Why would they bother with a Canadian target?
If you're a well organised motivated group you need the maximum positive publicity in the areas you represent,(the Arab middle east) and the maximum negative publicity in the places you are against.(The US, the UK.)
The US is very isolated and easy to protect, relatively speaking.
Overseas military property targets are relatively well defended and would need exceptional resources.
Soft US commercial interests in capital cities around the world are probaly the highest risk targets.
Blow enough of them up and overseas US companies will become commercially uninsurable.
Eventually the government has to underwrite any damages.
The IRA cottoned onto this after about 20 years.
Blow up some squaddies in Belfast and no-one in London gives a rats ass.
Blow up the financial centre in London and shut it down for days at a time, the financial losses are serious bucks, then a lot of important people get very pissed off because its them that's directly affected.
The present strategy seems to be to keep Iraq as unstable as possible and get the US out of the middle east.
So only the 'little people' are taking the pain at the moment.
Eventually they will evolve their strategy towards the big guys, and that means major commercial targets being blown to pieces.
[This message was edited by eek on February 14, 2004 at 06:57 AM.]
If you're a well organised motivated group you need the maximum positive publicity in the areas you represent,(the Arab middle east) and the maximum negative publicity in the places you are against.(The US, the UK.)
The US is very isolated and easy to protect, relatively speaking.
Overseas military property targets are relatively well defended and would need exceptional resources.
Soft US commercial interests in capital cities around the world are probaly the highest risk targets.
Blow enough of them up and overseas US companies will become commercially uninsurable.
Eventually the government has to underwrite any damages.
The IRA cottoned onto this after about 20 years.
Blow up some squaddies in Belfast and no-one in London gives a rats ass.
Blow up the financial centre in London and shut it down for days at a time, the financial losses are serious bucks, then a lot of important people get very pissed off because its them that's directly affected.
The present strategy seems to be to keep Iraq as unstable as possible and get the US out of the middle east.
So only the 'little people' are taking the pain at the moment.
Eventually they will evolve their strategy towards the big guys, and that means major commercial targets being blown to pieces.
[This message was edited by eek on February 14, 2004 at 06:57 AM.]
Good point eek. Who cares about the Canadiens anyway.They have an inflated sense of self-importance. However, without the USA to protect them they will be an easy Al Qaeda target.
If only they would have treated our honorable President George W. Bush with dignity and respect maybe we would have some inclination to come to their defense.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
If only they would have treated our honorable President George W. Bush with dignity and respect maybe we would have some inclination to come to their defense.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
I'll guarantee you right now it's not going to be a landslide for anyone. One way or another it's going to be a tight election again. The country is divided very tight. Your boy Rove knows it too, believe me. Unfortunately he's not as foolish as you.
It's not just liberals that are displeased with Bush. Many in his own party have grown weary. Increasingly the average Joe has become skeptical of who's interests Bush has in mind. Bush's only case with Average Joe is that he'll keep him safe but against war hero Kerry that argument will have limited efficacy. You can show pics of Jane Fonda all day long but that was long ago and Nam has been accepted as a bad war.
In large part, the election is going to be decided by Florida and Arizona. If Kerry reclaims those he slides into the oval office.
It's not just liberals that are displeased with Bush. Many in his own party have grown weary. Increasingly the average Joe has become skeptical of who's interests Bush has in mind. Bush's only case with Average Joe is that he'll keep him safe but against war hero Kerry that argument will have limited efficacy. You can show pics of Jane Fonda all day long but that was long ago and Nam has been accepted as a bad war.
In large part, the election is going to be decided by Florida and Arizona. If Kerry reclaims those he slides into the oval office.
Peaceful countries like Switzerland or all the Scandanavian countries have little/no defense, yet they are not subject to terrorist attacks because they are friendly.
The US is nothing more than a war nation with a war-based ecomony.
Just accept it and either support genocide or raly against it, but the excuses are getting tiresome.
The US is nothing more than a war nation with a war-based ecomony.
Just accept it and either support genocide or raly against it, but the excuses are getting tiresome.
