NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 As I said Kerry disgraced the uniform 30 years ago and these guys are finishing the job. Just when our military is finally receiving some respect, these guys rip it down. If this was a DEM group the GOP would be talking treason and we all know it. How are they ripping the Military down? How? By taking Kerry to task for what he did after the war and his present day hypocrasy? Men like Kerry have done harm to the Military that didn't get fixed until the Persian Gulf War in 1991. I was in grade school when that was going on but one thing that really registered with me and that I still remember to this day was a ceremony held for returning soldiers that was televised. In the crowd there was a group of Vietnam Vets cheering on our boys and one of em held up a sign saying "Now we can come home too". The meaning of that sign is obvious. People like John Kerry, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and every other asshole who spat on or cursed or slandered or otherwise disrespected people who bled and died for America have no business being in charge of our military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaSoxFan Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 How are they ripping the Military down? How? By taking Kerry to task for what he did after the war and his present day hypocrasy? Men like Kerry have done harm to the Military that didn't get fixed until the Persian Gulf War in 1991. I was in grade school when that was going on but one thing that really registered with me and that I still remember to this day was a ceremony held for returning soldiers that was televised. In the crowd there was a group of Vietnam Vets cheering on our boys and one of em held up a sign saying "Now we can come home too". The meaning of that sign is obvious. People like John Kerry, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and every other asshole who spat on or cursed or slandered or otherwise disrespected people who bled and died for America have no business being in charge of our military. Agreed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 as you said, he serve his country, esp in the v-nam war. just b/c he served, does it mean that he can't voice his opinion on the war? You can't slander everyone who fought by calling them rapists and murderers in front of the UNITED STATES SENATE and then run on your war record. That is hypocrasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Not at all. It just makes him a hypocrate who will use whatever is popular at the time to further his political career. what make him different than any other politician? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 How are they ripping the Military down? How? By taking Kerry to task for what he did after the war and his present day hypocrasy? Men like Kerry have done harm to the Military that didn't get fixed until the Persian Gulf War in 1991. I was in grade school when that was going on but one thing that really registered with me and that I still remember to this day was a ceremony held for returning soldiers that was televised. In the crowd there was a group of Vietnam Vets cheering on our boys and one of em held up a sign saying "Now we can come home too". The meaning of that sign is obvious. People like John Kerry, "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and every other asshole who spat on or cursed or slandered or otherwise disrespected people who bled and died for America have no business being in charge of our military. They are ripping the military down by claiming a corrupt system that the military uses to award it's recognitions. Men like Kerry and National Guardsmen and men like MacNamara and student protestors and street executions and napalm and agent orange and Nixon and a war that was ultimately meaningless hurt. Putting our military men and women in harms way must be the last and final resort and for a worthwile purpose. You seemingly believe that we should just clam up and let man and women be used for whatever purpose a few leaders believe. Polls sagging, reelection in doubt? Let's invade some small country! Support our Troops everybody and cheer them to their deaths No Nuke I do not believe that. I believe we have the obligation as US citizens to be vigilent that our elected leaders are doing the right thing, that they are doing what we want them to do. The military isn't some prop, some disposable resource, renewable by offering another $500 signing bonus. I will not sit by and let any President send our young men and women into harms way wthout a damn good reason. So I will protest some wars, not out of disrespect, but our of respect for human life, especially those of US servicemen and women. Finally when they are injured, when they do something heroic I want them recognized and school children and adults alike to respect them. I do not want some idiots who weren't even at the event in question, ripping them down. Doesn't it seem interesting the guys in his boat say the medals were earned? Finally in regard to Viet Nam vets coming home and comparing it to other wars. First off this was the first war with tours and planned cycles out of country. Second there was no victory, no surrender from the enemy. When would you suggest we have the "victory" parades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 You can't slander everyone who fought by calling them rapists and murderers in front of the UNITED STATES SENATE and then run on your war record. That is hypocrasy. Or honesty. You can judge him on his record. Would it have been better for him to say the stuff he did back then didn't matter? How should Kerry have handled his military record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 good post and a well thought out idea. nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Or