Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: John Kerry: "unelectable"?
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Jim Allen
HulaBoy, give it a rest. Your side try to spread some slime and got their ass kicked. Deal with it. The RNC couldn't buy her off, so the story is dead, as least if you have a working brain. I know people like you probably came in their pants thinking "Yipee! The Clenis and Monica, Part 2!!" but, sorry to disappoint you, not even close.
QUOTE
Breaking her silence four days after the allegations surfaced on the Internet, Alexandra Polier issued a statement to The Associated Press, saying, \"I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false.\"
End of story. Next attempt at smearing the candidates please!

Memo to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:

This was really lame. Please try harder next time. You have almost a quarter billion dollars to throw around, use it better next time, 'mkay?

Yours in Bile
Jim Allen

And it's great to see that closet-case Drudge get smacked down too. I'll never look at an omlette in the same way again:
QUOTE
And what pains! After Washington landscaper David Cohen confirmed to Daily News columnist George Rush that he did, in fact, date Drudge, as Walls had reported, and after Walls hinted that she had refrained from printing even more \"lurid allegations\" about him in her book, Drudge seemed to get a little panicky.

After a mutual friend of both gossipists tipped off Drudge as to just what these \"lurid allegations\" were -- a nasty case of pubic lice, a penchant for fully clothed sex in the shower and a bizarre egg fetish -- he began to spread them himself.

\"MSNBC reporter Jeannette Walls is telling associates that she has obtained information linking Matt Drudge with a sexual preference for eggs,\" Drudge wrote on Friday in a column that has since vanished from his site, along with his link to standing Walls column (\"Oh, that hurt,\" she scoffs). \"He likes to have sex with eggs. He likes them smeared all over naked male bodies.\"

Drudge even went so far as to print Walls' home phone number, work number and e-mail address on his site and to ask readers to share their own \"Drudge sex stories.\" (All false, he says: \"How can I be [gay] when I am dating a woman with boobs and rollers?\" To which Walls counters: \"Hello, 'boobs and rollers'? You just proved your heterosexuality beyond doubt. I'm sold.\")
Buwahaha. Drudge and Sullivan? Sorry, boys, but They hate you. You are being played. Your bootlicking will not save you if the theocracy they so desperately want to install in this country comes to pass.

[ February 16, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
MIB
QUOTE
JC:
Most of the growth in the '90s--and the deficit reduction--happened after Clinton had added the 10% surcharge on high income Americans.
You've got to be joking, right? Do you actually believe that increasing taxes on high-income Americans (generally defined by liberal Democrats as those earning over $75K annually) leads to economic growth???

Wow! You REALLY need to undergo some serious economics instruction. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

No revenue increase has been the result of increasing taxes on the wealthy. Such action stifles growth.

Furthermore, the high-income folks are quite adept at taking advantage of loopholes and even legally avoiding paying taxes altogether. Guess who's left holding the bag? Closing loopholes will only make a dent in this, BTW, for the deductions and write-offs and other perfectly legal means of tax avoidance make up for any loss in loopholes.

It is a paradoxical and ecnomic fact that lowering the tax rates results in an increase in revenue, and not just becausr the rich might invest more. The real benefit is to small and medium-sized businesses who can afford to buy and hire with the lessening of tax burdens and the lessening of other governmental regulations.
MIB
The fact that this Alex Polier has denied these allegations only proves that this MUST be investigated fully. Such charges are too serious to be anything but possibly true.

Woops. Sorry about that. For a minute I thought I was Speaker of the House Tom Foley. I forgot that different standards apply to Democrats.

Regardless, as I mentioned days ago, I'll believe this so-called "scandal" when I see it. It's not some right-wing conspiracy as resident paranoid Jim Allen believes (Dems DO commit such stuff against each other, Jim). biggrin.gif

Let's campaign on the issues and not on this salacious crap.
timber07
QUOTE
puckman1:
This is just a bunch of crap, and I agree with Kerry, why should he comment on it any further when he has said all there is to say on it. Somebody or some group is trying to spread some sludge here.
This is an interesting post. All you have to do is substitute "Bush" for "Kerry" and reference Bush's military service.
timber07
QUOTE
MIB:
QUOTE
JC:
Most of the growth in the '90s--and the deficit reduction--happened after Clinton had added the 10% surcharge on high income Americans.
You've got to be joking, right? Do you actually believe that increasing taxes on high-income Americans (generally defined by liberal Democrats as those earning over $75K annually) leads to economic growth???