KWALDER...R U KIDDING ME?!!??!?!....man, you need to check out this site and read some of the things this retard says.
www.dubyaspeak.com
"Now yous' CANT leave"
www.dubyaspeak.com
"Now yous' CANT leave"
Lander why don't you move there??...seriousley.
Will this country be like sweden if Kerry is elected?....hardly me boy he has taken more money from special intrest than any senator has over the last 15 years.
Its hard to imagine that of the 2 senators from Mass. that Ted kennedy is the more conservative.
Will this country be like sweden if Kerry is elected?....hardly me boy he has taken more money from special intrest than any senator has over the last 15 years.
Its hard to imagine that of the 2 senators from Mass. that Ted kennedy is the more conservative.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Long, that's some good family entertainment at that website. No wonder why they don't let Dubya speak unscripted very often. I can't wait to hear him debate again. It'll be a treasure trove if dubyaspeak. Gotta admit, we'll all miss it when he's defeated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats what they said about Al "Einstein" Gore.
Thats what they said about Al "Einstein" Gore.
Lander why don't you move there??...seriousley.
For one, I don't speak any of the languages in those regions, and unlike most of the "leaders" of America I will actually have to work 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week for a large part of my life.
My Grandfather is from Sweeden - he says it's a wonderful country.
Will this country be like sweden if Kerry is elected?....hardly me boy he has taken more money from special intrest than any senator has over the last 15 years.
No, we will not be like Sweeden for many many decades, if at all.
Its hard to imagine that of the 2 senators from Mass. that Ted kennedy is the more conservative.
I think Kerry's true stance is unknown - he likes to please everyone. I don't care for Kerry, but like I keep saying - it can't possibly get worse than Bush. I'll choose the lesser of the two evils.
For one, I don't speak any of the languages in those regions, and unlike most of the "leaders" of America I will actually have to work 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week for a large part of my life.
My Grandfather is from Sweeden - he says it's a wonderful country.
Will this country be like sweden if Kerry is elected?....hardly me boy he has taken more money from special intrest than any senator has over the last 15 years.
No, we will not be like Sweeden for many many decades, if at all.
Its hard to imagine that of the 2 senators from Mass. that Ted kennedy is the more conservative.
I think Kerry's true stance is unknown - he likes to please everyone. I don't care for Kerry, but like I keep saying - it can't possibly get worse than Bush. I'll choose the lesser of the two evils.
Dick Morris Article from The Hill.com.
Bush’s State of the Union message was historic failure
During Bill Clinton’s eight years in the White House, State of the Union speeches were the pillars that held up his presidency. His popularity would soar in the weeks after the speech and sag as the year unfolded, only to be revivified by another speech in January.
It is almost unbelievable that President Bush’s latest State of the Union message failed as miserably as it did, giving him no gain in the polls and failing to arrest his post-December slide. Bush’s aides blame the slippage on the Democratic primary race, with its candidates bashing Bush at every turn.
But Clinton’s State of the Union in 1996 was given amid a vigorous Republican primary in which the GOP attacked Clinton with vim and vigor. Yet he gained 10 points in job approval and seven in vote share against his GOP rival, then-Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, after his speech, points he never lost for the remainder of his presidency.
So why did Bush fail?
First, it was a man’s speech. With its swagger and emphasis on defense and military action, it widened the gender gap that is Bush’s bane. His emphasis on a manned mission to Mars further alienated women, who see education and healthcare as more pressing priorities than space travel and exploration.
Second, Bush made very few new proposals. It was a lazy State of the Union without the issue development and polling that should have preceded it. Perhaps Clinton’s speeches were so effective because he realized that his presidency was based on words. Bush has based his on actions and may not fully appreciate the need to explain and justify them.
Third, it is not the pounding by the Democratic candidates that cost Bush his December approval rating points, but the relaxation of the terrorist environment. With an orange threat level and the United States canceling flights from France and Great Britain, Americans felt endangered and, with terror as the top issue, they turned to Bush, as they have done since Sept. 11, 2001.
But now that the nation is more relaxed, terrorism has faded again as the key issue.
The most recent Fox News poll, taken this week, shows that the economy and healthcare both outrank terror as an issue and only 10 percent cite terrorism as the major issue facing the nation.