honesty. You can judge him on his record. Would it have been better for him to say the stuff he did back then didn't matter? How should Kerry have handled his military record? If I were him I would have remembered what I was involved in in 1971 and not made Vietnam the issue he did. He overplayed his hand big time and he opened up a can of worms big time. "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" Gimme a break. What he said about the Military back then does matter and if he wanted to make it right he should apologize for his remarks. Barring that he's gonna get savaged over this right up until Nov 2nd and rightly so. ( And they haven't even really scratched the surface on his Senate voting record ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 If I were him I would have remembered what I was involved in in 1971 and not made Vietnam the issue he did. He overplayed his hand big time and he opened up a can of worms big time. "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" Gimme a break. What he said about the Military back then does matter and if he wanted to make it right he should apologize for his remarks. Barring that he's gonna get savaged over this right up until Nov 2nd and rightly so. ( And they haven't even really scratched the surface on his Senate voting record ) And how far, long, and how often should the GOP go to discredit his military honors? Did you miss my post on the bottom of page 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 And how far, long, and how often should the GOP go to discredit his military honors? Did you miss my post on the bottom of page 1? What about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 And how far, long, and how often should the GOP go to discredit his military honors? Did you miss my post on the bottom of page 1? They have made a stink about some this guy saw this and that guy saw that regarding his medals but they need to hammer home the point about his post-war activity. That's where the points are to be scored and rightfully so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Stating the obvious-- It's pathetic that these two cheeba monkeys are banking their election hopes on military records from 30 years ago. I don't care if John Kerry wanted to throw his medals away in 1972 I don't care if Bush's daddy got him out of real military service. I care about the ridiculously huge deficit I care about what will happen with Social Security I care about the widening of the gap between the poor and the rich I care about how we continue to adapt to terrorist attacks and keep us safe I care about creating new jobs, and providing the necessary education to perform those jobs I care about the corporate gobbling-up of smaller businesses. The lack of time spent talking about the real stuff, when compared to the amount of time trying to spin crap from 3 decades ago is appalling. Reason #265 why I ain't procreating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 The GOP was passing out purple heart band aids. it was ONE delegate...he was from Iowa, or something. Don't look to the GOP to blame for this. That's why when GWB talks about regulating them, John Kerry was eerily quiet. GWB took it like a man, and john Kerry whinned about his uterin cramps. If this was a DEM group the GOP would be talking treason and we all know it. probably true, but with a 527 like moveon.org, they've already supplied us with ample treasonous acts QUOTE (israel4ever @ Sep 1 2004, 02:58 PM) I still say Kerry's military service, and Bush's lack thereof, should not be issues. We should be talking about REAL issues, like the economy, the environment, social services, civil rights, personal freedoms, etc. Bush doesn't want to discuss THE issues. Dead on, I4E. Problem is, neither does Kerry. See my sig. GWB signed the biggest medicare increase in history, we now spend more money than ever on education, and he's taken a stand no stem cells, building our military, abortions, stopping terrorists acts before they happen, and gay marriage. who's not answer questions? bush family is plain and simple a corrupt group and if you can't see it, then you are blind. my 20/20 vision must be failing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Stating the obvious-- It's pathetic that these two cheeba monkeys are banking their election hopes on military records from 30 years ago. I don't care if John Kerry wanted to throw his medals away in 1972 I don't care if Bush's daddy got him out of real military service. I care about the ridiculously huge deficit I care about what will happen with Social Security I care about the widening of the gap between the poor and the rich I care about how we continue to adapt to terrorist attacks and keep us safe I care about creating new jobs, and providing the necessary education to perform those jobs I care about the corporate gobbling-up of smaller businesses. The lack of time spent talking about the real stuff, when compared to the amount of time trying to spin crap from 3 decades ago is appalling. Reason #265 why I ain't procreating. Right on!!! I couldn't have said it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Connection Maybe they're just Swift Boat Vets for Smearing Kerry... Bush-Cheney campaign's web of connections: William L. Schachte Jr. - long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government. [1] George Herbert Walker Bush - Daddy Warbucks Bush calls charges 'compelling'. [2] Laura Bush - Stepford wife, Anti-Kerry Ads Not Unfair, Laura Bush Says. [3] Karl Rove - Bush's White House political director; longtime associate to Bob Perry; consultant to Hutchison; most senior advisor to Bush campaign. [4] Kenneth Cordier - Former Bush-Cheney campaign advisor - forced to resign after appearing in Swift Boat Veterans for Bush commercial. [5] Benjamin Ginsberg - Former general