Wow! You REALLY need to undergo some serious economics instruction. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

No revenue increase has been the result of increasing taxes on the wealthy. Such action stifles growth.

Furthermore, the high-income folks are quite adept at taking advantage of loopholes and even legally avoiding paying taxes altogether. Guess who's left holding the bag? Closing loopholes will only make a dent in this, BTW, for the deductions and write-offs and other perfectly legal means of tax avoidance make up for any loss in loopholes.

It is a paradoxical and ecnomic fact that lowering the tax rates results in an increase in revenue, and not just becausr the rich might invest more. The real benefit is to small and medium-sized businesses who can afford to buy and hire with the lessening of tax burdens and the lessening of other governmental regulations.
I don't know why we just can't have a flat federal income tax. No write offs, no deductions, just a straight percentage of what you make. The same percentage for everyone regardless of how much you make. H & R Block would go out of business, but who cares?
Jim Allen
QUOTE
It's not some right-wing conspiracy as resident paranoid Jim Allen believes
Ha! I've only seen a handful of X-Files episodes, so there! smile.gif Seriously, I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist in the slightest; the Outsports grouch, yes, but conspiracy theorist, oh no. I used to work with a guy who was and I mocked him regularly. \"So, I'm supposed to believe that the government, which can't even fix potholes in roads, is so brilliant that they filmed all the Apollo 11 landing on a Hollywood soundstage and kept it secret all these years?\"

Sorry, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against the Clintons was real; funded mostly by the odious Richard Mellon Scaife, it really did exist. I scoffed as loudly as anyone when Hillary claimed that, but there's a good number of sources that vouch for it's existence. If someone would pay me a good salary, I'd do nothing but provide evidence of what repressed sex perverts Republicans are, but alas, no one is willing to cut me the check. This Kerry story is just typical election-year crap. The RNC will be putting out this stuff for the next 9 months; they're going to have to do much better, though. I await the day when Drudge reports that Kerry kicks small puppies or something. This is like a marathon in the Olympics; the right wingers thought they had it won with this story, but there's still 24 miles to go and as a sports announcer would say \"A lot can happen!\".

I'd LOVE to see a thorough investigation of the \\"Bush drove the chick he impregnated to the abortion clinic\\" story that's floating around (obviously, consider the source in the link); if true, it would kill his chances stone dead. And the follow-on from that is that it would probably kill the utterly mediocre Jeb's chances in 2008 as well.

Tax policy debates bore me to tears, but I was sent this in response to what MIB posted. I have no comment on it, I'm just posting it as a favor to a lurker on this board who e-mailed it to me:
QUOTE
From David Cay Johnston, who has written a new book on the tax system:

Everybody in America has heard again and again from politicians and the news media the rich pay most of the taxes. That's true and it's misleading. The rich pay most of the income taxes. The top 1 percent make a little over 20 percent of the income. They pay about 37 percent of the income taxes. But what percentage of their income? How many pennies on the dollar do the rich pay in taxes? And what's happening over time to their burden?

The 400 highest-income people in America made $174 million each on average in the year 2000. The top tax rate was almost 40 percent. What did they pay? Twenty-two. Twenty-two cents on the dollar. And had the Bush tax cuts been in effect, they would have paid 17 1/2 cents. Everybody else in America paid, on average, 15.3 cents.

Now, in 1992, the top 400 taxpayers in America paid 26 cents. Four cents more out of each dollar. And the rest of us, we paid 13 cents. Two cents less. So, our tax burden has risen. Those at the top, it's come down. We are shifting the tax burden, through a whole variety of strategies, off the wealthy, and on to the middle class and the upper middle class in America.

Source: \\"Now\\" interview


[ February 16, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
Roy Robertson
Doesn't this language sound familiar?
QUOTE
HulaBoy:

\"I have to say I'm very troubled by ...\"
\"There are still many unanswered questions about ...\"
\"We need to know exactly ... etc., etc.\"
\"Haven't we really had enough ... ?\"
The hushed earnest concern, way out of proportion to the matter at hand, the oily innuendo, the clumsy attempts at emotional manipulation, the sheer bogossity of the thing: it sounds like a campaign attack ad written by Ken Starr.

I don't know whose payroll HulaBoy is on, but they need to get him better material than this, and an acting coach. His timing is off, by about six years.

Indeed, haven't we really had enough ... ?
Jim Allen
Hey Roy! Don's friend Jim here--thanks for the Boston Symphony tickets! smile.gif I lost your e-mail address but I'll be in touch soon to shoot the breeze about the frizzy-haired pedophile.