Bush has also failed to assume the posture of outrage and anger that he must in the face of obviously flawed intelligence data from the CIA and other agencies. Colin Powell seems more upset than Bush at this intelligence failure. The president cannot stand before the American people and keep his credibility unless he shows real anger at the deception or incompetence of those who led him astray with bad information.
He can and must continue to defend the invasion of Iraq as worth it. Most Americans agree that it was. But he needs to be the outraged consumer, instead of the shady provider, of intelligence information on weapons of mass destruction.
Bush is also imperiled by the early coalescing of the Democrats around Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. The lingering presence of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark in the Democratic field, long after they have ceased to have any viability, is stopping North Carolina Sen. John Edwards from emerging as the clear alternative to Kerry.
With Super Tuesday looming not far in the future, America may nominate a candidate without the race ever having become the one-on-one contest that usually eventuates. It’s like declaring a winner of the Forest Hills tennis tournament without having a final round — rather like a coaches’ poll naming the top NFL team rather than having a Super Bowl.
Kerry looks a lot stronger than he is right now. Mike Dukakis was strong too when he won the Democratic nomination in 1988 before America learned who he was. Kerry has a long way to go. He was, after all, Dukakis’ lieutenant governor, and he comes from what Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) calls the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
But Bush’s failure to convert his last State of the Union speech of his first term into points on the board must rank as one of the great failures of recent American politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Morris is the author of Off With Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks, and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media, and Business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush’s State of the Union message was historic failure
During Bill Clinton’s eight years in the White House, State of the Union speeches were the pillars that held up his presidency. His popularity would soar in the weeks after the speech and sag as the year unfolded, only to be revivified by another speech in January.
It is almost unbelievable that President Bush’s latest State of the Union message failed as miserably as it did, giving him no gain in the polls and failing to arrest his post-December slide. Bush’s aides blame the slippage on the Democratic primary race, with its candidates bashing Bush at every turn.
But Clinton’s State of the Union in 1996 was given amid a vigorous Republican primary in which the GOP attacked Clinton with vim and vigor. Yet he gained 10 points in job approval and seven in vote share against his GOP rival, then-Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, after his speech, points he never lost for the remainder of his presidency.
So why did Bush fail?
First, it was a man’s speech. With its swagger and emphasis on defense and military action, it widened the gender gap that is Bush’s bane. His emphasis on a manned mission to Mars further alienated women, who see education and healthcare as more pressing priorities than space travel and exploration.
Second, Bush made very few new proposals. It was a lazy State of the Union without the issue development and polling that should have preceded it. Perhaps Clinton’s speeches were so effective because he realized that his presidency was based on words. Bush has based his on actions and may not fully appreciate the need to explain and justify them.
Third, it is not the pounding by the Democratic candidates that cost Bush his December approval rating points, but the relaxation of the terrorist environment. With an orange threat level and the United States canceling flights from France and Great Britain, Americans felt endangered and, with terror as the top issue, they turned to Bush, as they have done since Sept. 11, 2001.
But now that the nation is more relaxed, terrorism has faded again as the key issue.
The most recent Fox News poll, taken this week, shows that the economy and healthcare both outrank terror as an issue and only 10 percent cite terrorism as the major issue facing the nation.
Bush has also failed to assume the posture of outrage and anger that he must in the face of obviously flawed intelligence data from the CIA and other agencies. Colin Powell seems more upset than Bush at this intelligence failure. The president cannot stand before the American people and keep his credibility unless he shows real anger at the deception or incompetence of those who led him astray with bad information.
He can and must continue to defend the invasion of Iraq as worth it. Most Americans agree that it was. But he needs to be the outraged consumer, instead of the shady provider, of intelligence information on weapons of mass destruction.
Bush is also imperiled by the early coalescing of the Democrats around Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. The lingering presence of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark in the Democratic field, long after they have ceased to have any viability, is stopping North Carolina Sen. John Edwards from emerging as the clear alternative to Kerry.
With Super Tuesday looming not far in the future, America may nominate a candidate without the race ever having become the one-on-one contest that usually eventuates. It’s like declaring a winner of the Forest Hills tennis tournament without having a final round — rather like a coaches’ poll naming the top NFL team rather than having a Super Bowl.
