEz)

3 Rusty: Well, I'll tell you what bothers me... but you won't like it. What sort of Presidency is this, that in the midst of one of the most complex foreign policy implementations in the history of the planet this president can't even muster enough coherence to defend himself from a bald-faced lie, in spite of the fact that it's easily defended? It's as though your team has loaded the bases, and rattled the pitcher, and the batter that's at the plate can't even manage to get a walk. WHAT THE FREAKIN' HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THIS GUY! Yeah, I know Kerry is worse... but I am not amused. One false step and we could be hip deep in Armageddon... and it's really hard to convince myself that I'm supporting someone who is even marginally competent. Sorry, just had to get it out of my system.

Posted by: Demosophist at October 15, 2004 01:22 AM (KVEF9)

4 From Factcheck.org (2nd Debate) Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush. It is true that figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by 1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated. Kerry may turn out to be correct when he said Bush would be "the first president in 72 years to lose jobs." Payroll employment has been growing at roughly 100,000 jobs per month for the past four months, and there are only four months to go -- October, November, December and January -- until the end of Bush's term in January, 2005. (The number that will actually go into the economic history books won't be known until February 2006, when the BLS publishes its final benchmark revisions of 2004 data.)

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:08 AM (NJzm6)

5 You know what they forget the most when it comes to the economy and the job market? Florida and the hurricanes - making a major dent in not only the govt numbers but that states' numbers. We've had some major catastrophe's lately and no one takes them into account - it's also going to take a lot of time to fix that just one state never mind the other states that were involved in the destruction of the storms. Just adding my 2 cents. ~C

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at October 15, 2004 02:13 AM (D39Vm)

6 Here is another thought to chew on...Kerry sometimes cites his role in balancing the budget under Clinton, and complains that Bush took a huge budget surplus and turned it into deficits with know end in sight...but government surplus budgets take money away from the engine that drives the economy - business and consumer spending and investment. Why hasn't anyone suggested that Kerry and Clinton, with their tax increases, actually caused the recession that Bush inherited? I understand the need for a balanced budget. But it occurs to me that we may have gotten there too fast, and should have been cutting taxes along the way to keep the economy's fuel tank full.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 15, 2004 06:17 AM (ZMWnE)

7 Excellent post Rusty. You the man. Prof. Peter Von Nostrand, If Fact check is correct the total loss at the end of bush's FIRST term would be projected as 185,000 lost. Maybe Kerry's decimal misplacement(1.6 million)was just one of those exaggerations? Rusty, Which MSM outlet would you suggest report this first? CBS and the ever unbiased Dan Rather? ABC and their Political Director, Mark Halperin's Equally Accountable memo? Or NBC and thier invaluable post debate commentary by such great political minds as Hall and Oates and Triumph the Insult Comic Dog?

Posted by: Jeremy at October 15, 2004 08:24 AM (farnf)

8 Prof. VN, Did you even read my entire essay? Did you check out the numbers? Bush 41, Reagan (1st term), Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower all LOST jobs in their Presidencies. Under no circumstances could Kerry's repeated statements on the subject be true. NONE. Further, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not even start compiling data until 1946, how on earth does Kerry get that 72 year figure? This was not a mistatement, since he has been saying it over and over again for months--also on his official campaign website. THIS IS A LIE. If FactCheck.org hasn't picked up on this then that is the whole point--no one has!!! Factcheck.org is just wrong in that last statement. Demos, Yeah, I agree. Mr. K, Maybe, but then again it seems that no matter what a President does, at some point a recession will hit. Just thank goodness that the last recession was mild compared to pretty much all other recent recessions. Oh, wait, something else the MSM didn't want to talk about. Everyone else, Thanks for compliments and input.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 08:27 AM (JQjhA)

9 Running the country, fighting a war and preparing for debates with Kerry who has nothing to do but prepare for debates. I can understand why President Bush may not be 100% prepared to have debate after debate. Who really cares about who is the best public speaker? That's not why I'm voting for Bush.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 15, 2004 09:24 AM (CBNGy)

10 Are the Clinton job creation statistics from before or after the substantial official downward adjustment that Steve Antler (Econopundit) analyzed some time ago?