Please contribute more here.

From Wonkette:
QUOTE
Hats off to Matt Drudge for his valiant efforts keep the story alive, despite little inconveniences like, say, the truth. There may not be anything to the Kerry rumor but it's not Drudge's fault. He was led on!

She would joke that she was dating the next president of the United States, says a source. . . [her] flippant remarks and flirtatious manner, according to friends, fueled the intrigue.

You can understand how people would get confused; but this was, what, a year ago? Shouldn't they have assumed the lady was dating Howard Dean? No matter. Clearly, she was asking for it. We have it on good authority that when woman a flirts with someone, it means she's a slut. You know, \"no\" means \"yes,\" \"maybe\" means \"sure,\" and \"That's a nice shirt you're wearing today\" means \"I'm having sex with a United States Senator.\"


[ February 16, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
twin58
QUOTE
MarcusF
QUOTE
TomFord
To a certain kind of American, there's something wrong with a candidate trashing the sitting president in this manner.
Au contraire, TF, it's the American Way. Though you DO have to go back before the War of Northern Aggression to see pristine examples...
Oh, he probably comes from some place where they've never had a president with a line-item veto.

Shout-out to Winston-Salem, where my brother and sister-in-law are teaching at a university that is in the ACC.

I love this cartoon of Jefferson as a dog being stung by Napoleon as a hornet. Now that's nasty.

IPB Image

Explanation:

QUOTE
SUMMARY: James Akin's earliest-known signed cartoon, \"The Prairie Dog\" is an anti-Jefferson satire, relating to Jefferson's covert negotiations for the purchase of West Florida from Spain in 1804. Jefferson, as a scrawny dog, is stung by a hornet with Napoleon's head into coughing up \"Two Millions\" in gold coins, [the secret appropriation Jefferson sought from Congress for the purchase]. On the right dances a man [possibly a French diplomat] with orders from French minister Talleyrand in his pocket and maps of East Florida and West Florida in his hand. He says, \"A gull for the People.\"


[ February 16, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
MIB
QUOTE
timber07:
I don't know why we just can't have a flat federal income tax. No write offs, no deductions, just a straight percentage of what you make. The same percentage for everyone regardless of how much you make. H & R Block would go out of business, but who cares?
I agree with you that some tax reform needs to be done, though I'm not sure a flat tax would do it. How about a national sales tax? If someone rich buys something pricey, he/she would pay a bigger tax. A lower rate or exemptions could be made for certain items like food and medicine, etc. Why can't we at least think about that?
hockeyTom
MIB, I can't believe you are advocating a tax increase. Oh the hypocrisy!! wink
William1865
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
It's the right wing that always claims that anyone who disagrees with them is un-American. I'm merely throwing it right back at them.
Always? Anyone? When has this "right wing" claimed this, specifically using the phrase "un-American"? I assume for every criticism of a conservative policy, you can find a right-winger responding that the critic is "un-American." Do you have examples? There would have to be lots of them, as there is a great deal of political debate in this country. I'm not asking you when Dems think the "right wing" has made this claim (i.e. Right Wing says, "John Kerry is a Senator from Massachusetts." Kerry Campaign responds, "Once again the Republicans are questioning John Kerry's patriotism.") I can give you plenty of examples where libs, not just whack-job columnists like Paul Krugman but Democrat presidential candidates, have used that very word, as well as "unpatriotic," to describe Republican policies and, by logic, the people who support them.
araanib
QUOTE
MIB:
Wow! You REALLY need to undergo some serious economics instruction. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
That's what you do. You plagerize George Will!

QUOTE
[From his 2/15 column] In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
But you aren't as savvy as he is, MIB, so you come off looking rather silly.
William1865
QUOTE
araanib:
QUOTE
MIB:
Wow! You REALLY need to undergo some serious economics instruction. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
That's what you do. You plagerize George Will!

QUOTE
[From his 2/15 column] In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
But you aren't as savvy as he is, MIB, so you come off looking rather silly.
Perhaps others take this board and the opinions expressed on it more seriously than yours truly, but honestly I don't think it's fair to expect Outsports posters to conduct 100% original research, or to footnote their posts. We're not getting our Masters here.
CPT_Doom
QUOTE
Actually, in my opinion, it was the Reagan / Bush Sr. economic policies that established the growth we experienced in the 90's. Voodoo Economics works.
Not only did the "voodoo economics" not work, Reagan didn't even do what he said he would. The idea behind "supply side" economics was that people were so taxed on income they stopped working additional hours (ignoring the fact that most people are either not paid on hourly rates, or have no control over the hours they work), so that by cutting taxes you would spur so much productivity that you would have rising taxes, more than enough to off-set the tax cuts.