Kerry looks a lot stronger than he is right now. Mike Dukakis was strong too when he won the Democratic nomination in 1988 before America learned who he was. Kerry has a long way to go. He was, after all, Dukakis’ lieutenant governor, and he comes from what Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) calls the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
But Bush’s failure to convert his last State of the Union speech of his first term into points on the board must rank as one of the great failures of recent American politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Morris is the author of Off With Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks, and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media, and Business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kerry looks a lot stronger than he is right now. Mike Dukakis was strong too when he won the Democratic nomination in 1988 before America learned who he was. Kerry has a long way to go. He was, after all, Dukakis’ lieutenant governor, and he comes from what Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) calls the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anybody else see the parallel between Dukakis's position on Willie Horton and Kerry's position on Joseph Smith (Carlie Brucia Murderer)?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
kwalder, I know about Dukakis/Horton but what's Kerry's position on Joseph Smith? Can you link to that so I can read it -- that article doesn't mention it? Worse yet, why the heck would a Mass. senator running for Prez have a position on some random murder in Florida? None of his business really. I'd have to say shame on Kerry for raising the issue.
D2 - the point is that if Kerry had jurisdiction over this case, Smith would receive the same treatment as Willie Horton did while Kerry was Lt. Governor:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Willie Horton redux
Townhall ^ | 2.1.04 | Jay Bryant
Posted on 02/01/2004 12:37:12 PM PST by ambrose
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW
townhall.com
Willie Horton redux
Jay Bryant (back to web version) | Send
February 1, 2004
To the best of my knowledge, the Bush for President campaign is not short of cash, but if they are, I have a suggestion as to how they can save some money if John Kerry gets the Democratic nomination.
Instead of paying big bucks for fancy new commercials, they could just pull the old Willie Horton ad out of the 1988 archives and run it.
For those of you too young to remember that long-ago campaign, it featured Bush the Elder against Massachusetts Governor Michael "Tank Commander" Dukakis.
As Governor, Dukakis had instituted a prisoner work-release program whereby violent criminals were allowed to spend part of their sentence under sub-minimum security conditions. This was supposed to help the inmates get ready to go back into society, but what it mainly helped them do was escape. This did indeed put them back into society, but unfortunately, a number of them proved to be just a teensy-weensy bit short of fully adjusted. One guy, named Willie Horton, raped a woman in Maryland, and he became the poster boy for what a bad idea the program was.
Now Horton was a black man, so Dukakis and the Democrats screamed "racism" until they were blue in the face, conveniently ignoring the fact that the issue had first been raised by Dukakis' primary opponents, who were all Democrats.
In the primary, it wasn't racist, you understand. Democrats don't do racism, ever, ever. Not even former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd. Anyway, the voters saw through the Democrats' protestations, as well as the idiocy of the work release program, and decided Dukakis should do his societal adjustment somewhere other than in the White House.
John Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. And according to all available reports, he backed the work release program lock, stock and barrel. Except of course there weren't any locks ? that was the problem. There weren't any stocks, either, although that old time New England punishment might have been appropriate for some of the convicts, or perhaps even the politicians, like Dukakis and Kerry, who dreamed up the silly work release idea.
The barrel thing is what Kerry could be over as his party's nominee for President.
What Dukakis should have said in 1988 was this: "The work release program was a noble experiment, but it failed. I am asking the state legislature to repeal it, and I pledge never to institute such a program at the federal level if I am elected. My heart goes out to all the victims of the crimes committed and I want you to know that I have learned my lesson."
In politics, that's called the Third Defense, but Dukakis didn't offer it and to the best of my knowledge Kerry has never disowned the program either.
Their response was simply to cry "racism," which didn't work at all in 1988, but it did spook the 1992 Bush campaign, which was managed by an entirely different, and vastly inferior, cast of characters. They failed to run any effective negative commercials against Bill Clinton (Bill Clinton!) and got their hats handed to them as a consequence.
In the wake of Bob Dole's ineffective 1996 campaign, the joke around Republican circles was that he had run the worst presidential campaign in American history since 1992.
It has been widely reported that Bush the Younger was disgusted by the campaign run by the second-stringers in 1992 and vowed never to let it happen in his political career, a vow he has, to date, kept.