counsel to Bush-Cheney - resigned after it was discovered he was advising both Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans. [6] Harlan Crow - Bush Foundation trustee; [7] longtime friend of Bush family; longtime fundraiser for Bush family; donated at least $25,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush. On Board of American Enterprise Institute where Vice President Cheney's wife Lynn is "Fellow". [8] Bob Perry - Largest Republican donor in Texas; donated hundreds of thousands to Bush family campaigns; donated at least $200,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush; close colleague of Rove in Texas governor's race; longtime friend of John O'Neill. Kay Bailey Hutchison - Longtime friend of Spaeth; former client of Rove; current co-chair of Bush campaign John O'Neill - Longtime friend of Bob Perry; very close law firm connections to Bush as governor; close friend to Spaeth, former colleague to Spaeth's husband/Bush's 1994 running mate; front man for Swift Vets for Bush. Merrie Spaeth - Provided media consulting to Swift Boat Vets; longtime friend of Hutchison; longtime supporter of/donor to Bush campaign; provide debate prep for GHW Bush; met with and gave media training to current, top White House officials; close associate to John O'Neill; advised smear campaign on McCain in 2000. Tex Lezar - Late husband to Spaeth; former running mate with Bush in 1994; law partner to John O'Neill. Internet website lists Lezar on page with six tobacco whitecoats agents showing family tolerance for frauds. [9] Harriet O'Neill - Close associate to John O'Neill, Lezar & Wilson; Bush judicial nominee. Harriet's husband Jack was Jonh O'Neill's law partner. Margaret Wilson - Law partner with John O'Neill, Lezar; Bush administration official; former counsel to Governor Bush. [10] Bush-Cheney Campaign HQ Florida - Regional Bush HQ in battleground state; coordinated activities with Swift Boat Vets for Bush rally; rally forced to be cancelled. Minnesota RNC - Official Republican website in battleground state; coordinated linkage with Swift Boat website, providing direct link to Swift Boat commercial. DCI Group (Tech Central Station) - Political strategy firm with close connections to Bush campaign & Swift vets, employs LaCivita and Friancis. [11] Charles Francis - Longtime friend/supporter of Bush; works for political firm with close ties to both Bush campaign and Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita. Thomas J. Synhorst - Advisor to Bush campaign 2000; "major contracts" with Bush campaign 2004; works for firm with close ties to Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita at DCI; worked on anti-McCain phone banking in South Carolina in 2000. Chris Lacivita - Senior advisor to Swift Boat Vets for Bush; close ties to Bush campaign; associates with Synhorst & Friancis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I stole this from Jay Nordlinger from National Review. Link Kerry became a liberal darling by throwing his medals away; he is now trying to become president by re-pinning them to himself. This is difficult, when you refuse to engage in any attempt at reconciliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Republican Connection Maybe they're just Swift Boat Vets for Smearing Kerry... Bush-Cheney campaign's web of connections: William L. Schachte Jr. - long-standing supporter of President Bush and a lobbyist whose client FastShip Inc. recently won a $40 million grant from the federal government. [1] George Herbert Walker Bush - Daddy Warbucks Bush calls charges 'compelling'. [2] Laura Bush - Stepford wife, Anti-Kerry Ads Not Unfair, Laura Bush Says. [3] Karl Rove - Bush's White House political director; longtime associate to Bob Perry; consultant to Hutchison; most senior advisor to Bush campaign. [4] Kenneth Cordier - Former Bush-Cheney campaign advisor - forced to resign after appearing in Swift Boat Veterans for Bush commercial. [5] Benjamin Ginsberg - Former general counsel to Bush-Cheney - resigned after it was discovered he was advising both Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans. [6] Harlan Crow - Bush Foundation trustee; [7] longtime friend of Bush family; longtime fundraiser for Bush family; donated at least $25,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush. On Board of American Enterprise Institute where Vice President Cheney's wife Lynn is "Fellow". [8] Bob Perry - Largest Republican donor in Texas; donated hundreds of thousands to Bush family campaigns; donated at least $200,000 in seed money to the Swift Boat Vets for Bush; close colleague of Rove in Texas governor's race; longtime friend of John O'Neill. Kay Bailey Hutchison - Longtime friend of Spaeth; former client of Rove; current co-chair of Bush campaign John O'Neill - Longtime friend of Bob Perry; very close law firm connections to Bush as governor; close friend to Spaeth, former colleague to Spaeth's husband/Bush's 1994 running mate; front man for Swift Vets for Bush. Merrie Spaeth - Provided media consulting to Swift Boat Vets; longtime friend of Hutchison; longtime supporter of/donor to Bush campaign; provide debate prep for GHW Bush; met with and gave media training to current, top White House officials; close associate to John O'Neill; advised smear campaign on McCain in 2000. Tex Lezar - Late husband to Spaeth; former running mate with Bush in 1994; law partner to John O'Neill. Internet website lists Lezar on page with six tobacco whitecoats agents showing family tolerance for frauds. [9] Harriet O'Neill - Close associate to John O'Neill, Lezar & Wilson; Bush judicial nominee. Harriet's husband Jack was Jonh O'Neill's law partner. Margaret Wilson - Law partner with John O'Neill, Lezar; Bush administration official; former counsel to Governor Bush. [10] Bush-Cheney Campaign HQ Florida - Regional Bush HQ in battleground