As the balooning deficits showed, we certainly did not receive anything even close to the amount in cut taxes, and Reagan/Congress never tried seriously to cut spending as they cut taxes - which had been part of the whole supply side idea - basically Reagan embarked on an old Keynsian idea - cut revenue, pump more money into the economy than you take out of it, and boom - economic expansion.

Clinton's policies, by restoring some order to the tax system, allowed the government to get aggressive on the budget deficits, but it turned out productivity growth was key to the 90s expansion again, but it didn't come from a lot of extra hours worked - in the 90s the productivity explosion is more properly credited to computers and the creation of a "just in time" economy.

However, even if one believes in "supply side" theories - they shouldn't be applied in the current setting. Because marginal tax rates are relatively low now (as compared to the early 80s), the "Laffer effect" of getting more tax revenue even while cutting taxes cannot take effect. Bush is completely wrong on this account, and has made the recession much worse with his misguided economic policies (incidentally, the recession's start officially dovetails to Mr. Bush's selection as the 2000 nominee - so perhaps we can credit him with the destruction of the economy).
Jim Allen
QUOTE
Always? Anyone? When has this \"right wing\" claimed this, specifically using the phrase \"un-American\"?
QUOTE
Perhaps others take this board and the opinions expressed on it more seriously than yours truly, but honestly I don't think it's fair to expect Outsports posters to conduct 100% original research, or to footnote their posts. We're not getting our Masters here
William1865
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
QUOTE
Always? Anyone? When has this \"right wing\" claimed this, specifically using the phrase \"un-American\"?
QUOTE
Perhaps others take this board and the opinions expressed on it more seriously than yours truly, but honestly I don't think it's fair to expect Outsports posters to conduct 100% original research, or to footnote their posts. We're not getting our Masters here
I'm not sure if these two quotes are supposed to stand alone or if, due to senility, carelessness, or whatever, Mr. Allen just forgot to throw in his two cents. At any rate, perhaps I should clarify for those who need things spelled out for them. While I don't believe assertions made on this board should be carefully documented in any sort of formal way, I think statements should generally have some sort of basis in fact (except my own, which are completely exempt from any standards I set forth for others). (I'm being sarcastic.) Such a sweeping statement from Mr. JIP requires, I believe, some sort of backup. (In the spirit of the Bush/AWOL story, any evidence JIP presents for his claim will raise in my mind more questions about the whole situation, and/or really won't prove anything. There will no doubt be "gaps" in the evidence he presents.)

[ February 17, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
fantomas
A flat tax unfairly penalizes low-income workers because it saps a greater net percentage of their total financial resources than it would from a high-income or rich person.

Reagan raised taxes during this term, which is often forgotten (conveniently?) by the Right in order to address the problems of the burgeoning deficits and the loss of revenue. MIB's statement conflates two different things; raising the marginal rates on the wealthy, versus raising business tax rates and fees. The two are not the same. Many small and medium-sized businesses enjoyed considerable tax breaks during Clinton's second term, and the situation in terms of large corporations was so gross that when W pushed through his first tax rebate to businesses, some, like Enron, that HAD PAID NO TAXES WHATSOEVER still got millions of dollars in rebates. So obviously something is seriously wrong here. Reforming the tax code to aid businesses that need it, while not providing the outright subsidies (which are not conservative in the least) that the government does to numerous industries, would be one way to improve revenues.

Since both John Kerry and Alex Polier have now stated definitively that there was no affair, and since it's clear that she is on assignment, not "fleeing" at Kerry's bidding, I think Kerry and Polier ought to sue Drudge, Chris Lehane, and whomever else tossed out this filthy bag of tricks. Personally, knowing that Kerry was whorish wouldn't stop me in the least from voting for him, but then I don't judge people on their sexual habits. I am far more concerned with them using their position to enrich their friends (Halliburton, Saudi sheiks, etc.), lying to me about international affairs that end up costing thousands of lives, the steady destruction of our environment, despite increasing scientific evidence about what's happening, and so on.

BTW, Kerry and W are 16th cousins, three times removed. Both are descended from Charlemagne, so W is as much a Frenchy as Kerry. (I saw it on the Olbermann show last night.)

