Keeeeeeeeeeerry, Keeeeeeeeeeerry...

No, it's not the Europe song.

Do you, infedel americans, think John Kerry could beat GWB?

Do you think his belicous past could influence US international politics?

All I know, is that Kerry is backed by a drunken murderer (Ted Kennedy), and of all the jackasses, I mean Democrats, Edwards seems to be the most genuine man. GWB would trounce any other Democrat with his hundreds of millions of campaign money

Originally posted by Drunken Monkey is it just me...or does the discussion of politics seem like a slightly bad idea?!?!?!

It's always a bad idea! But I'm interesting in knowing who is who in the campaign, not exactly in opinions about the private life of the candidates.

Wasn't the Europe song called "Carrie"? ;)

I swear on Hooky's bass I didn't own the "album" but my brother did & subjected my ears to repeated torture with it in my late teens.

Yours pedantically,

A Ninja Survivor.

I thought this was about the new Celebrity TV show, Mrs McFadden is one cying whinging moaner.

Originally posted by The Haçienda must be (re)Built I thought this was about the new Celebrity TV show, Mrs McFadden is one cying whinging moaner.

She likes the sound of her own voice.. on and on etc Mind you, Lydons shorts as an avatar, would scare the unwary post-midnight NOOL.

Originally posted by Server Error in "/" Application > Originally posted by Drunken Monkey> is it just me...or does the discussion of politics seem like a slightly bad idea?!?!?!

It's always a bad idea! But I'm interesting in knowing who is who in the campaign, not exactly in opinions about the private life of the candidates.

Dean - Has a lot of support among the "Grateful Dead" (young and old) crowd. His comments and outbursts keep diminishing his support (see Iowa). Sealed records as governor of Vermont raise character questions.

Clark - Clinton puppet intended to derail Dean. Flip-flop on war and EXTREME views on abortion on demand hurt his credibility.

Lieberman - too much of a hawk and supporter of the President on the war. Bad taste of '00 left in too many democratic supporters mouths? Very decent man....

Edwards - Clinton-lite. Millionaire trial lawyer status will hurt. Good orator. Being Southern will only help in the South if he's on the top of the ticket. Lacks "gravitas".

Kerry - Surging right now. Has flip-flop issues concerning support of the war. Uncle Teddy as a supporter will hurt in the South. Just another "People's Republic of Mass." liberal? Viet Nam War hero status will help. Extreme anti- Viet Nam war activisism after his tours will hurt.

Sharpton, Kusinech(s/p?) - non-players.

i think kerry, edwards, and dean are the only ones left in the race now (although clark could make a showing, as well). i think kerry has a shot, but who knows what will happen in the next nine months?

jesus, imagine al sharpton as US president?

All I gotta say is "anybody but Bush" (except maybe Clark, he's a bit too shifty and oppertunistic for my taste)

I supported Edwards early on 'cause he's a local boy (born in the OC...Oconee County), but he hadn't really done anything all year, and the campaign e-mails seemed pathetically optimistic. Leiberman I think is a decent guy, but not able to beat Bush in a general election because he's almost Bush-Lite. Howard Dean...I'm always skeptical of front-runners this early in the campaign, but I do think the media's recent "bitch-slapping" of him sort of puts to rest the "liberal media" myth (sorry, but conservatives rule the roost now, Michael), and I could see myself voting for him Monday (or is it Tuesday?) next week. Honestly, though, I really don't have a horse in this race just yet, I'm one of those "undecided" Democrats that they're all trying to appeal to.

I think a Kerry-Edwards or Dean-Edwards ticket might mount a significant challenge to Dubya. Bit more pessimistic about beating the scumbag,though, because of the national unwillingness to admit Dubya is in charge of the most secretive (and therefore most dangerous) administration since Nixon. I hope and pray Bush gets beat because of all the neo-Nazis in his administration, but I don't know if the Dems can.

All I really care about is getting Pres. Fuckwit out of the White House. This may be the first time I actually vote Democrap. Anyway, all the Demo. candidates are centrists anyway, even Dean.

I'll vote for anybody who can throw that fuckwit out of the White House. Anybody who actually wore a military uniform, with an actual war record, should be able to beat that smirking rich boy whose only experience has been play-acting in military costume.

So, what about the Republicans? Will Cheney be on the ticket again? Or will Bush have a different running mate this time around?

Advantages of Cheney: Biznotic's desire to see Bush whacked is tempered by the sober reality that Cheney would be ushered into the oval office.

Disadvantages of Cheney: He's unelectable. If Bush wins in November, the Republicans won't have an electable candidate in the Vice-President's mansion.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope All I really care about is getting Pres. Fuckwit out of the White House. This may be the first time I actually vote Democrap. Anyway, all the Demo. candidates are centrists anyway, even Dean.