state; coordinated activities with Swift Boat Vets for Bush rally; rally forced to be cancelled. Minnesota RNC - Official Republican website in battleground state; coordinated linkage with Swift Boat website, providing direct link to Swift Boat commercial. DCI Group (Tech Central Station) - Political strategy firm with close connections to Bush campaign & Swift vets, employs LaCivita and Friancis. [11] Charles Francis - Longtime friend/supporter of Bush; works for political firm with close ties to both Bush campaign and Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita. Thomas J. Synhorst - Advisor to Bush campaign 2000; "major contracts" with Bush campaign 2004; works for firm with close ties to Swift Vets for Bush; colleague of Lacivita at DCI; worked on anti-McCain phone banking in South Carolina in 2000. Chris Lacivita - Senior advisor to Swift Boat Vets for Bush; close ties to Bush campaign; associates with Synhorst & Friancis. as opposed to John Kerry and his wife who attend and double check their schedules with the Moveon.org people? great, so the 527s are in bed with the candidates.... GWB is suing them so they have to stop... Kerry is just complaining that he should be the only one to be allowed to use them. pathetic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 it was ONE delegate...he was from Iowa, or something. Don't look to the GOP to blame for this. GWB took it like a man, and john Kerry whinned about his uterin cramps. probably true, but with a 527 like moveon.org, they've already supplied us with ample treasonous acts GWB signed the biggest medicare increase in history, we now spend more money than ever on education, and he's taken a stand no stem cells, building our military, abortions, stopping terrorists acts before they happen, and gay marriage. who's not answer questions? my 20/20 vision must be failing It was a delegate from Virginia. The GOP asked him to stop. The fact that people took them from him and it took over a day to stop his dumb ass shows a little something. Purple heart band-aids...that makes me sick to my f***ing stomach. Bush made a really interesting comment when asked about the SBV4T. "I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." Us...Us?...I thought Bush had nothing to do with it. Treasonous activities from Moveon.org? WTF? And don't even go for the 2 contributions that were taken offline and never considered for winning the Bush in 30 Seconds contest because that was independent people sending them in to Moveon much like the independent dumbass from VA was handing out Purple Heart band-aids. The Medicare increase is actually opposed by most elderly organizations because it is a "poison pill". From the Boston Globe: The first provides a much-needed, if modest and excessively complex, drug benefit. But while this new benefit is generous for some low-income seniors, it will end up raising out-of-pocket drug costs for other poor beneficiaries. And because it is poorly designed and does not include effective ways of controlling drug costs, the plan will ultimatelyleave most seniors little better off than they are today, and some worse off. The second, darker side of the new Medicare bill is a slew of changes that have little or nothing to do with drug coverage and everything to do with special-interest demands and ideological animus toward Medicare. These include huge new subsidies for private insurers, and provisions that ensure that drug companies will be spared from their greatest fear: that Medicare will use its massive buying power to demand reductions in drug prices. Perhaps most ominous, the bill also contains elements that favor private plans and risk further degeneration of Medicare's all-in-the-same-boat structure. Six sizable "demonstration projects" are intended to introduce greater competition into Medicare; they will also likely raise costs for seniors who remain in the traditional program. What is most striking about the bill is not the consistency of its vision, but its deep incoherence. In the name of greater free-market competition, the legislation offers massive new subsidies to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In the name of providing greater protection, it threatens Medicare's guarantee of universal benefits. (Indeed, it even provides more than $6 billion to support Health Savings Accounts outside of Medicare, risking the fragmentation of the broader insurance risk pool.) And in the name of greater cost containment, it encourages the expansion of private plans that have, to date, not saved Medicare money, while creating new budgetary rules that could very well make Medicare less equitable and affordable down the road. Stem cells, abortion and gay marriage are 3 issues the government should have no stance on. What a woman does with her body and peoples' personal lifestyles that are not harming others are not meant to be legislated by government. I remember a party that used to be for less involvement of government in peoples' lives. What was the name -- oh yeah, the Republican party. As for education, he increased funding but when you look at the details of NCLB, you find that he drastically UNDERFUNDED his NCLB plan for education. So schools are still in the s***ter and worse off now because they are under the harsh federal mandates with not enough cash to meet them. And from the looks of it, your 20/20 vision does seem to be failing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 MoveOn made no bones about it that they were anti-Bush. However, in the TV ads that were considered for airing in the finals, all the things they said about Bush were true unlike the numerous lies that the Not So Swift Boat Vets have been caught in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 It was a delegate from Virginia. The GOP asked him to stop. The fact that people took them from him