[ February 17, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
MarcusF
[quote]timber07:
[QUOTE]The economy is clearly now in recovery. Job growth is the last thing to respond in an economic recovery. We are seeing job GROWTH now, even as we speak. Government data now indicates jobs are being added to the economy. As the economy continues to improve, so will job growth. [/quote]And exactly WHERE is this job growth? Walmart and Mickey D's???? How the f*** do you think that's going to pull this economy out of the tank?
araanib
QUOTE
William1865:
Perhaps others take this board and the opinions expressed on it more seriously than yours truly, but honestly I don't think it's fair to expect Outsports posters to conduct 100% original research, or to footnote their posts. We're not getting our Masters here.
I didn't ask for a footnote; I pointed out blatant plagerism. Well ... MIB did add a comma, I suppose.
fantomas
Hey, MIB is a jurist, right, so he least of all should be plagiarizing.

Why not just type, "As George Will wrote, 'Blather blather blather.'" Or paraphrase. Or restate so it's your own thought. Or give the hyperlink. UBB code is easy to use. I mean, at least give your fellow Right Winger and Dirty Trickster (Carter's debate books, anyone?) credit, now!
William1865
QUOTE
araanib:
QUOTE
William1865:
Perhaps others take this board and the opinions expressed on it more seriously than yours truly, but honestly I don't think it's fair to expect Outsports posters to conduct 100% original research, or to footnote their posts. We're not getting our Masters here.
I didn't ask for a footnote; I pointed out blatant plagerism. Well ... MIB did add a comma, I suppose.
I just think "plagiarism" is a somewhat harsh charge for an Internet message board. I had no idea that the academic and ethical standards in such a forum are so rigorous. Whatever. (Hey, I'm plagiarizing the Bush twins!)
araanib
Well, I'm sure I don't know; I can't even SPELL the word much less tolerate it.

I thank God for my humility. (Shakespeare, Richard III)
Jim Allen
QUOTE
I'm not sure if these two quotes are supposed to stand alone or if, due to senility, carelessness, or whatever, Mr. Allen just forgot to throw in his two cents
I'm 44 and can barely remember what I had for lunch yesterday, but the juxtaposition was just some snark.

And isn't it supposed to be "....senility, carelessness or whatever, Mr. Allen...", no comma between "carelessness" and "or"? Just curious.

Good one:

IPB Image

[ February 17, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
MIB
QUOTE
araanib:
QUOTE
MIB:
Wow! You REALLY need to undergo some serious economics instruction. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
That's what you do. You plagerize George Will!

QUOTE
[From his 2/15 column] In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
But you aren't as savvy as he is, MIB, so you come off looking rather silly.
Oh, for Chrissake already, araa, that figure is a statistical fact found everywhere, Will included. Sheesh. rolleyes.gif

You guys are so ridiculously anal it's unbelievable. You never let simple economic facts get in the way of ignorant bias, do you?

[ February 17, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
William1865
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
And isn't it supposed to be \"....senility, carelessness or whatever, Mr. Allen...\", no comma between \"carelessness\" and \"or\"? Just curious.
Commas go where I say they go.
Jim Allen
QUOTE
You never let simple economic facts get in the way of ignorant bias, do you?
Or: we never let a chance to poke fun at you pass by because we know you'll react with one of your rolleyes.gif emoticons.

W1865, your way will lead to anarchy.
MIB
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
...we know you'll react with one of your rolleyes.gif emoticons.
You like those, don't you? biggrin.gif (*Insert evil laugh here*)

[ February 17, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Roy Robertson
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
Hey Roy! Don's friend Jim here--thanks for the Boston Symphony tickets! smile.gif I lost your e-mail address but I'll be in touch soon to shoot the breeze about the frizzy-haired pedophile. Please contribute more here.
Hi Jim. Thanks for fighting the good fight. I mostly steer clear of this forum - it makes my head hurt. You're a better man than I.

BTW, doesn't "pedophile" mean "foot lover"? Or is that "podophile", "someone who mounts podiums"? I'm falling way behind on my perversions. PM me, or email at "roy.robertson@att.net" and we can catch up. But no maestro-baiting in public, please! I don't have any dirt to report, but lurid rumor-mongering can be fun, as we've seen here...
William1865
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
W1865, your way will lead to anarchy.
Ex,cellent
William1865
Kerry Makes, Whistle-Stop Tour From, Deck of Yacht

[ February 18, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]
hockeyTom
Something I found out a few days ago and didn't know it. Kerry's initals are J.F.K. ! biggrin.gif
fantomas
Totally changed post:

More on the Kerry-Fonda photo flap from the Guardian UK:

Take one part Kerry, one part Fonda ...