Kucinich is a Commie! And Kerry is centrist, but he is campaigning as a New England liberal (aligning himself w/ the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy)

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > And Kerry is centrist, but he is campaigning as a New England liberal (aligning himself w/ the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy)

This "drunken murderer" stuff must play so well to the troglodytes in the talk-radio audience, but really, Tristan...

I'm too busy at work (well, OK, I'm cruising through NOOL, but I can't leave my desk) to actually go look up the Massachusetts statute on murder, but generally, murder has 4 elements (from Emanuel Law Outlines, Criminal Law): (1) Conduct by the defendant; (2) Proof of a death; (3) A culpable mental state; and (4) A causal link between the defendant's act and the death.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Kennedy drinks to excess, and that Kennedy also meets elements 1, 2, and 4. That still leaves element 3, a culpable mental state. Generally, that means intent. Did he intend to kill Kopechne? This is a very simplified description of intent, but it illustrates the problem with calling Kennedy a "drunken murderer," and in a roundabout sort of way, illustrates the problem with right-wing talk radio.

Kerry's anti-Viet Nam shenanigans is complete bullshit and I hope that vets look at it before they vote.

New England liberals only one once, Kennedy.

Southern liberals have won several times--Johnson, Carter, Clinton--not a good record.

However, Edwards seems the less likely of the Democrat evil.

I cannot believe that the Democrats cannot find an intelligent moderate to kick Shrub out. Then again, I cannot belive the GOP put him in there in the first place.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > And Kerry is centrist, but he is campaigning as a New England liberal (aligning himself w/ the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy)

This "drunken murderer" stuff must play so well to the troglodytes in the talk-radio audience, but really, Tristan...

I'm too busy at work (well, OK, I'm cruising through NOOL, but I can't leave my desk) to actually go look up the Massachusetts statute on murder, but generally, murder has 4 elements (from Emanuel Law Outlines, Criminal Law): (1) Conduct by the defendant; (2) Proof of a death; (3) A culpable mental state; and (4) A causal link between the defendant's act and the death.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Kennedy drinks to excess, and that Kennedy also meets elements 1, 2, and 4. That still leaves element 3, a culpable mental state. Generally, that means intent. Did he intend to kill Kopechne? This is a very simplified description of intent, but it illustrates the problem with calling Kennedy a "drunken murderer," and in a roundabout sort of way, illustrates the problem with right-wing talk radio. Ok, ok he is a drunken vehicular manslaughterer

There seems to be an assumption amongst Kerry's opponents that vets must be pro-war. Kerry is a vet. He was against the Vietnam war. So were a lot of Vietnam vets. As Americans, they have the Constitutional right to organize opposition to a war. Where is it written that once a vet, you must support every war? Or think like you're told?

Kerry served in Vietnam, and he came out against the war. Good for him. He served, and he spoke his conscience afterwards. GW ran and hid, while always maintaining a hawkish stance. In my book, that makes Kerry a true American hero, and GW a despicable, unprincipaled coward.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > And Kerry is centrist, but he is campaigning as a New England liberal (aligning himself w/ the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy)

This "drunken murderer" stuff must play so well to the troglodytes in the talk-radio audience, but really, Tristan...

I'm too busy at work (well, OK, I'm cruising through NOOL, but I can't leave my desk) to actually go look up the Massachusetts statute on murder, but generally, murder has 4 elements (from Emanuel Law Outlines, Criminal Law): (1) Conduct by the defendant; (2) Proof of a death; (3) A culpable mental state; and (4) A causal link between the defendant's act and the death.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Kennedy drinks to excess, and that Kennedy also meets elements 1, 2, and 4. That still leaves element 3, a culpable mental state. Generally, that means intent. Did he intend to kill Kopechne? This is a very simplified description of intent, but it illustrates the problem with calling Kennedy a "drunken murderer," and in a roundabout sort of way, illustrates the problem with right-wing talk radio. Ok, ok he is a drunken vehicular manslaughterer

Possibly. ;)

Kerry came back from Viet Nam possessing a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He soon hooked up with a Jane Fonda anti-war group and organzed Viet Nam Vets against the war group which had soldiers lie about attrocities they claim to have made during the war, making up bullshit stories to feed the anti-war movement. Kerry was seen throwing his medals back at the Establishment.

Years later, these medals are proudly displayed in his office and he is trying to distance himself from his "old friends."

Of course each candidate is gonna have something in their background that "calls into question" their "suitability to be President". This is as old as American politics, as old as the Bible. And it's the one thing on which there is a bipartisan agreement anymore (Dems do it to Repubs, Repubs do it to Dems).

The fact that Kerry served in 'Nam is seen as a pro, but the fact that he came out in opposition to it is a con. That's the logic behind this arguement. It's like saying, because I haven't had sex before marriage, that's a pro in my column. But because I masturbate constantly, that's a con against me.

Anyway, I'll probably end up voting for Dean anyway...