Posted by: Dave Schuler at October 15, 2004 09:34 AM (q6nJ/)

11 Dave, not sure, however they are all seasonally adjusted unemployment figures. Greyrooster, Just to reemphasize, Kerry has repeated the same thing over and over so it wasn't a slip of the tongue. Jeremy, My point exactly.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 11:17 AM (JQjhA)

12 It would be nice to see one of the candidates refrain from lying in their respective campaigns. Unfortunately, this will never happen.

Posted by: Venom at October 15, 2004 12:00 PM (dbxVM)

13 Rusty, I will consider your point; however I would have appreciated if you had given us a better link to exactly which labor statistics you used (can you provide that?). With allegiance to the "null hypothesis" post you did some time ago regarding Rathergate and changing your own mind about that, I will withhold judgment until I can further verify what you're claiming. It seems a bit fishy that I can find nobody else making your point, though I must confess that when Kerry initially made this claim it seemed a bit extreme (in support of a legitimate point about the Bush economy). VN out.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:31 PM (62QDG)

14 I collected the data from the BLS. I ran the numbers myself. Didn't even have to use SPSS. Excel worked fine. Sorry if I didn't footnote according to APSR specifications.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 02:34 PM (JQjhA)

15 By the way Rusty, if you are correct, I found it kinda funny that almost all of the "jobs lost" eras were during Republican administrations.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 02:36 PM (62QDG)

16 Is it just me, or is all Kerry's doing is saying how bad Bush was, instead of saying exactly how he would do things? Most of his campaigns are just bashing Bush, saying what a screw up he's been. Personally, I don't think the economy is in such bad shape. There are jobs, if you want one. I remember the big recession of the 70s and the oil embargo and the price of gasoline! To me, that was WORSE!

Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 02:55 PM (ptOpl)

17 Laura, I think it's just you, considering Kerry has been 1)espousing his track record in the Senate (or lack thereof, depending on what side of the fence you're looking from), 2)defending his wartime service record, 3)discussing his own policies should he win the presidency, and 4)talking about Edwards' positive points. In addition to this, he is attacking Bush. So, no, he's not just attacking Bush. And Bush isn't spending his whole campaign attacking Kerry, either.

Posted by: Venom at October 15, 2004 03:04 PM (dbxVM)

18 The economy is in good shape, Laura. I quit my job last year before Christmas, started my own business. I have more work than I can get done, and have had some trouble finding GOOD help. You don't hear too much about the record growth in construction, especially residential construction. And the record home ownership. Good economic news is suppressed in the media. And as Rusty has aptly pointed out, they conveniently forget to correct Herman Munster when he spouts outright lies about unemployement statistics. But oh, the fact that Cheyney bumbed into "Ambulance" Edwards once in the bathroom on capitol hill, and forgot about it at the debate, that makes the front page.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 15, 2004 03:16 PM (KVgs4)

19 I knew you would, Prof. VN, then again that is an artifact of the baseline measuring time (ie, 4 year intervals, Jan-Jan). Had I measured GDP growth, or average unemployment numbers, or whatever the results would have been different.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 15, 2004 03:46 PM (JQjhA)

20 Bush is easy prey for Kerry! I don't trust anyone with the initials "JK", Catholic and from Boston to boot...reminscent of 1960s JFK!!!!! Not that I'm against anyone being Catholic, I am myself, it's just that it smacks of another Camelot. Nah, it ain't me, everyone's saying that all Kerry's doing is saying what a lousy job Bush has done, not much of what he'd do. All the talk shows are talking about it, most callers call in and say the same thing. Of course, the worst thing that's going to hurt Bush the most is that all the Democrats who favor Kerry are using the iraq invasion as campaign ploy: "gee, look what Bush did"..blah, blah. We'll see.

Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 04:27 PM (ptOpl)

21 An important note must be remembered concerning the job numbers as well as the overall election. A challenger must present life as unbearable under the incumbent in order to win. It his job to tear down the job market, healthcare industry, etc. A challenger must present life as grand in order to be re-elected. Senator Kerry is doing nothing more than just following election year protocal, though I find his remarks on the war "without allies" to be the most despicable act a candidate can throw.

