| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Marxist Moore" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2004 11:29:36 AM |
| Object: |
Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12157
Stab in the Back
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 12, 2004
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief has gone on relentlessly for
more than ten months, ever since the liberation of Baghdad in April
of last year. This ferocious attack would be understandable if the war
had gone badly or been unjust; if Saddam Hussein had unleashed
chemical weapons on the coalition armies, or had ignited an
environmental disaster, or if the war had resulted in tens
of thousands of coalition casualties, or become an endless quagmire,
or instigated a wave of terror across the Muslim world ? as its
opponents predicted before it began.
But it did not. This was a good war and relatively costless as modern
conflicts go. Its result was the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from
a monster regime. Its cost was a third of the economic losses
resulting from the 9/11 attack. Its relatively painless victory was a
tremendous setback for the forces of chaos. The war destroyed a
principal base of regional aggression and terror. It induced a
terrorist and nuclear power, Libya, to give up its weapons of mass
destruction. It induced Iran to allow inspections of its nuclear
sites; it caused North Korea to consider negotiation and restraint. It
induced Pakistan to give up its nuclear secrets dealer. It made the
terrorist regime in Syria more reasonable and pliant. It sent a
message across a dangerous world that defiance of UN resolutions and
international law, when backed by the word of the United States, can
mean certain destruction for outlaw regimes. In all these ways,
whatever else one may say about it, George Bush?s war has struck a
mighty blow for global peace.
The Democrats? attack on the President?s war, then, is an effort ?
whether Democrats intend it so or not ? to reverse these gains. If the
President is defeated in the coming election on the issue of war and
peace, as Democrats intend, his defeat will send exactly the reverse
message to the world of nations. It will tell them that a new American
government is prepared to go back to the delusions of pre-9/11, that
it will end the war on terror and return to treating terrorists as
criminals instead of enemy soldiers. Candidate John Kerry has said
this in so many words. It will tell them that the United States will
no longer hold governments responsible for the actions of terrorists
who operate from their soil, as did Ansar al-Islam, Abu Nidal, and Abu
Abbas from their bases in Iraq. Or for supporting terror, as Saddam
Hussein did when he financed suicide bombers in Israel. It will send a
signal that tyrants like Saddam Hussein who defy UN ultimatums are
likely to be appeased ? the way they were under the Clinton
Administration which had the vision to stop Saddam and the Taliban but
not the will to stop them with force. It will announce to the world
that the
American government is now reluctant to risk even a few American lives
to defend international law or stand up for the freedom of those who
are oppressed like the people of Iraq.
The Democrats? personal attack on the President over the war is not
only imprudent; it is also unprecedented. Never in our history has a
commander-in-chief been attacked on a partisan basis for a war that
went well, let alone so well. Never in human history has a leader been
attacked on a partisan basis for liberating a people or inducing
tyrants to give up their weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats?
attack on the President is an unprecedented partisan campaign over
national security in a time of war. It is a campaign that apparently
knows no limits, adopting tactics that are as unscrupulous as they are
reckless. The commander-in-chief has been called a ?deceiver,? a
?deserter,? a ?breaker of promises,? a ?fraud?
who ?concocted? the war for personal material gain, a leader who
risked innocent American lives for a ?lie.? And all these accusations
are made while the war continues! All these charges are made while
terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans with biological and
chemical and possibly nuclear weapons! The Democrats? campaign is a
stab in the back not only of the President but of the nation he serves
and which he is sworn to protect.
No one knows what the future will bring. But no one can fail to have
noticed that while the commander-in-chief has carried on an aggressive
war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been no
terrorist
attacks on American soil. For two-and- a-half years while the
commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen
to attack, the American people have been safe.
If the American people were now to elect a candidate who has conducted
his campaign as an attack on the very war the President has fought to
defend us, no one can doubt that our enemies will be encouraged and
our lives will be in greater danger than before. Perhaps there have
been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this
year. But this observer can?t remember one. David Horowitz is the
author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son,
which has been described as ?the first great autobiography of his
generation,? and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to
the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics
of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War
was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as ?the
perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.? Horowitz?s
latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and
chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on
college campuses last
spring. Click here to read more about David
Borders, Language, & Culture is what matters
all the way.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
23 Aug 2004 12:35:23 PM |
|
|
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in message
news:7q6ki0p2m8nbpntlsf0nsla5o82hvf422g@4ax.com...
Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12157
This guy is drinking the wrong booze. He has everything ***** backwards!
Stab in the Back
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 12, 2004
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous.
It is neither puzzeling or ominous. Iraq was a tin pot regime that posed NO
threat to anyone, had NO WMD and if they had they had NO means for delivery
much beyond it's borders. It had NO blue water Navy. NO long range bombers
and the maximum range of it's small inventory of inaccurate missiles was
less than 118 miles. this is why Iraq's neighbors refused to join Bush in
his war with Iraq.
This war was to glorify Bush - not to save the world.
Iraq was being adequately contained by the UN inspection teams.
The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief has gone on relentlessly for
more than ten months, ever since the liberation of Baghdad in April
of last year.
Baghdad is still not liberated and is in chaos.
This ferocious attack would be understandable if the war
had gone badly or been unjust;
The war has gone badly. Almost 1,000 Americans have lost their lives and
over 3,000 have suffered grievous injuries and permanent disabilities. Over
15,000 Iraq's have been killed. Close to $200 BILLION of tax payer resources
have been squandered fighting a regime that was no significant threat to
anyone.
if Saddam Hussein had unleashed
chemical weapons on the coalition armies, or had ignited an
environmental disaster, or if the war had resulted in tens
of thousands of coalition casualties, or become an endless quagmire,
or instigated a wave of terror across the Muslim world ? as its
opponents predicted before it began.