and it took over a day to stop his dumb ass shows a little something. Purple heart band-aids...that makes me sick to my f***ing stomach. Bush made a really interesting comment when asked about the SBV4T. "I can understand why Senator Kerry is upset with us. I wasn't so pleased with the ads that were run about me. And my call is get rid of them all, now." Us...Us?...I thought Bush had nothing to do with it. Treasonous activities from Moveon.org? WTF? And don't even go for the 2 contributions that were taken offline and never considered for winning the Bush in 30 Seconds contest because that was independent people sending them in to Moveon much like the independent dumbass from VA was handing out Purple Heart band-aids. The Medicare increase is actually opposed by most elderly organizations because it is a "poison pill". From the Boston Globe: The first provides a much-needed, if modest and excessively complex, drug benefit. But while this new benefit is generous for some low-income seniors, it will end up raising out-of-pocket drug costs for other poor beneficiaries. And because it is poorly designed and does not include effective ways of controlling drug costs, the plan will ultimatelyleave most seniors little better off than they are today, and some worse off. And from the looks of it, your 20/20 vision does seem to be failing. So is your vision, or is it selective vision. AARP endorsed the bill despite criticism from some seniors that had no idea what was in the bill in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Other organizations for seniors that have millions of members like ones that can be seen here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104187,00.html analyzed the bill with their legal teams also and found a lot of the negative points of the bill that have been brought out. There's more than just the AARP representing seniors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 MoveOn made no bones about it that they were anti-Bush. However, in the TV ads that were considered for airing in the finals, all the things they said about Bush were true unlike the numerous lies that the Not So Swift Boat Vets have been caught in. Like killing 6 million Jews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 MoveOn made no bones about it that they were anti-Bush. However, in the TV ads that were considered for airing in the finals, all the things they said about Bush were true unlike the numerous lies that the Not So Swift Boat Vets have been caught in. It's pretty hard to lie when you are quoting the man himself as in the latest ad. Also does that absolve them from guilt for slandering Bush by falsely accusing him of being a cocaine user? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 SS2K4, notice the semantics I used. -- considered in the finals. The Bush/Hitler ads were removed and not considered at all. Nuke, they've lost all credibility being busted in lies in the previous ads. Plus the quotes they use are from testimonies that he got from other people (they did an excellent job of cutting out the context and making it look very biased) As for the cocaine usage, MoveOn wasn't the one who broke that claim...biographer JH Hatfield looked into everything about Bush. His book is really interesting and really paints Bush in a human light (especially his childhood) From Salon.com: But Hatfield quotes "a high-ranking advisor to Bush" who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in Houston in 1972, and had the record expunged by a judge who was "a fellow Republican and elected official" who helped Bush get off "with a little community service at a minority youth center instead of having to pick cotton on a Texas prison farm." Hatfield quotes a former Yale classmate who told him: "George W. was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972, but due to his father's connections, the entire record was expunged by a state judge whom the older Bush helped get elected. It was one of those 'behind closed doors in the judges' chambers' kind of thing between the old man and one of his Texas cronies who owed him a favor ... There's only a handful of us that know the truth." Another source named only as "a longtime Bush friend" described the situation this way: "Say you get a D in algebra ... and now you're going to be required to repeat the class the following year, but your teacher says if you promise to be tutored during the summer by a friend of hers who's good in math, she'll change the D to a C. You spend a few hours a week during the summer vacation learning all about arithmetical operations and relationships, and then the teacher issues you a new report card, replacing the old one on file in the principal's office ... Something akin to that scenario is what happened with Bush in 1972." Hatfield also says that when he asked Scott McClellan to comment on the allegation of a former Yale classmate of Bush's that the presidential hopeful was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972 and had his record expunged in exchange for community service at Project P.U.L.L., the Bush campaign spokesman said, sotto voce, "Oh, s***," followed by, "No comment." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Stem cells, abortion and gay marriage are 3 issues the government should have no stance on. yeah, just let 'em have free reign, I mean, I'm sure they'll figure it all out by themselves, you know self regulation, etc. great idea sideshow.... What a woman does with her body and peoples' personal lifestyles that are not harming others except when it IS harming the...oh yeah, BABY There are people in the nation that want to take the word "responsibility" and deficate all over it. Sack up, people... your decisions aren't as easy as "well it doesn't harm others". *patooey* BS to all that crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.