Posted by: Chad Evans at October 15, 2004 04:40 PM (SIFif)

22 Please explain, Chad? Without allies? What exactly does Kerry mean by that? Thanks.

Posted by: Laura at October 15, 2004 04:46 PM (ptOpl)

23 I don't mean to go Bill Lumberg on you on a Friday, but at this point I remain unconvinced your numbers aren't actually representative of gross job losses rather than net losses. I am unable to find the table/source for your numbers.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 07:31 PM (fVnyY)

24 LAURA: You hit the nail on the head. My wife, myself and daughters noticed the same thing during the debate. We all agreed that Kerry did nothing except find fault. As I learned while working for the Government, if you don't do anything you will not make a mistake. If you do, you're sticking your neck out someone who wishes to advance himself at your expense. After the fact, there's always a better way. Hindsight is 20/20. After a while my department got little done but CYA. Another thing. Did anyone notice that Kerry brought up Cheney's lbut not Barney Frank. Cheap shot at best. Kerry sucks!

Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:08 PM (CBNGy)

25 Left out Daughter after Cheney in last post. Someday I'll learn to use the preview.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:12 PM (CBNGy)

26 The economy is so bad that I can't get a new aluminum boat built for at least 6 months. He's booked solid. I'm trying to get several hundred large pines removed from one of my pastures. I just made a deal after 18 months of trying. Guess what? Had to give the trees away to get someone to come and take them. Five years ago they were worth $40-$50 each. Trying to get a plumber for my daughter's new house and he tells me (maybe in a couple months). Eddie my neighbor owns a cabinet shop says it will be 3 months before he can get to the cabinets. And he's my friend. Just where is this horrible economy? Hey everyone!! I live in rural south Mississippi. This is supposed to be the end to the line. Everyone in my neighborhood has a $30,000 plus pickup pulling his boat. And if any of you cry baby liberals tell me to go look at the getto, I'll tell you to go look at the garden district and all the new casinos being built. Poor economy my butt. Poor if you're too lazy to go get some of this great American life. I know at least 6 immigrants who are now millionaires. Even dingbats like Kerry and Edwards made millions. Well, anyway Edwards did. I understand Kerry inherited his. Still not bad for someone whose lived off the taxpayers all his life. By the way Kerry's wife payed 12% tax on her millions earned this year. That's a whole lot less than the 33% this poor republican is going to pay. Kerry's a complete fraud.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 15, 2004 08:49 PM (CBNGy)

27 This looks great - can you help me find the raw data on the BLS site? I'm having trouble navigating it. Thanks, J

Posted by: J Mann at October 15, 2004 09:30 PM (LoyBK)

28 J's point needs to be addressed. Aside from that, my update (see trackback) says pretty much all that needs to be said about this with regard to Kerry's "worst lie." God I love this stuff.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 15, 2004 09:53 PM (fVnyY)

29 Great post. I found it amusing that there were 7 4-year intervals with job growth and 7 with job loss. I would have predicted more growths than losses simply because the total workplace force increases over time. I have just a few comments about your graph: Although it won't change the number of +jobs/-jobs bars, it would be useful to normalize the numbers by the total available work force. I would suggest multiplying by: 2004_work_force/work_force_of_year. ... just like normalizing e.g., crude oil prices to "2004 dollars". As you are plotting the numbers, you are still stacking the numbers against Bush, and he ends up with the third worst performance in 14 4-year periods (which is not honest, when you include the effects of an increased workplace force). Secondly, your ordinate label really shojuld be "net payroll jobs" not "net jobs". In total jobs, the net change was something like a 2,000,000 jobs increase (not decrease for W. I think this includes government jobs & private consultants and the like. Another comment, is that you could, if you really like playing with number, plot the job change in four-year interval, with one year steps. This would probably make it clear that market forces outside of the president's power drive jobs growth and loss. For instance Al Gore's invention of the internet is probably somewhat responsible for the roughly 15,000 jobs exported per year (according the the Labor Dept.). This doesn't include the jobs lost through new hires & contracts going over seas, which I would guess is a much higher number. Nor does it include the number of jobs created in the US by foreign investment (which I believe is even higher).

Posted by: clt510 at October 16, 2004 03:00 AM (mb88r)

30 Yeah, and what does Cheney's daughter being gay have to do with anything? Why was THAT brought out??!! You know poor Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't! Does anyone really think there WASN'T any WMD in Iraq? Saddam's a sadistic dictator but I gotta give him credit...he hid them well! Brit's especially are having a nice "go" of it at Bush's expense! I just read in my local papers this a.m. that most of the troops, while they may not like being in Iraq actually SUPPORT Bush with his decision on invading it. I see we're bombing the hell out of insurgents' hide outs...we'll get that Zarqawi yet! As far as job prospects go, I've got two interviews lined up, and that's just for part time work! My son, who will be graduating college this spring, has 5 interviews lined up all over the US, and they are going to pay for him to fly to each interview, the companies are. People who hate Bush will think of anything to slam him. I say go to hell.