***
Roy and Jim Allen, peaking of paedophiles or paederasts, does anyone know who composer and critic Greg Sandow was referring to on his blog several months ago about a "leading" orchestral conductor who is reviled by many as an outrageous pedophile? Please tell me he didn't mean James Levine!

[ February 18, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Roy Robertson
Hi Tomas. That's who Jim and I were referring to in our little exchange. It's a fairly commonly held belief amongst the trash-talking citizens of opera-queensland. I have no idea if it's true; I don't know how anyone COULD know, absent an arrest and conviction or something like that. I'll wait till I read it in the Drudge Report before I believe it. Cheers!
Jim Allen
Roy is right; Jimmy Levine is who we were snarking about. I walked in to a record store in NYC once and the opera queens there were casually talking about the payments that the Met had to make on Levine's behalf to keep the parents of kids he "got friendly" with quiet. I listened in and found out that he allegedly likes 15-year old black kids. This was in the tone of voice that implied "This is so obviously true that we're not in the least bit shocked". So, imagine my shock a few weeks later when, after leaving the Met ticket line after getting standing room tickets, who should I see in the parking garage at Lincoln Center but James Levine with a teenaged black guy?

Great conductor of Wagner, Berg, Schoenberg, Verdi and Mozart though.

Back to your regularly scheduled Kerry-talk: the smear attempt by Drudge (her parents say they were misquoted and that they'll vote for Kerry) now has the losers at Free Republic claiming that it was all a dastardly plot by the Kerry campaign to smear Drudge:
QUOTE
Look...we were rope-a-doped by the Kerry campaign. It was ALL orchestrated to discredit Drudge..talk radio...Republicans...just so WHEN the REAL BIMBO ERUPTIONS happen, they can dismiss them as RUMOR...just like Alex Pollier!!!!
Alex Pollier's PARENTS were either IN on this scam by Kerry with the phoney \"Kerry's a sleazebag\" comment and then turning around to say they will VOTE for him......OR...

OR the Press Report was wrong on the Sleazebag comment and that Also would be orchestrated by the Kerry campaign. This is a ReDux of the James Carvle beats Mary story.....and the Sidney Blumenthal beats his wife Story. ALL to DISCREDIT DRUDGE!!

Drudge Be VERY WARY!!
[Ala Beavis]Heh heh heh heh heh heh...bimbo eruption...he said eruption...heh heh heh heh heh

And from one of the blogs I got to:
QUOTE
Drudge is desperately trying to salvage his utterly destroyed credibility. How stupid do you feel, Matt? You got used like a tampax at a pajama party.
Hee.

[ February 18, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
fantomas
Seriously, though, where did those quotes from Polier's parents come from, if not from them?

Back to our regularly scheduled program: according to Salon Politics, here are some of the current numbers:

Kerry leads Edwards in New York State 66%-14%.

Kerry leads Edwards in California 56%-11% (with Dean getting 10)

As of this week, the Public Policy Institute of California stated that any Democratic nominee would beat W, 54%-37% in the Golden State (Gore-like numbers) if the election were held today. In January it was 45%-45%.

W's approval numbers in predominantly Republican and conservative New Hampshire have fallen to their lowest level of his term, 47%, versus 48% disapproval. Kerry would defeat W 53%-38% in the Granite State, while Edwards, if the nominee, would win by a 51%-37% margin. (So is Vader getting those other votes?)

According to the Chicago Tribune, if the election were held today, Kerry would defeat W by a margin of 52%-38% in the Prairie State. 10% are still undecided.

Karl Rove, break out your Ouija board!

Salon Politics

[ February 23, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
hockeyTom
I hear Shrub is finally going to put out the Repuglican ads next week, a day or two after Super Tuesday. Look for the ads to start going negative very quickly, as Shrub doesn't have much positive to say, so he will bow to the masters that be, and probably go negative, which will be a big gamble. People are tired of this.
William1865
QUOTE
puckman1:
I hear Shrub is finally going to put out the Repuglican ads next week, a day or two after Super Tuesday. Look for the ads to start going negative very quickly, as Shrub doesn't have much positive to say, so he will bow to the masters that be, and probably go negative, which will be a big gamble. People are tired of this.
Yes, after months of hearing the Democrats call President Bush a traitor, a deserter, un-American, unpatriotic, immoral, a war criminal, a liar, etcetcetc (I'm sticking with the nicer criticisms here) I can see why "people" are tired of this.