Nobody "likes" negative advertising, but there is a technical political term for a general election candidate who abjures it when his opponent does not: the term is "loser."
In mid-July of 1988, I remember attending a small Capitol Hill dinner party with some Republican members of Congress and a few of my fellow consultants. As we sat around the table, we were all required to predict the winner in November. At the time, Dukakis had a double-digit lead over Bush. (People forget that Bush's election that year was no cakewalk, although he ended up with a decisive victory due to the fabulous campaign engineered by Jim Baker, Lee Atwater, media guru Roger Ailes and others.)
As it happened, I was next-to-last to give my prediction. Up to that point, everyone had predicted that Dukakis would win. I said Bush.
Why? the group wanted to know.
I answered that while I hadn't seen any research, it was my belief that no one could rise to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics without having done things that ? in the hands of Roger Ailes ? would disqualify them for election to high office in the rest of the country.
The last person to respond was Ailes, who I presume had seen the research, and who smiled and said that Bush would win.
Like Dukakis, Kerry has risen to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Karl Rove's team resembles the 1988 group far more than that of 1992, and his boss regards 1992 as his anti-role model.
Given that the utterly unelectable Howard Dean appears to have descended to the Kucinich-Sharpton level of seriousness as a candidate, Republicans should now root for Kerry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>FOUR MORE YEARS!
Townhall ^ | 2.1.04 | Jay Bryant
Posted on 02/01/2004 12:37:12 PM PST by ambrose
QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | RIGHTPAGES | CHAT | WHAT'S NEW
townhall.com
Willie Horton redux
Jay Bryant (back to web version) | Send
February 1, 2004
To the best of my knowledge, the Bush for President campaign is not short of cash, but if they are, I have a suggestion as to how they can save some money if John Kerry gets the Democratic nomination.
Instead of paying big bucks for fancy new commercials, they could just pull the old Willie Horton ad out of the 1988 archives and run it.
For those of you too young to remember that long-ago campaign, it featured Bush the Elder against Massachusetts Governor Michael "Tank Commander" Dukakis.
As Governor, Dukakis had instituted a prisoner work-release program whereby violent criminals were allowed to spend part of their sentence under sub-minimum security conditions. This was supposed to help the inmates get ready to go back into society, but what it mainly helped them do was escape. This did indeed put them back into society, but unfortunately, a number of them proved to be just a teensy-weensy bit short of fully adjusted. One guy, named Willie Horton, raped a woman in Maryland, and he became the poster boy for what a bad idea the program was.
Now Horton was a black man, so Dukakis and the Democrats screamed "racism" until they were blue in the face, conveniently ignoring the fact that the issue had first been raised by Dukakis' primary opponents, who were all Democrats.
In the primary, it wasn't racist, you understand. Democrats don't do racism, ever, ever. Not even former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd. Anyway, the voters saw through the Democrats' protestations, as well as the idiocy of the work release program, and decided Dukakis should do his societal adjustment somewhere other than in the White House.
John Kerry was Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor. And according to all available reports, he backed the work release program lock, stock and barrel. Except of course there weren't any locks ? that was the problem. There weren't any stocks, either, although that old time New England punishment might have been appropriate for some of the convicts, or perhaps even the politicians, like Dukakis and Kerry, who dreamed up the silly work release idea.
The barrel thing is what Kerry could be over as his party's nominee for President.
What Dukakis should have said in 1988 was this: "The work release program was a noble experiment, but it failed. I am asking the state legislature to repeal it, and I pledge never to institute such a program at the federal level if I am elected. My heart goes out to all the victims of the crimes committed and I want you to know that I have learned my lesson."
In politics, that's called the Third Defense, but Dukakis didn't offer it and to the best of my knowledge Kerry has never disowned the program either.
Their response was simply to cry "racism," which didn't work at all in 1988, but it did spook the 1992 Bush campaign, which was managed by an entirely different, and vastly inferior, cast of characters. They failed to run any effective negative commercials against Bill Clinton (Bill Clinton!) and got their hats handed to them as a consequence.
In the wake of Bob Dole's ineffective 1996 campaign, the joke around Republican circles was that he had run the worst presidential campaign in American history since 1992.
