Religions > Atheism > Kerry & Edwards More Radical than Mondale & Ferraro! Liberals Hate America!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Liberal Yang Blows Me" |
| Date: |
14 Aug 2004 11:19:17 PM |
| Object: |
Kerry & Edwards More Radical than Mondale & Ferraro! Liberals Hate America!! |
Kerry & Edwards More Radical than Mondale & Ferraro! Liberals Hate
America!!
Wednesday, July 7, 2004
Kerry/Edwards Farther to Left Than Mondale/Ferraro
The buzz among election watchers is: How liberal is the Democrats'
presidential ticket? Can it appeal to Middle America? Let the facts
speak for themselves.
According to Americans for Democratic Action, the left's most widely
cited arbiter of voting records, this year's Democrat slate is even
more radical than the losers of 1984.
The organization, which has endorsed John Kerry for president, says,
"Since ADA's founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served
as the standard measure of political liberalism." According to that
voting record:
a.. Walter Mondale's lifetime rating was 90 percent. Kerry's lifetime
rating is 92 percent.
a.. Geraldine Ferraro's lifetime rating from ADA in 1984 was 79
percent. John Edwards' lifetime rating is 81 percent.
So much for all those bogus claims from the media establishment that
Edwards is a "centrist."
At least the Boston Herald today had the guts to run this banner
headline: "THEY'RE LEFT OF TED!" It quoted the Heritage Foundation's
Tripp Baird as saying, "Anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy can't be
good for business."
Geri, please come back.
Editor's note:
a.. The REAL Story on John Kerry: A Special Investigation - Click Here
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/15/215724.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "Hanoi Jane Fonda" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
14 Aug 2004 11:36:18 PM |
|
|
BIAS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... AGAIN.
We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911
Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report
"bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam
Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is
true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no
evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ...
what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration
never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed
in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that
there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a
bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911
Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been
made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never
been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no
question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission
report, by the way, agrees.
CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the
news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in
Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to
relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the
9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a
wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush
never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include
that bogus
"bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the
end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the
purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant.
The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line
knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that
Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my
friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.
boortz.com
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 07:06:37 AM |
|
|
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush
never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and
Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al
Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission says that
there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 07:41:04 AM |
|
|
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in
news:cfnjkd$kpk$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that
Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq
and al Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission
says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
Of course the 9/11 Commission says that there *was* one, just not about
9/11. But don't let details get in your way of your religious beliefs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 08:38:41 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95465859E55D4fstone69@207.69.154.206...
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in
news:cfnjkd$kpk$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that
Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq
and al Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission
says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
Of course the 9/11 Commission says that there *was* one, just not about
9/11. But don't let details get in your way of your religious beliefs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
They do?
The only religious beliefs I have is that religion is load of crock.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 11:29:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:41:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in
news:cfnjkd$kpk$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that
Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq
and al Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th Commission
says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17, 2004
Of course the 9/11 Commission says that there *was* one, just not about
9/11. But don't let details get in your way of your religious beliefs.
Ah, well the 9/11 commission did not. Of course if you have a
religious belief - one that Al Queda begging Saddam for weapons and
getting no response is a 'connection that validated the US going to
war on Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqs for it and pretty much
destroying their country', then you personally have a pretty nasty
religion going there Fred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 12:19:45 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:41748d25.957832078@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:41:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in
news:cfnjkd$kpk$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that
Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th
Commission says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17,
2004
Of course the 9/11 Commission says that there *was* one, just not
about 9/11. But don't let details get in your way of your religious
beliefs.
Ah, well the 9/11 commission did not.
Ah, well, yes they did. As did the Senate Intel Committee.
Of course if you have a
religious belief - one that Al Queda begging Saddam for weapons and
getting no response is a 'connection that validated the US going to
war on Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqs for it and pretty much
destroying their country', then you personally have a pretty nasty
religion going there Fred.
Then again you have al Queda asking Saddam for explosives training and
poison development assistance and getting it and also for Saddam to help
with dissemination of propaganda and getting that, and safe harbor for
their operatives after certain missions probably including the '93 WTC
bombing, but let's not count those, because that would contradict Kate
23:14.