But it did not. This was a good war and relatively costless as modern
conflicts go. Its result was the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from
a monster regime. Its cost was a third of the economic losses
resulting from the 9/11 attack. Its relatively painless victory was a
tremendous setback for the forces of chaos. The war destroyed a
principal base of regional aggression and terror.
Iraq was a paper tiger that posed no significant threat to anyone. It was
being adequately controlled by the UN.
It induced a
terrorist and nuclear power, Libya, to give up its weapons of mass
destruction.
Libya gave up it's nuclear program because of it's high cost and
questionable value.
It induced Iran to allow inspections of its nuclear
sites;
Not true.
it caused North Korea to consider negotiation and restraint.
Not true. N. Korea is still developing nuclear weapons and the rockets to
deliver them.
It
induced Pakistan to give up its nuclear secrets dealer.
This was the result of the war in Afghanistan and very generous financial
aid to Pakistan. It had NOTHING to due with Iraq.
It made the
terrorist regime in Syria more reasonable and pliant. It sent a
message across a dangerous world that defiance of UN resolutions and
international law, when backed by the word of the United States, can
mean certain destruction for outlaw regimes. In all these ways,
whatever else one may say about it, George Bush?s war has struck a
mighty blow for global peace.
Only in your political imagination.
The Democrats? attack on the President?s war, then, is an effort ?
whether Democrats intend it so or not ? to reverse these gains. If the
President is defeated in the coming election on the issue of war and
peace, as Democrats intend, his defeat will send exactly the reverse
message to the world of nations. It will tell them that a new American
government is prepared to go back to the delusions of pre-9/11, that
it will end the war on terror and return to treating terrorists as
criminals instead of enemy soldiers. Candidate John Kerry has said
this in so many words. It will tell them that the United States will
no longer hold governments responsible for the actions of terrorists
who operate from their soil, as did Ansar al-Islam, Abu Nidal, and Abu
Abbas from their bases in Iraq. Or for supporting terror, as Saddam
Hussein did when he financed suicide bombers in Israel. It will send a
signal that tyrants like Saddam Hussein who defy UN ultimatums are
likely to be appeased ? the way they were under the Clinton
Administration which had the vision to stop Saddam and the Taliban but
not the will to stop them with force. It will announce to the world
that the
American government is now reluctant to risk even a few American lives
to defend international law or stand up for the freedom of those who
are oppressed like the people of Iraq.
The Democrats? personal attack on the President over the war is not
only imprudent; it is also unprecedented. Never in our history has a
commander-in-chief been attacked on a partisan basis for a war that
went well, let alone so well. Never in human history has a leader been
attacked on a partisan basis for liberating a people or inducing
tyrants to give up their weapons of mass destruction. The Democrats?
attack on the President is an unprecedented partisan campaign over
national security in a time of war. It is a campaign that apparently
knows no limits, adopting tactics that are as unscrupulous as they are
reckless. The commander-in-chief has been called a ?deceiver,? a
?deserter,? a ?breaker of promises,? a ?fraud?
who ?concocted? the war for personal material gain, a leader who
risked innocent American lives for a ?lie.? And all these accusations
are made while the war continues! All these charges are made while
terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans with biological and
chemical and possibly nuclear weapons! The Democrats? campaign is a
stab in the back not only of the President but of the nation he serves
and which he is sworn to protect.
No one knows what the future will bring. But no one can fail to have
noticed that while the commander-in-chief has carried on an aggressive
war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been no
terrorist
attacks on American soil. For two-and- a-half years while the
commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen
to attack, the American people have been safe.
If the American people were now to elect a candidate who has conducted
his campaign as an attack on the very war the President has fought to
defend us, no one can doubt that our enemies will be encouraged and
our lives will be in greater danger than before. Perhaps there have
been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this
year. But this observer can?t remember one. David Horowitz is the
author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son,
which has been described as ?the first great autobiography of his
generation,? and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to
the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics
of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War
was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as ?the
perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.? Horowitz?s
latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and
chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on
college campuses last
spring. Click here to read more about David
Borders, Language, & Culture is what matters
all the way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
23 Aug 2004 11:59:20 AM |
|
|
In article <7q6ki0p2m8nbpntlsf0nsla5o82hvf422g@4ax.com>,
Michael Marxist Moore <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote:
Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12157
Stab in the Back
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 12, 2004
A creationist posting a creationist quote.
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
has gone on relentlessly for
more than ten months, ever since the liberation of Baghdad in April
of last year.
It's so calm and peaceful there now. People throwing flowers at our
soldiers' feet.
This ferocious attack would be understandable if the war
had gone badly or been unjust;
!!!!
if Saddam Hussein had unleashed
chemical weapons on the coalition armies,
!!!!!
or had ignited an
environmental disaster, or if the war had resulted in tens
of thousands of coalition casualties, or become an endless quagmire,
or instigated a wave of terror across the Muslim world ? as its
opponents predicted before it began.
But it did not. This was a good war
Then you'd love Hitler's invasion of Poland.
and relatively costless as modern
conflicts go. Its result was the liberation of 25 million Iraqis from
a monster regime.
Then why aren't they all singing our praises?
Its cost was a third of the economic losses
resulting from the 9/11 attack. Its relatively painless victory was a
tremendous setback for the forces of chaos. The war destroyed a
principal base of regional aggression and terror.
Except it didn't.