Twist, are you saying that American soldiers didn't commit atrocities in the Vietnam war, or are you saying that while at least some American soldiers commited atrocities, Kerry and friends lied about atrocities they claim to have witnessed and/or taken part in? If it's the latter, specifically what atrocities did they lie about (i.e., are there any examples of so-called atrocities that were claimed, and later shown to be manufactured)?

My Lai was a consipiracy of the liberal media :D

Fun game to play next time you're watching Fox News (I got the idea from P.J. O'Rourke): For every time one of the anchors or newsmen or Republicans says "Hollywood liberals" or "liberal media", insert the word "Jew" in place of them. Instantly you have the most blatently anti-Semitic news broadcasts in history!

"We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Thank you for your various posts , certainly a couple of perspectives The Times and Independant have missed out on. Has Rupert Murdoch decided who he wants to put the weight of his media empire behind ? There is a school of thought over here ,that he won the election for Blair when The Sun newspaper backed him. I dont know the US equivalant of the Sun, but basicaly it involved a complete reversal of editorial policy. Furthermore, Murdoch has stated that he feels let down ( read as, not gettin his own way ) by the Labour Govmnt and may go back to the Tories

I am saying that the vets that Kerry had speaking for his anti-war group made up attrocities--stories about killing civilians ect. Now such things probably occured as it does in all wars but having soldiers confess to crimes they did not commit for the purposes of the anti-war movemment is a bit odd.

Twist, I understand what you're saying. The problem I have with it is, it's easy to say that some nameless vet lied about some nameless atrocity. There's no way to document whether that lie was really a lie, or whether the atrocity was real or a fabrication. Because it can't be documented, I can't give it any credence. Now if somebosy were to say something along the lines of "On February 31, 1970, anti-war veteran Joe Smith stated that an atrocity occurred at village X on such-and such a date," that would be something that could be documented and investigated. It could be shown to be a true statement, or a false statement. But a blanket statement by the pro-Vietnam war faction that "anti-war vets lied about atrocities" can't be documented, and therefore can't be given any credence.

It was a means to an end. Noble cause, ending a stupid, stupid war. i'll get some links to it soon.

it just seems that the people in the primaries are trying to find someone who is electavle versus choosing someone for their policies and beliefs. this is the problem with democracy. It becomes a game. The Democrats should not lose this election unless.. 1 they pick a total suckass liberal 2 Osama gets caught and terrorism ends 3 The economy and stock market return to 1996 4 gas prices in the US average below $1

Papa Bush had a huge military victory but still lost. Why?? Its the economy stupid. Americans do not give a shit about universal healthcare, they want a strong economy and robust stockmarket (401K). Cutting the military to feed the ghettos is just cost shifting. Voters can see through that.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > And Kerry is centrist, but he is campaigning as a New England liberal (aligning himself w/ the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy)

This "drunken murderer" stuff must play so well to the troglodytes in the talk-radio audience, but really, Tristan...

I'm too busy at work (well, OK, I'm cruising through NOOL, but I can't leave my desk) to actually go look up the Massachusetts statute on murder, but generally, murder has 4 elements (from Emanuel Law Outlines, Criminal Law): (1) Conduct by the defendant; (2) Proof of a death; (3) A culpable mental state; and (4) A causal link between the defendant's act and the death.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Kennedy drinks to excess, and that Kennedy also meets elements 1, 2, and 4. That still leaves element 3, a culpable mental state. Generally, that means intent. Did he intend to kill Kopechne? This is a very simplified description of intent, but it illustrates the problem with calling Kennedy a "drunken murderer," and in a roundabout sort of way, illustrates the problem with right-wing talk radio.

Please explain the connection between Tristan assertion and "right-wing talk radio"?

Now, if you were talking about NPR or Pacifica Radio, I might understand... ;) ;)

Look, Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry – inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.

But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters.

For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?

In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne – a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children – a fact that never seemed to constrain him.

When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled – and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.

Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.

At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" – which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.

Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as the Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month – or $364,668 a year.

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for the past 33 years?

Ah, the greatness of Ann Coulter......

First, let me make it clear that I'm not on the Kerry bandwagon...yet. I'm not even a Democrat. But I will vote for any candidate who can beat GW like a drum.

So, let's see how this plays out so far...

1. Kerry, from a prominent East coast family with powerful connections, served in the military, and saw combat duty. Kerry returned from the war and followed his conscience in speaking out against the war.

GW, from a prominent East coast family with powerful connections, avoided the military, and never saw combat. GW has nevertheless postured himself politically as a hawk.

2. Kerry is a scion of the upper-class who has lived off of other men's money (I'll leave alone for now your assertion that an heiress' money is actually another man's money), and proposes relief for the middle class.

GW is a scion of the upper class who has lived off of other men's money, and proposes relief for the upper class.

3. Kerry married well.

GW married well.

Ah yes, the greatness of Ann Coulter's big mouth. Send her my way and we'll see what she can do with it.