At any rate, I love the Democrats' new campaign rule, which seems to be that any criticism of John Kerry is invalid. That he's above question. Again, I thought the Dems were the ones who got all googly-eyed over dissent, but I suppose in this case, not so much.
hockeyTom
He is all those things you mentioned William, and more. In addition to that he is scared, otherwise how else could you read his comments about a constitutional amendment??? Scared he will piss off his radical right core supporters. As John Kerry would say: Bring it on baby!!! Shrub is running.....
fantomas
QUOTE
William1865:
Yes, after months of hearing the Democrats call President Bush a traitor, a deserter, un-American, unpatriotic, immoral, a war criminal, a liar, etcetcetc (I'm sticking with the nicer criticisms here) I can see why \"people\" are tired of this.
Well, W:

--went missing during his National Guard stint, which is against the Texas Code of Military Justice
--misled the nation and the world about the WMDs in Iraq
--misled the nation and the world about the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
--launched a war for which he had inadequately planned the aftermath
--appears to be using the post-war reconstruction effort as a means of taking care of major campaign contributors, especially from the military-industrial complex and energy lobby (including companies like Halliburton that have repeatedly broken rules, laws, or have been caught bilking the taxpayers)
--has repeatedly embarrassed or undercut his Secretary of State in international affairs
--has battled the 9/11 commission on releasing information that could help them get to the bottom of that horrific tragedy
--presides over an administration that leaked the name of a CIA agent, possibly endangering countless lives and operations
--has damaged relations with most of the US's traditional allies, whose help we will need to defeat the likes of Al Qaeda
--has not told the truth about his budget, his Medicare bill, his actions on veterans' affairs, his education plan, etc.
--has repeatedly allowed corporations to ease or outright overthrow the threadbare environmental protections we have
--is pushing economic policies that disadvantage the vast majority of Americans and their children, as well as future generations
--has turned a surplus into the largest deficit in American history
--has governed during a period in which we have lost 2.3 million jobs
--praises "outsourcing" and calls fast-food restaurant jobs "manufacturing" with a serious face yet then backtracks when the media gets wind of such nonsense
--is now supporting a virulently anti-gay amendment to the United States Constitution, in violation of his supposed states-rights, conservative ideology
--could not even manage in his 2004 State of the Union address to mention the over 500 dead and many thousand wounded (many of them amputees) servicepeople killed in Iraq, or the numerous ones killed in Afghanistan, and certainly not the tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan innocents who have died in both battles

What do you label this record, which only touches softly upon the damage this man has done? Support him at your own risk....

[ February 24, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Jim Allen
QUOTE
Reached in Montgomery yesterday, Turnipseed stood by his contention that Bush never reported to him. But Turnipseed added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time .\"

From FEC reports on contributions to the Edwards campaign:
TURNIPSEED, WILL
MONTGOMERY,AL 36123

6/16/2003
$500
Edwards, John
Get out of the Beltway once in a while, you D-list Republican slimer wannabe. Outside of the media whores there, people still actually do some real investigative reporting:The guy who contributed to Edwards' campaign is a waiter, dumbass:
QUOTE
Sure enough, Federal Election Commission records show that Will Turnipseed from Montgomery donated $500 to Edwards last June 16. The report did not include Turnipseed's occupation or place of employment, and his address was a post office box in a ZIP code different than Brig. Gen. Turnipseed's.

\"I voted for Bush, I voted for his dad, and I'm going to vote for him again, and the Bush folks don't know that,\" Turnipseed said with frustration in his voice. It irritates him that \"it got widespread that I gave $500 to the John Edwards campaign,\" he said. Turnipseed called his cousin, William George Turnipseed -- the only other Will or W. Turnipseed in the Montgomery area listed in the phone book.

\"He said no, not him. I tried to find this Will Turnipseed, but I couldn't. It dawned on me: Why not write him a letter and say we had the same namesake and would he give me a call or send me an e-mail?\" Turnipseed said he mailed the letter Wednesday. The Register offered to try to locate Will Turnipseed, and the retired general was all for it. Using various databases and court records, the newspaper found that a Sirwill A. Turnipseed, who goes by \"Will,\" lives in Montgomery, though he did not have a listed telephone number.