It induced a
terrorist and nuclear power, Libya, to give up its weapons of mass
destruction.
Libya's nuclear weapons were where?
It induced Iran to allow inspections of its nuclear
sites
If this is Tuesday; that changes daily.
; it caused North Korea to consider negotiation and restraint.
Refresh my memory about their negotiations.
It
induced Pakistan to give up its nuclear secrets dealer.
If they're out ally, why did it take a war?
It made the
terrorist regime in Syria more reasonable and pliant.
How?
It sent a
message across a dangerous world that defiance of UN resolutions and
international law, when backed by the word of the United States, can
mean certain destruction for outlaw regimes.
By defying the UN, we showed you'd better not defy the UN?
In all these ways,
whatever else one may say about it, George Bush?s war has struck a
mighty blow for global peace.
Then why are we less safe?
The Democrats? attack on the President?s war, then, is an effort ?
whether Democrats intend it so or not ? to reverse these gains. If the
President is defeated in the coming election on the issue of war and
peace, as Democrats intend, his defeat will send exactly the reverse
message to the world of nations.
Here we go. Voting against Bush is unpatriotic.
It will tell them that a new American
government is prepared to go back to the delusions of pre-9/11, that
it will end the war on terror and return to treating terrorists as
criminals instead of enemy soldiers. Candidate John Kerry has said
this in so many words. It will tell them that the United States will
no longer hold governments responsible for the actions of terrorists
who operate from their soil, as did Ansar al-Islam, Abu Nidal, and Abu
Abbas from their bases in Iraq. Or for supporting terror, as Saddam
Hussein did when he financed suicide bombers in Israel.
And as the Saudis do. Conveniently omitted that.
It will send a
signal that tyrants like Saddam Hussein who defy UN ultimatums are
likely to be appeased ? the way they were under the Clinton
Administration which had the vision to stop Saddam and the Taliban but
not the will to stop them with force. It will announce to the world
that the
American government is now reluctant to risk even a few American lives
to defend international law or stand up for the freedom of those who
are oppressed like the people of Iraq.
The Democrats? personal attack on the President over the war is not
only imprudent; it is also unprecedented. Never in our history has a
commander-in-chief been attacked on a partisan basis for a war that
went well, let alone so well.
Only Congress can declare a war.
And the GOP leaders savaged Clinton over Bosnia.
Never in human history has a leader been
attacked on a partisan basis for liberating a people or inducing
tyrants to give up their weapons of mass destruction.
How about for lying to the people, costing 1000 lives, costing billions of
dollars, costing respect abroad?
The Democrats?
attack on the President is an unprecedented partisan campaign over
national security in a time of war.
We're not at war. Read the constitution.
It is a campaign that apparently
knows no limits, adopting tactics that are as unscrupulous as they are
reckless. The commander-in-chief has been called a ?deceiver,? a
?deserter,? a ?breaker of promises,? a ?fraud?
who ?concocted? the war for personal material gain, a leader who
risked innocent American lives for a ?lie.? And all these accusations
are made while the war continues! All these charges are made while
terrorists plot to kill thousands of Americans with biological and
chemical and possibly nuclear weapons!
Or while Martians plot to invade.
The Democrats? campaign is a
stab in the back not only of the President but of the nation he serves
and which he is sworn to protect.
"Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to harm our nation, and neither do
we." -- Bush
No one knows what the future will bring. But no one can fail to have
noticed that while the commander-in-chief
Read the constitution.
has carried on an aggressive
war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq,
What terror was in Iraq?
there have been no
terrorist
attacks on American soil.
And while Bush was "serving" in the National Guard, the Viet Cong didn't
attack Texas or Alabama!
For two-and- a-half years while the
commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen
to attack, the American people have been safe.
Then all those terrorist alerts were pretend?
If the American people were now to elect a candidate who has conducted
his campaign as an attack on the very war the President has fought to
defend us, no one can doubt that our enemies will be encouraged and
our lives will be in greater danger than before. Perhaps there have
been elections with higher stakes than the one we are facing this
year. But this observer can?t remember one. David Horowitz is the
author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son,
which has been described as ?the first great autobiography of his
generation,? and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to
the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics
of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War
was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as ?the
perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.? Horowitz?s
latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and
chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on
college campuses last
spring. Click here to read more about David
Borders, Language, & Culture is what matters
all the way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
25 Aug 2004 04:57:47 PM |
|
|
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <7q6ki0p2m8nbpntlsf0nsla5o82hvf422g@4ax.com>,
Michael Marxist Moore <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote:
< snip >
For two-and- a-half years while the
commander-in-chief has waged this war that the Democrats have chosen
to attack, the American people have been safe.
Then all those terrorist alerts were pretend?
Yes, actually. Timed to deflect criticism away from the White House.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spike" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
23 Aug 2004 05:03:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
23 Aug 2004 05:24:00 PM |
|
|
"Spike" <spike@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:r1qki0piakspioqdao89kplm923s3jo0rf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul W" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 06:47:30 PM |
|
|
"Kent" <Juliusmaybetheone@dallas.net> wrote in message news:<10ikrkh9u251b31@corp.supernews.com>...
"Spike" <spike@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:r1qki0piakspioqdao89kplm923s3jo0rf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
moron.
Paul W
.
|
|
|
| User: "Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
01 Sep 2004 01:37:14 PM |
|
|
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
moron.
Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is not necessarily opposed to a
constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex marriage, he told National Public Radio's All
Things Considered Feb. 9.
Keep in mind, Kerry will lie and say he is against things Bush is for before the election, but will
return to be for the same things Bush is for after the election again.
