Keeeeeeeeeeerry, Keeeeeeeeeeerry...

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > 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... ;) ;)

Right-wing talk radio whips it's audience up into a frenzy by making wild charges, and by using emotion-laden hot button words, like "drunken murderer," rather than the more accurate descriptor "alleged vehicular manslaughter."

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > 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... ;) ;)

Right-wing talk radio whips it's audience up into a frenzy by making wild charges, and by using emotion-laden hot button words, like "drunken murderer," rather than the more accurate descriptor "alleged vehicular manslaughter."

You still make the assumption that the phrase "drunken murderer" has ever been used on "right-wing" talk radio. Maybe a Lexis-Nexis search is in order...... ;)

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr 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.

Your assertion that the President "avoided the military" would imply to any reasonable person that he did not serve. It would imply that he...oh, I don't know...ran away to jolly 'ol England and smoked a bowl or fifty. You seem to gloss over the fact that President Bush was a qualified F-102 fighter pilot (which would entitle him to wear a flight suit) and that his unit was never called for combat.

In addition, words like "avoided the military" are used by liberal politicians and talking heads to whip it's audience into a frenzy.

As far as you and Ann enjoying one anothers company, I'd advise you eat your Wheaties beforehand!

The right-wing steamroll of Kerry is in full effect: Just this morning on Fox, they had John Kaisch (Kasich? Ksacich? Kaiser?) saying Kerry was a "liberal" and that America is a "fairly conservative country". Granted, these are true, but I couldn't help but see the strings of the master puppeteer Roger Ailes at work. Dean is kaput as far as they're concerned (they've defused that bomb-thrower), so Kerry is a new threat, but not much of one and they swagger on TV about how "electable" the batch of Dems are (and of course conclude that none of them are).

Honestly, what does it take to get conservatives out of their little hole in the ground and see the whole world around them? Bush is incredibly liberal (in the sense of the word being that he acts decisively, irregardless of the consqeuences, and also in the political sense. Department of "Homeland Security", anyone?), and he just pays lip service to the conservative cause. I'm surprised more Repubs haven't thrown up their hands in anger over his policies. Bush wants to increase federal interference, not decrease it. He's no more conservative than Marx or Stalin. (I could have said "Hitler", but that's too easy :D )

Overall, I hope Bush gets beat in '04, for the country's sake. And what's all this about "the war was justified" even though there's absolutely NO proof of WMDs? Congratulations, Mike: Y'all got your own "Bubba" Clinton now. I agree, Saddam was a bad guy, he should have been kicked out years ago. But to start a war on false pretenses is patently un-American (nevermind the Spanish-American War ). Please, for the love of all that is holy, don't let this lying, two-faced war criminal back in the White House...

I expect the black helicopters to be circling my house right now... (Ashcroft himself wants to personally arrest me for "talkin' bad 'bout the Prez")

Originally posted by Michael McDermott 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.

Who are the "Grateful Dead crowd"? Are you implying there's some sort of connection between lefties and crap music? Humph. I thought that Godawful racket attracted as many Republicans with no taste as Democrats. For that matter, are you implying Dean is leftish? He gets angry and shouts a bit like a leftist but I don't know about his actual policies. Frankly I can't make out what any of the buggers actually stand for. Just as long as they don't pick another rich stiff Gore-a-like. Except they're all rich, only rich guys can run for President, I forgot.

Nevermind Viet Nam--France, JFK and Johnson (Gulf of Tolkin frame up). Tony B is not a conservative either.

But you do have a point that Bush is taking away Democratic policies and making them his own. He has not vetoed anything and spending has gone through the roof. Not that deficits matter, the last one was ended pretty fast thanx to a good economy.

Shit, I could probably live with Kerry. He seems more intelligent than Bush, well, Sharpton at times seems smarter. I just want to keep my guns, cars and money.

But the race is still early. Edwards might win this on his "I'm from the South" campaign.

Get a televised debate between Kerry or Edwards and Bush and Shrub will fall on his ass especially if the questions are not known ahead of time.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Your assertion that the President "avoided the military" would imply to any reasonable person that he did not serve. It would imply that he...oh, I don't know...ran away to jolly 'ol England and smoked a bowl or fifty.

And never exhaled...err, inhaled. ;)

> As far as you and Ann enjoying one anothers company, I'd advise you eat your Wheaties beforehand!

The sacrifices I must make for my country...sigh. The next Carville/Matalin?

Kerry on the beeb

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr 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.

You heard it from me first!

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> 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.

You heard it from me first!

But really, what's the recent success rate of VP's runing for President (besides Bush 41 of course)? Johnson and Ford were place in the position. Mondale - failed. Gore - failed.

I think Strom Thurmond is scheduled to come out of "death" and run for the Republican ticket in '08 on a ticket of re-segregation so we don't need to worry about Cheney's unelectability

Yeah, but who are they gonna get for '04?

And does W really have time to go back to kollij to learn about budgicits before November?