Posted by: Laura at October 16, 2004 08:07 AM (ptOpl)

31 Interesting. Which BLS series did you use? Total nonfarm?

Posted by: Chip at October 16, 2004 08:07 AM (m2zNR)

32 I just went over to the Norstram guy's log...can anyone tell me what happened to the brain of a liberal? How does this guy, who calls himself a professor, post such a flagrant self-contradictory statement on his weblog? Is he really a professor? Where? I want to make sure I don't send one of my kids to a college where someone with shit for brains can themselves a professor. Maybe he just has that liberal brain disease, where Bush "lies" about WMD's and the 8 prior years of UN sanctions and Bill Clinton speeches does not register. When Clinton delivered a speech on Iraq's WMD's, it was the truth. When Kerry repeatedly pukes out lies about employment stats, its not "Kerry's lie" because the MSM and a bunch of dumbass economists never contradicted the same statements before. I am starting to think there should be an intelligence test required before people are allowed to vote. Complete fucking idiots should not be allowed to vote. Sorry...the there wouldn't be any support for John Kerry, would there?

Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 03:27 PM (GBNrC)

33 "Always like to keep my public riveted!" Happy to see that Mr. K wants to take my vote away. He'd fit in well at the Florida Secretary of State's office. By the way Mr. K, you are making the huge assumption that I supported everything Bill Clinton said or did with regards to Iraq. I didnÂ’t. However, I do believe that this president has taken things to quite an extreme. As far as deception is concerned there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration has been extreme on this count, too. I'd post a link but I know you wouldn't read it.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 16, 2004 04:13 PM (NJzm6)

34 Peter: Post the damn proof of Kerry's statement on employment, I'll read it. I made no assumptions about your beliefs about Bill Clinton, or the UN. Let me spell it out for you: you claim it is not "Kerry's lie, because others, like the MSM and a bunch of dumbass economists, never questioned it. Well, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and the blowjob president all claimed Saddam had WMD's. By your line of reasoning, then, WMD's are not Bush's lie? What are you a professor of, Toromerdology? Optirectalology? Where do you teach, at the South Hoboken Institute of Technology?

Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 05:27 PM (GBNrC)

35 I guess I'm done with this guy. Out.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at October 16, 2004 06:19 PM (NJzm6)

36 Posted on your weblog "professor".

Posted by: Mr. K at October 16, 2004 08:17 PM (eYOgX)

37 As someone whose livelihood has never, in my entire 53 years, come from a "payroll" job (my father was self-employed; I've worked for companies below the BLS radar) I consider the entire discussion trivial. Fact - more people in this country have incomes than ever before and that is all that matters.

Posted by: triticale at October 17, 2004 12:03 AM (tV5uX)

38 And yet the basic definition of an Â“employedÂ” person is someone who works at least one hour a week. Could it be that Bush and Kerry are both blowing smoke? The question I would ask is Â“howÂ” are the job numbers actually created, and if we are using the criteria that a person is employed because they worked one hour last week; then I think the whole jobs created, jobs lost argument is a waste of time.

Posted by: azygos at October 17, 2004 10:52 AM (CxIc8)

39 I know I mentioned the 185,000 total for lost jobs if we continue on the 100,000 net gained per month. I completely overlooked the seasonal job growth that will be taking place soon. I would like to retract my statement about there being ANY job loss under Bush's watch. When these next two seasons are averaged in (Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan, Feb, Mar) Bush will have positive numbers. Rusty, I'm not sure how these numbers will tie in with yours but you may want to calculate the four remaining months in based on an average from the previous three years in job gains for the season.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2004 02:36 PM (farnf)

40 Rusty, you lose all credibility when you bring up misleading statistics in a futile attempt to defend Bush. Facts are stubborn things Rusty and your ignoring them will not make them go away. Please take a moment and look at factcheck.com for the truth about Bush being the first president since Hoover to lose jobs during his term of office. Then, with a contrite heart, write a correction. It is the only way to restore your credibility.

Posted by: ken at October 17, 2004 08:32 PM (s6c4t)

41 Ken: I think Shackleford can defend himself, but occasionally Factcheck blows one. Here it appears you have. I do not quite read Factcheck as supporting the claim here: http://www.factcheck.org/article114.html and they don't cite raw data, they cite an article.