Just like Bush, being against gay marriage, and Cheney being for gay marriage, to try and have it both
ways before the election.
Most important to remember...
After the election, either Kerry or Bush will be telling their supporters to now turn their full
support and back their "opponent" and say that we all need to stand behind and support them in whatever
they do, just because they are president.
Hypocrites.
Just like when Edwards and Kerry were bashing each other before the primaries, now they are in
agreement with each other on everything.
And the same will happen with Bush and Kerry after the election, they will return to being good buddies
and in total agreement on everything again. Kerry voted for the war, for the patriot act, etc etc.
How can anyone vote for such hypocritical idiots like the republicats?!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
01 Sep 2004 02:13:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:37:14 GMT, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
moron.
Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is not necessarily opposed to a
constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex marriage, he told National Public Radio's All
Things Considered Feb. 9.
Keep in mind, Kerry will lie and say he is against things Bush is for before the election, but will
return to be for the same things Bush is for after the election again.
Just like Bush, being against gay marriage, and Cheney being for gay marriage, to try and have it both
ways before the election.
Most important to remember...
After the election, either Kerry or Bush will be telling their supporters to now turn their full
support and back their "opponent" and say that we all need to stand behind and support them in whatever
they do, just because they are president.
Hypocrites.
Just like when Edwards and Kerry were bashing each other before the primaries, now they are in
agreement with each other on everything.
And the same will happen with Bush and Kerry after the election, they will return to being good buddies
and in total agreement on everything again. Kerry voted for the war, for the patriot act, etc etc.
How can anyone vote for such hypocritical idiots like the republicats?!
That's how politics works. Since all politicians are by definition
slimeballs, standard procedure is to try to convince the voters that
your opponent is even slimier than you. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
01 Sep 2004 02:58:42 PM |
|
|
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
moron.
Leading Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry is not necessarily opposed to a
constitutional amendment to permanently ban same-sex marriage, he told National Public Radio's All
Things Considered Feb. 9.
Keep in mind, Kerry will lie and say he is against things Bush is for before the election, but will
return to be for the same things Bush is for after the election again.
Just like Bush, being against gay marriage, and Cheney being for gay marriage, to try and have it both
ways before the election.
Most important to remember...
After the election, either Kerry or Bush will be telling their supporters to now turn their full
support and back their "opponent" and say that we all need to stand behind and support them in whatever
they do, just because they are president.
Hypocrites.
Just like when Edwards and Kerry were bashing each other before the primaries, now they are in
agreement with each other on everything.
And the same will happen with Bush and Kerry after the election, they will return to being good buddies
and in total agreement on everything again. Kerry voted for the war, for the patriot act, etc etc.
How can anyone vote for such hypocritical idiots like the republicats?!
That's how politics works. Since all politicians are by definition
slimeballs, standard procedure is to try to convince the voters that
your opponent is even slimier than you. <G>
The disturbing thing is when after every single election, the one slimeball tells all his supporters to back
and give full support to the other slimeball and no one is ever shocked by this hypocritical action!
You don't see Harry Browne saying that all his supporters should back Clinton or Bush because they have been
elected (or appointed) as president! He tells them they need to try harder next time! Only the
republicat party tells their supporters to back the pretend opponent, because they are all one and the same
party!
Regan ran and was elected as a Democrat. He ran and was elected as a Republican.
The names are interchangeable, just like Equal and NutraSweet are two brand names of the EXACT SAME product
and make by the EXACT SAME company to fool the public!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "coasterqueen" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 08:11:03 PM |
|
|
Bush stabbed Americans in the pockets. Bush ended overtime for millions of
people.
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/underattack.cfm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/22/overtime.pay.ap/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/strauss/2004-08-23-overtime_x.htm
--
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do
nothing.
Please vote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JustForFun" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 09:34:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:11:03 -0400, "coasterqueen"
<coasterqueen27@nospam.com> wrote:
Bush stabbed Americans in the pockets. Bush ended overtime for millions of
people.
ROFLMAO....NOW Bush is responsible for overtime at the local factory?
I suppose next you will be blaming him for the mistreatment of
Chickens at KFC...
.
|
|
|
| User: "coasterqueen" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 10:13:01 PM |
|
|
"JustForFun" <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
"coasterqueen" wrote:
Bush stabbed Americans in the pockets. Bush ended overtime for millions
of
people.
ROFLMAO....NOW Bush is responsible for overtime at the local factory?
Read for yourself then laugh.
New overtime rules are mostly bad news for employees
Q: I keep hearing about these supposed new rules for overtime pay and I am
confused. Are there new rules, and if so, what are they?
Adrian, Helena, Mont.
A: Yes, there are new rules that take effect this week, and any small
business owner with gross revenues over $500,000 reading this better know
what they are. In essence, the new regulations will make it more difficult
for many employees to get overtime pay.
Let me first say that while I (obviously) usually side with the
entrepreneur, this is one case where I favor labor; I think that with these
new regulations, the Bush administration is shortchanging a lot of working
people.
A little history is in order: The federal regulations that govern overtime
pay (the Fair Labor Standards Act) were certainly outdated. Most had not
been changed since shortly after World War II. Clearly much has changed in
the workplace since then and an overhaul of these regulations was needed.
So the U.S. Department of Labor set about updating who would, and would not,
be eligible for overtime. It was an issue of importance to many people.
Overtime pay serves two useful functions. First, it allows applicable
employees to supplement their income. According to an analysis by the
Economic Policy Institute, overtime pay accounts for up to 25% of weekly
earnings of eligible employees, with the average amount being $161.