Come on, this is all in the published reports. Forget the "How to Read
the 9/11 Report" document that the Democrats published and read them
yourself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread |
15 Aug 2004 02:38:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:19:45 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:41748d25.957832078@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 12:41:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"kathryn" <bob@bob.com> wrote in
news:cfnjkd$kpk$1@sparta.btinternet.com:
This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that
Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual
terrorist attack.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al Qaeda.
-- Dubya's answer when asked why he insists there was a relationship
between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda when the September 11th
Commission says that there wasn't one, Washington, D.C., Jun. 17,
2004
Of course the 9/11 Commission says that there *was* one, just not
about 9/11. But don't let details get in your way of your religious
beliefs.
Ah, well the 9/11 commission did not.
Ah, well, yes they did. As did the Senate Intel Committee.
Of course if you have a
religious belief - one that Al Queda begging Saddam for weapons and
getting no response is a 'connection that validated the US going to
war on Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqs for it and pretty much
destroying their country', then you personally have a pretty nasty
religion going there Fred.
Then again you have al Queda asking Saddam for explosives training and
poison development assistance and getting it and also for Saddam to help
with dissemination of propaganda and getting that, and safe harbor for
their operatives after certain missions probably including the '93 WTC
bombing, but let's not count those, because that would contradict Kate
23:14.
Come on, this is all in the published reports. Forget the "How to Read
the 9/11 Report" document that the Democrats published and read them
yourself.
What published reports? What are you talking about? None of that is
in the 9/11 report.
This is all it says:
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a
number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None
are reported to have received a significant response.
According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to
rebuild relations with the Saudies and other Middle Easter regimes led
him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed: it was Iraq that reportedly took
the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against
the United States, two al Aaeda members reportedly
went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi
delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban, and
then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of
these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian
deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq
was under intensifying US pressure, which culminated in a series of
large air attacks in Dec.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides
may have occurred 1999 during a perio of some reported strains with
the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin
Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging
that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the
Iraqi althernative. The reports describe friendly contacts and
indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United
States.
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier
contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.
Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al
Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the Untited
States.
This is Page 66 on the published report
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/9.11.full.report/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless liberal blather thread. |
15 Aug 2004 12:54:00 AM |
|
|
Liberals are Terrorists Best Friends! Liberals Hate America!!!
With the prison abuse scandal the #1 infatuation of the media and the
ongoing perception that Iraq is unraveling, the partisan Bush-haters
in Congress can't contain themselves. Such is their hatred for
President Bush that they not only cannot think clearly, but they say
stupid things. First up, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Now,
Nancy Pelosi has undergone somewhat of a makeover since she ascended
to the leadership a few years ago.
She used to be considered a complete nutcase; a radical left-of-Castro
60's leftist from California. Then she decided she wanted to be in
charge, so she became the house minority leader, and has even gone for
a more
"conservative" look. Gone is the hair-down-to-her-***** look. Some of us
aren't fooled. Nancy Pelosi is still Nancy Pelosi, and her little
temper tantrum yesterday proves that a leopard can't change its spots.
She questioned President Bush's competence as a leader, and suggested
his policy in Iraq is to blame for the loss of American lives. She
told reporters "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to
face the
reality? Pull this curtain back." And so it is that the liberal
Democratic tradition of attacking the Commander in Chief during
wartime continues. They really can't help themselves, can they?
She also repeated the outright lie that the president put American
young people in harm's way without sufficient evidence. Isn't it
interesting how the left has no problem with Democratic presidents
sending our military on these worthless humanitarian missions and
putting them in harm's way to prop up a dictator (Haiti, 1993,) or on
some never-ending escapade to bail out the Euro-weenies (Kosovo?)
She also made the laughable assertion that she is concerned about the
$200 billion price tag on the war to the American people. Once again,
the left does not have the same concern about the 40-year-long War on
Poverty, which has now cost trillions of dollars with no end in sight.
The longer liberals are out of power, the more hysterical they get.
Pelosi is just the latest example. Go sell crazy some place else
woman, we're all stocked up here.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