Posted by: Mr. K at October 18, 2004 04:52 AM (W3lBo)

42 The sitting president is a turd when it comes to job creation. The best a turd can do is make a stink, that's it. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have no control over hiring practices of companies. Period. Fooling yourself into thinking the POTUS controls such is lunacy. All the president does is step in the limelight and either take credit or take it where the sun don't shine. The economy is determined by more things than tax cuts and interest rate changes. I worked my ass off in the late 90's on this neat Interweb thingy. Seems I was onto something and am STILL working with it, even after the .COM busts. Clinton never called me to tell me about job opportunities, and I still made a killing despite the heavy taxation. I just wish everyone would get off the President Controls Everything gig and realize that the market goes up and down and the Fed's job is to do its best prevent spiriling deflation or too much inflation and the president sits in a nice office and takes what credit he wants.

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at October 18, 2004 02:38 PM (VxPRK)

43 RS, Judging by your comment at my site I think you missed the point of my post. I'd actually appreciate your thoughts on the matter. VN

Posted by: Professor vonNostrand at October 18, 2004 07:39 PM (1miw1)

44 I knew Kerry's 72 year jobs blather was false the second he said it. Don't people remember anything? How could we go from single digit unemployment under Johnson to double digit unemployment under Carter without some significant job losses? Turns out Nixon, Ford and Carter all presided over significant job losses. Anyone surprised? Yours, Wince

Posted by: Wince and Nod at October 19, 2004 01:32 PM (StWf6)

45 This is scary. I just realized that much of the world considers a Bush defeat a defeat for America and it's war on Islamic terror. We had damn well re-elect Bush even if we don't like him. If Kerry's elected that will encourage the terrorists and their supportors. The attacks will get worse. Oh, shit!! There's no choice.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 19, 2004 07:15 PM (pSK/I)

46 What about the number of jobs that are created "off the books" by the illegal aliens that flood the country every day? J. Kerry claimed that 4000 a day move into the United States, and they come here for economic advantage. So if only half are working, that still amounts to about 3 million additional jobs over a four year period.

Posted by: Robert Dible at October 20, 2004 12:51 AM (H31hm)

47 Rooster: It has been said that Zarqawi planned his attacks after the Iraq invasion to make Bush look bad. These beheadings and killings have been going on for some time now. The terrorists despise Bush and don't want him reelected. Wonder why they even give a shit though? What would Kerry do that the terrorists want him instead? Maybe because he's a chicken shit who would give in to them?

Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 07:48 AM (ptOpl)

48 Correction: Zarqawi arranged for the videotapings of the recent beheadings to make it look like Bush's fault for invading Iraq. However, the slaughter's been going on way before we got there.

Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 07:50 AM (ptOpl)

49 Robert Dible: Good point. I was doing a job in California one time. Sometimes when bored we would go out into the field and yell IMMIGRACION!! 80% of our laborers would suddenly disappear.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 20, 2004 09:21 AM (CBNGy)

50 Rooster: LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! :-D

Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2004 06:10 PM (ptOpl)

51 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/census_2000/002966.html Census Bureau Releases Information on Home Workers Nearly 4.2 million people worked at home in 2000, according to Census 2000 tabulations, up from 3.4 million in 1990, the Census Bureau reported today. This 23 percent increase in home-based workers age 16 and older was double the growth in the overall work force during the decade. The data released today include information on home-based workers by age, sex, educational attainment, race and Hispanic origin, industry, occupation, disability status and earnings at the national and state levels. More recent estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) show 4.5 million people worked at home in 2003. The Census 2000 estimates represent people who reported that they usually worked at home. Â“UsuallyÂ” was defined to mean most days during the week. People who worked at home part of the week, but elsewhere more days than at home, were not counted as at-home workers. Thus, the census estimates may be lower than other estimates that count at-home workers differently. The data contained in the tables are based on responses from a sample of households who received the census long form. Nationally, about 1-in-6 households were included in the Census 2000 sample. The data are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. The Census Bureau cautions against confusing the census estimates with estimates from the ACS. Estimates may differ because of different questions, survey concepts, data processing and estimation methods. For further information, see for Census 2000 sample data and for ACS data. More comments: Although the increase in home workers does not necessarily mean more jobs in all cases, included in the increase are jobs that may not be counted in the employment reports, as people leave companies and work at home. Looking at the chart you made of Net jobs created in Presidential Terms, it seems to show trends that although Democratic Administrations appear to create jobs, they also create the conditions for job losses. A good term for this that I rarely see used (whether on the web or in the MSM) and that you have well illustrated, is the "lag-time effect" (a word that should be used far more often. This is the amount of time it takes from the decision to make an economic policy change until the impact can be measured. Per a professor at a university in Illinois who specializes in studying the lag-time effect the time frame is 6-18 months or more. I believe the lag-time effect is quite important in explaining any claims about the effects an administration has on the economy. It can also explain that while job growth appears to be higher in Democrat administrations, their policies are conducive to subsequent job loss because they pass on the recessionary effects of higher taxes, increased federal benefit spending, etc., to the succeeding administration.