It has been widely reported that Bush the Younger was disgusted by the campaign run by the second-stringers in 1992 and vowed never to let it happen in his political career, a vow he has, to date, kept.
Nobody "likes" negative advertising, but there is a technical political term for a general election candidate who abjures it when his opponent does not: the term is "loser."
In mid-July of 1988, I remember attending a small Capitol Hill dinner party with some Republican members of Congress and a few of my fellow consultants. As we sat around the table, we were all required to predict the winner in November. At the time, Dukakis had a double-digit lead over Bush. (People forget that Bush's election that year was no cakewalk, although he ended up with a decisive victory due to the fabulous campaign engineered by Jim Baker, Lee Atwater, media guru Roger Ailes and others.)
As it happened, I was next-to-last to give my prediction. Up to that point, everyone had predicted that Dukakis would win. I said Bush.
Why? the group wanted to know.
I answered that while I hadn't seen any research, it was my belief that no one could rise to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics without having done things that ? in the hands of Roger Ailes ? would disqualify them for election to high office in the rest of the country.
The last person to respond was Ailes, who I presume had seen the research, and who smiled and said that Bush would win.
Like Dukakis, Kerry has risen to the top in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Karl Rove's team resembles the 1988 group far more than that of 1992, and his boss regards 1992 as his anti-role model.
Given that the utterly unelectable Howard Dean appears to have descended to the Kucinich-Sharpton level of seriousness as a candidate, Republicans should now root for Kerry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>FOUR MORE YEARS!
kw, ummmmm...I'm speechless. Your last two statements are perhaps the most nonsensical things I've read on this forum -- and that's saying a lot. Let me get this straight. Since Kerry was Dukasis' Lt. Gov. while the Horton thing happened in 1988 then by inference his position is that an accused Florida murder in 2004 should be released on furlough?
Ummm sure, yeah, a lot of "paralell" there. My goodness.
Also kinda funny that article says "according to all available reports, he backed the work release program lock, stock and barrel". Uh, since it's the point of the article apparently why not quote one of those "available reports"? That article sounds like it was written a 4 year old.
Ummm sure, yeah, a lot of "paralell" there. My goodness.
Also kinda funny that article says "according to all available reports, he backed the work release program lock, stock and barrel". Uh, since it's the point of the article apparently why not quote one of those "available reports"? That article sounds like it was written a 4 year old.
D2 - doesn't sound like you're speechless to me, only witless. A murder is a murder whether it happened in 1988 in Massachussets or 2004 in Florida. Thank goodness when this garbage is convicted and sentenced, he will fry. If he were in Massachusetts during the Dukakis-Kerry
term, he would have been furloughed.
You're problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kerry's position on setting murderer's free is publicly known to be the same as that of Michael Dukakis.
Here's another source for your education:
“Kerry is . . . a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict
access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of
ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991 -- just what you
would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s
running mate . . . .” (David S. Broder, “Testing The ‘04 Waters,” The Washington Post, June 5, 2002)
FOUR MORE YEARS!
term, he would have been furloughed.
You're problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kerry's position on setting murderer's free is publicly known to be the same as that of Michael Dukakis.
Here's another source for your education:
“Kerry is . . . a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict
access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of
ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991 -- just what you
would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s
running mate . . . .” (David S. Broder, “Testing The ‘04 Waters,” The Washington Post, June 5, 2002)
FOUR MORE YEARS!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwalder:
D2 -
You're problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kerry's position on setting murderer's free is publicly known to be the same as that of Michael Dukakis.
FOUR MORE YEARS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, would you please link to something which shows that as fact? Not some article by a 4 year old which states it with no basis. In fact, Kerry put many murderers in jail for good when he was an AG. NOW that is a known FACT. It seems to me that you just pull stuff out yer azz.
D2 -
You're problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Kerry's position on setting murderer's free is publicly known to be the same as that of Michael Dukakis.
FOUR MORE YEARS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, would you please link to something which shows that as fact? Not some article by a 4 year old which states it with no basis. In fact, Kerry put many murderers in jail for good when he was an AG. NOW that is a known FACT. It seems to me that you just pull stuff out yer azz.