Secondly, overtime pay serves a useful position in the overall economy. By
requiring overtime, the federal government crafts an incentive for busy
employers to create new jobs; rather than pay overtime, a new employee can
be brought on. So the old system helped in many ways.
But be that as it may, the rules have changed. Here then are the most
important rules you need to know:
First the good news for employees:
Rule 1: Almost all employees who make less than $455 a week ($23,660 a year)
are eligible for overtime. The old rule set overtime for anyone who made
less than $250 a week. The new rule applies whether the employee is blue
collar or white collar, or whether they supervise people of not. The
exception for this rule is teachers, doctors and lawyers. They do not get
overtime, no matter what they are paid.
Now the bad news:
Rule 2: Any employee who earns more than $100,000 a year is ineligible for
mandated overtime, period.
Rule 3: Any employee who earns between $23,660 and $100,000 a year, and who
is in most executive, professional, or administrative positions, is not
eligible for overtime. This does not, however, apply to salespeople. They
are still eligible.
Rule 4: Managers are not entitled to overtime if they oversee two or more
people and have the authority to hire, fire, or recommend that someone be
hired or fired.
Rule 5: Administrative employees who have decision-making power and run some
sort of operation are not eligible.
Rule 6: Employees whose job requires imagination, invention, originality, or
artistic or creative endeavors are not eligible for overtime.
Rule 7: Employees whose main duties are computer-related and involve the
implementation, analysis, development, or application of computer systems or
designs are also not eligible for overtime.
Rule 8: Sales staff that regularly work outside of the employer's place of
business are, you guessed it, not eligible either.
Today's tip: If you are still confused (not surprising, really), then here
are a few sites to help you:
.. The Department of Labor -www.dol.gov/fairpay
.. Society for Human Resource Management -www.shrm.org
.. The AFL-CIO site: www.workingamerica.org.
Ask an Expert appears Mondays. You can e-mail Steve Strauss at:
sstrauss@mrallbiz.com. And you can click here to see previous columns.
Steven D. Strauss is a lawyer, author and speaker who specializes in small
business and entrepreneurship. His latest book is The Big Idea: How Business
Innovators Get Great Ideas to Market. You can sign up for his free
newsletter, "Small Business Success Secrets!" at his Web
site -www.mrallbiz.com.
--
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and do
nothing.
Please vote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
27 Aug 2004 10:29:51 AM |
|
|
"coasterqueen" <coasterqueen27@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:w-WdnRMJw84jO7PcRVn-og@comcast.com...
"JustForFun" <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
"coasterqueen" wrote:
Bush stabbed Americans in the pockets. Bush ended overtime for
millions
of
people.
ROFLMAO....NOW Bush is responsible for overtime at the local factory?
I find it hard to believe that millions of Americans who made over $100,000
were eligible, and received, overtime pay.
Read for yourself then laugh.
New overtime rules are mostly bad news for employees
Q: I keep hearing about these supposed new rules for overtime pay and I am
confused. Are there new rules, and if so, what are they?
Adrian, Helena, Mont.
A: Yes, there are new rules that take effect this week, and any small
business owner with gross revenues over $500,000 reading this better know
what they are. In essence, the new regulations will make it more difficult
for many employees to get overtime pay.
Let me first say that while I (obviously) usually side with the
entrepreneur, this is one case where I favor labor; I think that with
these
new regulations, the Bush administration is shortchanging a lot of working
people.
A little history is in order: The federal regulations that govern overtime
pay (the Fair Labor Standards Act) were certainly outdated. Most had not
been changed since shortly after World War II. Clearly much has changed in
the workplace since then and an overhaul of these regulations was needed.
So the U.S. Department of Labor set about updating who would, and would
not,
be eligible for overtime. It was an issue of importance to many people.
Overtime pay serves two useful functions. First, it allows applicable
employees to supplement their income. According to an analysis by the
Economic Policy Institute, overtime pay accounts for up to 25% of weekly
earnings of eligible employees, with the average amount being $161.
Secondly, overtime pay serves a useful position in the overall economy. By
requiring overtime, the federal government crafts an incentive for busy
employers to create new jobs; rather than pay overtime, a new employee can
be brought on. So the old system helped in many ways.
But be that as it may, the rules have changed. Here then are the most
important rules you need to know:
First the good news for employees:
Rule 1: Almost all employees who make less than $455 a week ($23,660 a
year)
are eligible for overtime. The old rule set overtime for anyone who made
less than $250 a week. The new rule applies whether the employee is blue
collar or white collar, or whether they supervise people of not. The
exception for this rule is teachers, doctors and lawyers. They do not get
overtime, no matter what they are paid.
Now the bad news:
Rule 2: Any employee who earns more than $100,000 a year is ineligible for
mandated overtime, period.
Rule 3: Any employee who earns between $23,660 and $100,000 a year, and
who
is in most executive, professional, or administrative positions, is not
eligible for overtime. This does not, however, apply to salespeople. They
are still eligible.
Rule 4: Managers are not entitled to overtime if they oversee two or more
people and have the authority to hire, fire, or recommend that someone be
hired or fired.
Rule 5: Administrative employees who have decision-making power and run
some
sort of operation are not eligible.
Rule 6: Employees whose job requires imagination, invention, originality,
or
artistic or creative endeavors are not eligible for overtime.
Rule 7: Employees whose main duties are computer-related and involve the
implementation, analysis, development, or application of computer systems
or
designs are also not eligible for overtime.
Rule 8: Sales staff that regularly work outside of the employer's place of
business are, you guessed it, not eligible either.
Today's tip: If you are still confused (not surprising, really), then here
are a few sites to help you:
. The Department of Labor -www.dol.gov/fairpay
. Society for Human Resource Management -www.shrm.org
. The AFL-CIO site: www.workingamerica.org.
Ask an Expert appears Mondays. You can e-mail Steve Strauss at:
sstrauss@mrallbiz.com. And you can click here to see previous columns.
Steven D. Strauss is a lawyer, author and speaker who specializes in small
business and entrepreneurship. His latest book is The Big Idea: How
Business
Innovators Get Great Ideas to Market. You can sign up for his free
newsletter, "Small Business Success Secrets!" at his Web
site -www.mrallbiz.com.
--
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand by and
do
nothing.
Please vote.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JustForFun" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 10:58:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:13:01 -0400, "coasterqueen"
<coasterqueen27@nospam.com> wrote:
"JustForFun" <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
"coasterqueen" wrote:
Bush stabbed Americans in the pockets. Bush ended overtime for millions
of
people.
ROFLMAO....NOW Bush is responsible for overtime at the local factory?
Read for yourself then laugh.
I realize you have no clue what this article is referring to, so let
me try to clarify it for you. This applies to SALARIED JOBS. It does
NOT apply to the line worker, or any other HOURLY employee. There is
NO CHANGE to HOURLY overtime with this. NONE. If you are an HOURLY
employee you STILL get time and a half over 40 hours. Period.
I don't have the time, nor the patience to explain to YOU what governs
"overtime" for salaried employees. Just suffice to say that this
article is EXTREMELY misleading.
Fot those to whom it applies, it is a GOOD thing. The OLD rules pretty
much stated an employer could give you a salary, any salary, and that
was enough to PRECLUDE them from having to pay you overtime as long as
your job title conformed to their list. IE: As long as you had
"assistant manager" as part of your job title, they don't have to pay
you overtime, no matter how many hours you work....even if they were
paying you $10k/yr. and working you 100hrs/wk.
All of THAT said. GW Bush is NOT the "Dept. of labor". Despite what
your narrow mind may think, he has literally ZERO control over what
individual departments mandate. This wasn't a bill that went before
congress and required the Presidents signature, to my knowledge.
You need to check out that "ask an expert" section that appears on
mondays before you try questioning ME about labor laws.
New overtime rules are mostly bad news for employees
Q: I keep hearing about these supposed new rules for overtime pay and I am
confused. Are there new rules, and if so, what are they?
Adrian, Helena, Mont.
A: Yes, there are new rules that take effect this week, and any small
business owner with gross revenues over $500,000 reading this better know
what they are. In essence, the new regulations will make it more difficult
for many employees to get overtime pay.
Let me first say that while I (obviously) usually side with the
entrepreneur, this is one case where I favor labor; I think that with these
new regulations, the Bush administration is shortchanging a lot of working
people.
A little history is in order: The federal regulations that govern overtime
pay (the Fair Labor Standards Act) were certainly outdated. Most had not
been changed since shortly after World War II. Clearly much has changed in
the workplace since then and an overhaul of these regulations was needed.
So the U.S. Department of Labor set about updating who would, and would not,
be eligible for overtime. It was an issue of importance to many people.
Overtime pay serves two useful functions. First, it allows applicable
employees to supplement their income. According to an analysis by the
Economic Policy Institute, overtime pay accounts for up to 25% of weekly
earnings of eligible employees, with the average amount being $161.
Secondly, overtime pay serves a useful position in the overall economy. By
requiring overtime, the federal government crafts an incentive for busy
employers to create new jobs; rather than pay overtime, a new employee can
be brought on. So the old system helped in many ways.
But be that as it may, the rules have changed. Here then are the most
important rules you need to know:
First the good news for employees:
Rule 1: Almost all employees who make less than $455 a week ($23,660 a year)
are eligible for overtime. The old rule set overtime for anyone who made
less than $250 a week. The new rule applies whether the employee is blue
collar or white collar, or whether they supervise people of not. The
exception for this rule is teachers, doctors and lawyers. They do not get
overtime, no matter what they are paid.
Now the bad news:
Rule 2: Any employee who earns more than $100,000 a year is ineligible for
mandated overtime, period.
Rule 3: Any employee who earns between $23,660 and $100,000 a year, and who
is in most executive, professional, or administrative positions, is not
eligible for overtime. This does not, however, apply to salespeople. They
are still eligible.
Rule 4: Managers are not entitled to overtime if they oversee two or more
people and have the authority to hire, fire, or recommend that someone be
hired or fired.
Rule 5: Administrative employees who have decision-making power and run some
sort of operation are not eligible.
Rule 6: Employees whose job requires imagination, invention, originality, or
artistic or creative endeavors are not eligible for overtime.
Rule 7: Employees whose main duties are computer-related and involve the
implementation, analysis, development, or application of computer systems or
designs are also not eligible for overtime.
Rule 8: Sales staff that regularly work outside of the employer's place of
business are, you guessed it, not eligible either.
Today's tip: If you are still confused (not surprising, really), then here
are a few sites to help you:
. The Department of Labor -www.dol.gov/fairpay
. Society for Human Resource Management -www.shrm.org
. The AFL-CIO site: www.workingamerica.org.
Ask an Expert appears Mondays. You can e-mail Steve Strauss at:
sstrauss@mrallbiz.com. And you can click here to see previous columns.
Steven D. Strauss is a lawyer, author and speaker who specializes in small
business and entrepreneurship. His latest book is The Big Idea: How Business
Innovators Get Great Ideas to Market. You can sign up for his free
newsletter, "Small Business Success Secrets!" at his Web
site -www.mrallbiz.com.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JustForFun" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 09:31:53 PM |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2004 16:47:30 -0700, (Paul W) wrote:
"Kent" <Juliusmaybetheone@dallas.net> wrote in message news:<10ikrkh9u251b31@corp.supernews.com>...
"Spike" <spike@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:r1qki0piakspioqdao89kplm923s3jo0rf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
Um...please do cite where Bush suggested any such thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Washington Hayduke" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
27 Aug 2004 12:14:06 PM |
|
|
JustForFun <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2004 16:47:30 -0700, (Paul W) wrote:
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
Um...please do cite where Bush suggested any such thing.
Another FOX "News" victim expresses his Republinazi ignorance.
+--+
|George W. Bush is a deserter: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
|Fascist War Criminal to stand trial: http://www.PeopleJudgeBush.org
|Hezbollah endorses George W. Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/
|"You can take my gun when you pry it out of my child's cold dead fingers"
+--+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 09:34:22 PM |
|
|
JustForFun wrote:
On 26 Aug 2004 16:47:30 -0700, (Paul W) wrote:
"Kent" <Juliusmaybetheone@dallas.net> wrote in message news:<10ikrkh9u251b31@corp.supernews.com>...
"Spike" <spike@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:r1qki0piakspioqdao89kplm923s3jo0rf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
Um...please do cite where Bush suggested any such thing.
The Defense of Marriage Amendment ring a bell?
Miles "Constitutional Scholar" Long
.
|
|
|
| User: "JustForFun" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 10:38:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:34:22 -0500, Miles Long <Miles@home.net> wrote:
JustForFun wrote:
On 26 Aug 2004 16:47:30 -0700, (Paul W) wrote:
"Kent" <Juliusmaybetheone@dallas.net> wrote in message news:<10ikrkh9u251b31@corp.supernews.com>...
"Spike" <spike@spike.spike> wrote in message
news:r1qki0piakspioqdao89kplm923s3jo0rf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Aug 04 16:59:20 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
The fact that the President is now on the defensive over the war in
Iraq is both puzzling and ominous. The Democratic attack on the
credibility of the Commander-in-Chief
Someone hasn't read the constitution. Bush isn't the nation's C-in-C.
Are you arguing semantics or something?
Article II Section 2 of the US Constitution states:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States"
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Of the two candidates, only Bush is suggesting a change to the Constitution.
Um...please do cite where Bush suggested any such thing.
The Defense of Marriage Amendment ring a bell?
I'm well aware of what he was alluding to.
Now, again I ask, please cite where BUSH suggested any such thing.
Put up or shut up. You guys claim to hate that Bush "lied", yet you
lie ABOUT him unabashedly.
Please show me where BUSH suggested a constitutional amendment for
ANYTHING.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
27 Aug 2004 08:06:40 AM |
|
|
JustForFun wrote:
< snip >
Please show me where BUSH suggested a constitutional amendment for
ANYTHING.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17445
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/11/bush_to_back_a_change_in_constitution/
Now, show me where Kerry has suggested or endorsed any Constitutional
amendments.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "JustForFun" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
27 Aug 2004 09:02:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:06:40 -0500, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
JustForFun wrote:
< snip >
Please show me where BUSH suggested a constitutional amendment for
ANYTHING.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17445
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/11/bush_to_back_a_change_in_constitution/
Endorsing someone ELSES Idea is a far cry different than suggesting
it, himself. He has neither drafted, nor outlined any such bill. This
is nothing more than political rhetoric on a hot button issue in an
election year.
Now, show me where Kerry has suggested or endorsed any Constitutional
amendments.
I never made that claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
29 Aug 2004 05:02:12 PM |
|
|
JustForFun <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> writes:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:06:40 -0500, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
JustForFun wrote:
< snip >
Please show me where BUSH suggested a constitutional amendment for
ANYTHING.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17445
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/11/bush_to_back_a_change_in_constitution/
Endorsing someone ELSES Idea is a far cry different than suggesting
it, himself. He has neither drafted, nor outlined any such bill.
Gee, could that be because constitutional amendments don't
involve the executive branch?
Bush still supports writing discrimination into the constitution,
even though his office has nothing to do with passing constitutional
amendments.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul W" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
29 Aug 2004 03:02:41 AM |
|
|
JustForFun <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<pdfui0l3rbkct5r384h9k9engvqr167p6m@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:06:40 -0500, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
JustForFun wrote:
< snip >
Please show me where BUSH suggested a constitutional amendment for
ANYTHING.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17445
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/11/bush_to_back_a_change_in_constitution/
Endorsing someone ELSES Idea is a far cry different than suggesting
it, himself. He has neither drafted, nor outlined any such bill. This
is nothing more than political rhetoric on a hot button issue in an
election year.
Are you insane? President Bush has publicly stated that he's in favor
of ammending the Constitution. Who gives a flying ***** who suggested
it?
Now, show me where Kerry has suggested or endorsed any Constitutional
amendments.
I never made that claim.
This part of the thread started because some joker made the ridiculous
statement regarding Kerry changing the Constitution should he get
elected.
"He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it."
I, and others, simpily pointed out that Bush is the only candidate
who's talking about changing the Constitution. Do you get it now?
Paul W
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
25 Aug 2004 05:00:30 PM |
|
|
Kent wrote:
< snip >
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
an amendment, Kent.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 07:36:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
Kent wrote:
< snip >
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
an amendment, Kent.
What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "anybody-but-bush Anybody But" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 07:54:49 AM |
|
|
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:kajri011aphec17gkth5evccbgff2krenn@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
: <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
:
: >Kent wrote:
: >
: >< snip >
: >
: >> He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
: >
: >Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
: >an amendment, Kent.
:
: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
Legacy points to overshadow merit points in college admission. How else will the inbred
retarded children of the repugs be able to get into Ivy League schools without it. Come on
rightard you are really not that ignorant are you?
--
abb
www.airamericaradio.com
Creating more neocon assholes without creating more neocons.
Learn how to rip your favorite neocon a new one using today's current events.
--
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they
have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be
too much of a good thing."
-- Karl Rove
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 07:58:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:54:49 GMT, "anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But
Bu$h@YAHOO.com> puked:
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:kajri011aphec17gkth5evccbgff2krenn@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
: <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
:
: >Kent wrote:
: >
: >< snip >
: >
: >> He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
: >
: >Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
: >an amendment, Kent.
:
: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
Legacy points to overshadow merit points in college admission. How else will the inbred
retarded children of the repugs be able to get into Ivy League schools without it. Come on
rightard you are really not that ignorant are you?
What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "anybody-but-bush Anybody But" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 09:13:35 AM |
|
|
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:prmri09927jcod2h69bufo16jo024s677m@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:54:49 GMT, "anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But
: Bu$h@YAHOO.com> puked:
:
: >
: >"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
: >news:kajri011aphec17gkth5evccbgff2krenn@4ax.com...
: >: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
: >: <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
: >:
: >: >Kent wrote:
: >: >
: >: >< snip >
: >: >
: >: >> He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
: >: >
: >: >Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
: >: >an amendment, Kent.
: >:
: >: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
: >
: >Legacy points to overshadow merit points in college admission. How else will the inbred
: >retarded children of the repugs be able to get into Ivy League schools without it. Come on
: >rightard you are really not that ignorant are you?
: >
:
: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
How far have you gotten your head in your ***** rightie?
--
I'm sorry if I misread your intentions. It won't happen again.
......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'.~..../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\..
PLONK!
I will never read another of your words again!
abb
www.airamericaradio.com
Creating more neocon assholes without creating more neocons.
Learn how to rip your favorite neocon a new one using today's current events.
Footnote: The image of the Cheney family crest used by permission.
: --
: lab~rat >:-)
: Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 09:31:24 AM |
|
|
"anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But Bu$h@YAHOO.com> wrote in message
news:jemXc.13326$2L3.4481@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:prmri09927jcod2h69bufo16jo024s677m@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:54:49 GMT, "anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But
: Bu$h@YAHOO.com> puked:
:
: >
: >"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
: >news:kajri011aphec17gkth5evccbgff2krenn@4ax.com...
: >: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
: >: <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
: >:
: >: >Kent wrote:
: >: >
: >: >< snip >
: >: >
: >: >> He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
: >: >
: >: >Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution
with
: >: >an amendment, Kent.
: >:
: >: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
: >
: >Legacy points to overshadow merit points in college admission. How else
will the inbred
: >retarded children of the repugs be able to get into Ivy League schools
without it. Come on
: >rightard you are really not that ignorant are you?
: >
:
: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
How far have you gotten your head in your ***** rightie?
Speaking from you own personal experience...
http://img61.exs.cx/img61/3129/hua.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 11:34:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:13:35 GMT, "anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But
Bu$h@YAHOO.com> puked:
"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
news:prmri09927jcod2h69bufo16jo024s677m@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:54:49 GMT, "anybody-but-bush" <Anybody But
: Bu$h@YAHOO.com> puked:
:
: >
: >"lab~rat" <chase@cheese.net> wrote in message
: >news:kajri011aphec17gkth5evccbgff2krenn@4ax.com...
: >: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:30 -0500, Tukla Ratte
: >: <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> puked:
: >:
: >: >Kent wrote:
: >: >
: >: >< snip >
: >: >
: >: >> He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
: >: >
: >: >Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
: >: >an amendment, Kent.
: >:
: >: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
: >
: >Legacy points to overshadow merit points in college admission. How else will the inbred
: >retarded children of the repugs be able to get into Ivy League schools without it. Come on
: >rightard you are really not that ignorant are you?
: >
:
: What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
How far have you gotten your head in your ***** rightie?
Nice. Don't bother answering the question.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry Stabs America In The Back! Liberals Hate America! |
26 Aug 2004 01:20:20 PM |
|
|
He meant the constitution after Kerry re-writes it.
Um, it's *Bush* who wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution with
an amendment, Kent.
They BOTH are equally responsible for everything. Bush needs Kerry to
vote for things like war, patriot acts, constitutional amendments, and
Kerry needs Bush to sign those things.
It can't be done without the BOTH of them.
Kerry is already in the government and has the same record Bush has, a very
bad one.
Nader and Badnarik have NOT fucked us over like Bush and Kerry have already
done.
So what kind of idiot votes for the two that fucked us over, instead of the
two that have not?
What does Bush have to do with affirmative action?
Everything, if he and Kerry allow it to exist. It is government
endorsed racism and discrimination.
You can be sure Badnarik would never be for "affirmative action".
And note how things in the government are always the opposite of what they
are called!
"affirmative action" is really a NEGATIVE action.
"Patriot Act" is really very UNpatriotic.
"Liberating a country" is really DESTROYING a country.
Winning an election means losing the election by a few million votes.
Getting re-elected means hopefully being elected for the very first time.
Free country, means an evil dictatorship.
and on and on and on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
