Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
John Kerry speaking at a Martin Luther King day celebration in Virginia last year said, quote, "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence. When the news reports brought home to me and my crew mates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King." That date, of Dr. King's death, was April 4, 1968. According to kerry's website, it was not until November 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.

In fairness, he was patrolling offshore of VN at that time, so, in a weenie way, I think he gets a pass on this - he was technically in-theater.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This may explain Cambodia. Looks like JFK2 has an Al Gore problem:

I'd say it's more of a Ronald Reagan problem -- you know, kind of like telling the prime minister of Israel about how he was able to liberate the concentration camps in Europe from his stint in the Army training film studios in Hollywood.

edited to add cite -- from: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...ity-index.html

The Liberator.
In November 1983, Reagan told visiting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he had served as a photographer in a U.S. Army unit assigned to film Nazi death camps. He repeated the story to Simon Wiesenthal the following February. Reagan never visited or filmed a concentration camp; he spent World War II in Hollywood, making training films with the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Edited to add: Is this the poll that Balt Associate doesn't want you to see? Keep talking about the married gap boys, your world is slipping away. While you are at it, why don't you see who drug dealers, pimps, crack-whores and welfare queens support? The gap is even bigger there.

WTF? I just thought the story was interesting. It doesn't draw any conclusions over to whose advantage all that works out to be - it just reports that married women are more likely to vote for Bush, and delves into the likely sociological reasons why.

Nice of you to equate single women to crack-whores and welfare queens, though.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Nice of you to equate single women to crack-whores and welfare queens, though.

Damn, my secret is out.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

Having watching John F. Personality on Stewart last night, its no wonder this dullard won't discuss policy - or anything for that matter. Vietnam was probably the only interesting thing he's done in the last 40 years, other than marrying Zsa Zsa.

That's odd. I watched the same show and I saw him talking policy. Maybe they have parallel channels for different political viewpoints.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
WTF? I just thought the story was interesting. It doesn't draw any conclusions over to whose advantage all that works out to be - it just reports that married women are more likely to vote for Bush, and delves into the likely sociological reasons why.

Nice of you to equate single women to crack-whores and welfare queens, though.

And it is interesting, I'm just using hyperbole to deliver the news. Oops, I guess the secret of politics boards everywhere is out, dammit. Sorry everyone else.

Anyhoo, all Kerry needed was someone to teach him to smile wide and throw out non-sequiters. How hard is that?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's odd. I watched the same show and I saw him talking policy..

Was he talking about his policy of manufacturing and fabricating "accomplishments" in order to create a faux record of leadership to use as a platform for his blatant attempt at a socialist coup or his policy of only marrying rich ugly women in order to fund his political aspirations?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And it is interesting, I'm just using hyperbole to deliver the news. Oops, I guess the secret of politics boards everywhere is out, dammit. Sorry everyone else.

Anyhoo, all Kerry needed was someone to teach him to smile wide and throw out non-sequiters. How hard is that?

Not as hard as finding someone who can teach him how not to throw balls like a girl. No offence.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Return of the Sarge
the original claim was the last 3 years. I'm no mathmatician, but seems to me that would rule out 2000.

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Just so we're clear then, was the original claim basically "Not including John Kerry in the present election, and all other candidates from previous presidential elections, name one candidate that the GOP has ever smeared?"

What soup said. If 2000 is such fucking ancient history that you can't be bothered to deal with it, then I can finally start to understand how you believe that the Bushies don't smear.

(Well, I still can't, but I can imagine how it makes the belief easier.)

Sarge
Clarke is an intersting case. Based on what I read, he had it coming, given that what he wrote in his book and what he said publicly, both in the commission and to the press, were at odds with what he told the committee behind closed doors, and committee records are on record attesting to this.

That justifies a comparison of what he said then and now, not GWB's press secretary declaring that the book is Clarke's "American Bandstand" and the endless parade of Bush Administration officials onto the Sunday talk shows with the "out of the loop" stuff.

He "had it coming"? Jesus, Club.

Please. Ask Linda Tripp and her family about this. Ask Ken Starr. Ask Newt Gingrich. Ask Juanita Broderick. Ask Kathleen Wilely. Ask Jennifer Flowers. Ask . . .

Is this recitation coupled with the rubbing of prayer beads? I want to make sure I'm getting it right.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, it was "The GOP has honed this [smearing] to a fine art over the last three years."

Just so we are clear, I am not the only one with access to the prior posts.

Congratulations.

Is "well, it was just over three years. I win! Woo hoo!" your real answer to this?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Time to stand up and show true support for the team boys: Marry a spinster for Bush.

Well, what if they just fucked them? Would they get credit for that?

(Hat trick!)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Was he talking about his policy of manufacturing and fabricating "accomplishments" in order to create a faux record of leadership to use as a platform for his blatant attempt at a socialist coup or his policy of only marrying rich ugly women in order to fund his political aspirations?

No, he was talking about his policy of creating jobs for all the people thrown out of work by Dim Son's hack job on the economy and correcting the egregious assfuck of the Shrub tax cuts for the trust fund set.


eta: Dim Son. I like that even more than I thought I would. I think I may just have to go full time with it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, what if they just fucked them? Would they get credit for that?

(Hat trick!)

How could that count? There is no fucking after marriage, so getting laid does not correlate with voting for Bush.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
No, he was talking about his policy of creating jobs for all the people thrown out of work by Dim Son's hack job on the economy and correcting the egregious assfuck of the Shrub tax cuts for the trust fund set.

The death tax!?!? Oh, woe be it for the family farmer if Kerry is elected.

Originally posted by taxwonk



eta: Dim Son. I like that even more than I thought I would. I think I may just have to go full time with it.

Ha! Yeah, G.O! I think I may go with the Mr. Tootsie nickname for Kerry:

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Dim Son. I like that even more than I thought I would. I think I may just have to go full time with it.

You need to decide if he's diabolically clever, or stoopid. This flip-flopping is just confusing.