A garnishment action on an overdue small loan reflected that Turnipseed worked at Wynlakes. A call was made to the club, asking for Turnipseed, and a woman said he worked in the dining room and was working that night. A Montgomery man who is a member of the club agreed to take a Register reporter to the club for dinner, and upon arriving, asked the manager if he could see Will Turnipseed. Turnipseed came over, sat down and listened to the explanation of why he'd been summoned. When it came to the donation, he smiled, saying that, yes, he'd given the money. Turnipseed -- who said his father, William, saddled him with the unusual first name Sirwill, causing him to be the butt of jokes in school and later, the military -- stated that he was asked to donate by a local lawyer, Lee Hamilton.

The lawyer told Turnipseed that Greg Calhoun, a businessman in Montgomery, was hosting a fund-raiser for Edwards, the waiter reported. Turnipseed, it turns out, couldn't attend the fund-raiser, but he sent a check, and later received a thank-you card with a picture of Edwards' family, he said. He decided to give, he said, because he's a Democrat, and his wife has been high on Edwards. On the side, Turnipseed runs a small specialty products business, selling pens, T-shirts and other goods. Hamilton is a good client who also sends him business. Hamilton, donor records show, donated the maximum $2,000 to Edwards last year, and has contributed to the campaigns of other Democrats. Will Turnipseed said he had received the other Turnipseed's letter that day -- Thursday -- and was sort of confused to hear from someone just because they shared the same name.

\"That answers the question for me,\" he said.
Great, thanks.

[ February 24, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]
hockeyTom
Yeah well...so much for the compassionate conservative Shrub purports to be.
William1865
Yes, Shrub is running for President. Great observation.

Do you guys not understand that calling a sitting President a traitor, unAmerican etc. is negative? You see, some people think being a traitor is a BAD thing. No, no, it's true! Point being, negative attacks can be and often are rooted in facts. The essence of it is, you think Bush sucks, I think Kerry sucks. The winner of the election will be the campaign that most effectively proves that contention.

Viva negativity!
William1865
QUOTE
Jim Allen:
Great, thanks.
There's really no need to question my patriotism.
Joe in Philly
QUOTE
fantomas:
Well, W:
--could not even manage in his 2004 State of the Union address to mention the over 500 dead and many thousand wounded (many of them amputees) servicepeople killed in Iraq, or the numerous ones killed in Afghanistan, and certainly not the tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan innocents who have died in both battles
Tom Brady was there. What more do you want? You're just selfish. biggrin.gif
RCKSoniK
I love John Kerry!

[ February 26, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: CnSEA ]
Bill W
But Dubya IS a traitor, Blanche...

See the CNN Dems' debate last night? ("Larry King is a senile moron" can never be said too oft.) Kerry was doing his usual tap dance over his Blank Check for BushCaesar vote -- W "did it the wrong way on Iraq," then off to the next item -- when Kucinich interjected "What was the right way?"

FrankenKerry paused for a second and shot him an arrogant look that Louis XIV would've used on a mosquito, then plowed right on with his script. It was worth the whole 90 minutes.

Cockburn & St Clair of Counterpunch on how Kerry's Bush-Lite views will bite him:

QUOTE
Kerry agrees with Bush about the tax cuts. He agrees with him about the Patriot Act. He agrees with him on trade. He agrees with him on the war. Why change horses, Bush will ask the American people. 'I can manage things better,' Kerry will respond. What else can he say? He's never once, in three senate terms, offered legislation to inconvenence the 'special interests' at which he's lately launched a few pop-gun attacks. ...
hockeyTom
Between intermissions of my Thursday Night Hockey game I switched over to the debate, which at times was frequently quite animated. I listened carefully when they talked about gay marriage. Al Sharpton hit a home run when he kept saying that gays and lezbians are facing discrimination by Shrub with regards to his proposed amendment. And Kucinich also stated as well as Sharpton that they were in favor of gay marriage. Yes, we all know Kerry is against gay marriage, but to his credit he said he would push strongly for the national anti-discrimination bill, and he called Shrub on this topic for trying to get the Dems to bicker about this one topic, and take the heat off his failed policies. Is Kerry perfect, hell no, but he sure is on our side more a hell of alot more so than Shrub is.

[ February 27, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
Undercenter
I watched the "debate" and once again the same impressions - Sharpton all the great lines, Edwards "you should like me, you should really like me,” Kucinich "welcome to my world" and FrankenKerry (great line Bill W.) above it all.

Nothing changed really, except it does increasingly look like Edwards is running for the number two spot on the Ketchup Kid's ticket.
TomFord
Scroll down to get to a picture of Kerry's trousersnake.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.