Posted by: Al Johnson at October 21, 2004 11:03 PM (8LHey)

52 Nice acticle.Try my site anabolic steroids OR anabolic steroids online online anabolic steroids Direct - http://anabolic-steroids.redi.tk Thanks

Posted by: anabolic steroids at December 18, 2004 04:23 AM (r40L0)

53 yes regan,dis is horrible dey should respect each other,i dnt think they got any brains,dey need to screw it back together.... any way wot u doin man lolz.

Posted by: faz at October 22, 2005 04:54 PM (hu96I)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 14, 2004

Excuse me while I whip this out

Little blog time today. Here are a few posts that caught my fancy, though.

Tattoine:
IDF troops arrest Imad Kawasmeh, the man responsible for sending two suicide bombers to Beersheba two months ago.
San Jose Police Chief Goes Muslim for Ramadan
FBI raids Missouri-based charity; treasury officials allege direct link to terrorists
Jewish Democratic Council Celebrate Beheadings
Le Monde runs a story about the tragedy of being a US soldier, without interviewing any US soldiers
al-Sadr: addicted to porn (Rated R) (why not--pretty funny)
Analyzing KerryÂ’s terrorism stance
Chinese Hostage Rescued in Pakistan (hat tip: scott)

Debate:
MSM debate roundup
Reaction to Kerry's "Mary" Remark
Jesse Jackson adds his own sound byte to the "Spin Cycle"
10 debate quotes of note
Commie live-blogging
Drunk-blogging
Pop quiz cowboy: Why did JFK and Kennedy decide to have a debate?
TIMMY!!!
Maybe Rassmann Plagiarized Kerry's Mom
Blog round up
Thank God it's over!!

Election:
DNC ELECTION MANUAL: CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS
Regular guys for Bush
Vote by mail pros and cons

Culture:
Just cool

Posted by: Rusty at 01:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 3 kb.

October 13, 2004

US Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) Closes Offices Amid Terrorism Concerns

WAPO originally broke the story:

Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) said yesterday that he was closing his Capitol Hill office because of security concerns in what appeared to be an atypical response to intelligence information that has been shared with senators about terrorist threats....
"I do so out of extreme, but necessary, precaution to protect the lives and safety of my Senate staff and my Minnesota constituents, who might otherwise visit my office in the next few weeks," Dayton said in a statement announcing the closure.
Dayton said he could not disclose the contents of what he described as a "top-secret intelligence report" presented to senators by Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). But he added that he based his decision on a "careful review of all available documents" and decided to act on his own after Frist declined to convene a meeting of all senators to discuss the subject.

NEIN, which the nowhere to be found Allah calls 'the world's most alarmist website', cites Dayton as saying: "I would not bring my two sons to the Capitol between now and the election." Many of the news sources I found also connect Dayton's decision leave DC to the revelation that as many as 25 suspected Chechen terrorists have crossed the Mexico-US border.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Kerry's Diplomacy Requires KY

...and how do I word this and still keep this post PG-13? It's for us.

Image from Down For Repairs who also has this post. Hat tip: Leopold Stotch [Bush supporter]

Posted by: Rusty at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

241kb generated in CPU 0.8062, elapsed 0.8446 seconds.
133 queries taking 0.7717 seconds, 554 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 91517
Files: 363
Bytes: 989.1M
CPU Time: 173:31
Queries: 9402826

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

October 28, 2004

October 27, 2004

October 26, 2004

October 25, 2004

October 22, 2004

October 20, 2004

October 19, 2004

October 18, 2004

October 15, 2004

October 14, 2004

October 13, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds