Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Hahahaha! All the pro-Kerry sheep should take a look.

75th

ololollllolloolloloolllol
EF VIP
From the Washington Times.

Inside the Beltway


By John McCaslin

Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, you partisan sheep are all blind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdd
KerryWafflHouseO.jpg
 
I can't wait for the ridiculous counter they will come up with for this....
 
As many others, I am voting Kerry, and I believe if he wins he will be a mediocre present at best.

I am voting for him becuase he is running against Bush. If they pulled a bum out from under a bridge, cleaned him up a little and put him on the ballot, I would vote for him over Bush.
 
i think we should all get huge tattos of DEM or CON on our fore head so we can know who to hate.

think how cool we could make this. we could have the cons only were RED

and the dems only where BLUE

it could be just like the bloods and the crips and we could shoot one another over territory!

the NEO-CONS EVIL REPUBLICANS (pic)
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/1997/bloods10-28.jpg

the THE EVIL LEFTY LIBS DEMOCRATS (pic)
http://www.hiphop.de/de/img/crips_posse200.jpg


the voter gang map (pic)
http://www.jpso.com/wb-gang-23.gif

(both the democratic and republican parties contiue to rob your freedom and responcibilty in the name of freedom and protection)

how stupid
 
Last edited:
Shit 8 years ago don't qualify for laughing material.

go back.

try harder.
 
bigdollarallo said:
Stop with all the political bs, Bush will win, hands down, won't even be close, its sad that they are really the only two we can come up with to lead our fine country of sheep.


We are fat. We are ignorant. We are terrible drivers...what more can you say?
 
AAP said:
Shit 8 years ago don't qualify for laughing material.

go back.

try harder.


What about 40 years ago? Then enough with Bush's guard service.

Im just curious as to what happened between '97 and now that made Kerry believe we need the French, Russians, etc.
 
nice try 75th, but too many people don't want to hear the truth. Kerry was the most vocal democrat and one of the most vocal senators (if not THE MOST vocal) in regards to a conflict with Iraq before he ran for the Dem. nomination.

in fact, it wasn't until after one of his opponents (i believe Dean) had success criticizing the war that he truly adopted that stance.
 
Coverguy said:
nice try 75th, but too many people don't want to hear the truth. Kerry was the most vocal democrat and one of the most vocal senators (if not THE MOST vocal) in regards to a conflict with Iraq before he ran for the Dem. nomination.

in fact, it wasn't until after one of his opponents (i believe Dean) had success criticizing the war that he truly adopted that stance.
well, Bush was a coke head, so there you go.
 
SoreArms said:
well, Bush was a coke head, so there you go.

He did coke a few times in his past, therefore he is a coke head.

I have smoked marijuana about half a dozen times 6 years ago, therefore I am a pot head.

Nope, doesnt hold much water.

And I do very much love the way you guys succeed in sidestepping the entire issue. Bravo.
 
I just wish a canidate would come out and address the g.d illegal immigration problem, and the fact that each and every day we bow, cater and bend to them while we ENGLISH SPEAKING AMERICANS getting the shaff, fuck em all.
 
rnch said:
75th is longhorn's "minnie me"


Laughing out loud. Belly laugh. Loud enough to scare my wife.


:lmao:
 
75th said:
He did coke a few times in his past, therefore he is a coke head.

I have smoked marijuana about half a dozen times 6 years ago, therefore I am a pot head.

Nope, doesnt hold much water.

And I do very much love the way you guys succeed in sidestepping the entire issue. Bravo.

You suck one cock: your a cocksucker.

I would love to do some blow the prez.. if he pulls any of that Hosana 'I gots me religion' shit, I will toss the mirror and kick his teeth grinding ass.
 
This is no surprise... Kerry sucks Donkey balls and he has no shot on November 2nd.

I know I always seem to support Bush, but there are many things I don't care for in his administration (the Patriot Act sucks dick). But... taking home more of my own money and not being taxed to pay for some shitbags healthcare is better than the alternative.
 
I would like to see what context Kerry's comments
were made in. My guess is that his comments were
made regarding small scale military action against
Iraq by U.S. fighter jets in response to violations
of the no-fly zone.
 
75th said:
From the Washington Times.

Inside the Beltway


By John McCaslin

Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, you partisan sheep are all blind.
FOX News Channel senior White House correspondent Jim Angle repeated a misquote -- originally published in The Washington Times -- of statements that Senator John Kerry made during a 1997 appearance on CNN's Crossfire. At 4:09 p.m. (ET) on September 24, Media Matters for America first documented Washington Times columnist John McCaslin's misquote. Angle, filling in for Brit Hume as host of Special Report, repeated the false quotation just over two hours after MMFA posted the item to this website.

From the September 24 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: John Kerry continues to slam President Bush for invading Iraq preemptively without sufficient support from world allies. But New York Republican Congressman Peter King says Kerry took a different position on CNN's Crossfire in 1997. King says Kerry appeared with him on the show just after France and Russia watered down a U.N. resolution on Iraq. And that Kerry said, quote, "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take preemptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

Also on September 24, MMFA emailed a letter to Washington Times editor in chief Wesley Pruden requesting a correction. The newspaper published a correction in its September 25 edition (a correction appeared online at washingtontimes.com late in the evening on September 24).

In addition to misquoting Kerry, as MMFA pointed out, McCaslin's original Washington Times column falsely claimed that "no Crossfire transcripts from 1997 are available," even though those transcripts are available on the widely used Nexis research database.

According to the correction, the source of the false quotation was a press release from Representative Peter T. King (R-NY). In the correction, The Washington Times -- still not quoting the 1997 transcript, despite its ready availability -- simply reported what King said the transcript revealed. "The congressman said the transcript of the CNN program quotes Mr. Kerry as saying in reference to France and Russia: 'There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president [Bill Clinton] or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country.'" The Times' correction explained neither how King had found the transcript, which 24 hours earlier McCaslin had claimed was unavailable, nor why The Washington Times would trust the same source who had provided the phony quotation to provide an accurate correction. The Times concluded the correction with another attack by King on Kerry, this one based on the accurate quotation:

In a telephone interview over the weekend, Mr. King says this is not another case of Mr. Kerry simply changing his position.

"The fact is, he was strongly for the war, for searching for chemical and biological weapons, working against terrorists, and, basically, he's now denying he ever said that," Mr. King says. "This is not the basic flip-flop you hear from politicians. This is not John Kerry being careless in his views.

"He's going right to the guts of his position -- it's like Dr. Martin Luther King suddenly becoming a segregationist," Mr. King says. "He is not just changing his position, he is rewriting history on that position."
 
There should be outrage over such a blatent attack by the Washington Times and Fox News who are clearly non partisan and in fact suck republican cock.

Where is your dan ratheresque outrage for the truth?

Fucking conservative media bias!
 
75th said:
From the Washington Times.

Inside the Beltway


By John McCaslin

Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, you partisan sheep are all blind.

you know what man ? after this post i did a little research and i agree with you....both parties are crooked.....blindly following one or the other is wrong....i guess i sort of went over the edge with kerry...but in my head i see the dems and repubs as the 2 most powerfull political voices in america....we need more than 2...we need many voices....right now ,as in the past ...no matter what party you like or what canadate you support ...its either kerry or bush...thats it...thats all ....and thats why you get mad at me......you support niether.... i would get mad too...(thats not a slam...i agree with you) but right now we have 2 choices bush or kerry.... and with all the info ive read ...(kerry flip flops....bush is as stupid as a rock).... kerry has'nt sent troops into an unjustified/illegal war....is kerry capable of making that huge a mistake?....dont know...but bush didmake that mistake?..i was a troop...and i have a bias in this area as well...there is no excuse for that in my mind...whatever bushes motives, it was wrong. i also think that acheiving a MULTIPARTY SYSTEM IS EVER SO SLIGHTLY MORE PROBABLE UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION right now....that WOULD be a true democracy... and in my heart i know that would bring us that much closer to a multiparty system...anyway, im sorry for calling you moron. i was being close minded....but the end is the same...
 
AristotleBC said:
75th is pretty honest and not terribly partisan in my view

Thanks, thats true, but then again those with an IQ lower than 50 cant comprehend someone not being either a democrat or a republican.
 
MULTIPARTY SYSTEM IS EVER SO SLIGHTLY MORE PROBABLE UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION

that makes sense, especially knowing that kerry and his team are actively trying to keep out a third party candidate that is a threat to their party.
 
PERFECTWORLD said:
you know what man ? after this post i did a little research and i agree with you....both parties are crooked.....blindly following one or the other is wrong....i guess i sort of went over the edge with kerry...but in my head i see the dems and repubs as the 2 most powerfull political voices in america....we need more than 2...we need many voices....right now ,as in the past ...no matter what party you like or what canadate you support ...its either kerry or bush...thats it...thats all ....and thats why you get mad at me......you support niether.... i would get mad too...(thats not a slam...i agree with you) but right now we have 2 choices bush or kerry.... and with all the info ive read ...(kerry flip flops....bush is as stupid as a rock).... kerry has'nt sent troops into an unjustified/illegal war....is kerry capable of making that huge a mistake?....dont know...but bush didmake that mistake?..i was a troop...and i have a bias in this area as well...there is no excuse for that in my mind...whatever bushes motives, it was wrong. i also think that acheiving a MULTIPARTY SYSTEM IS EVER SO SLIGHTLY MORE PROBABLE UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION right now....that WOULD be a true democracy... and in my heart i know that would bring us that much closer to a multiparty system...anyway, im sorry for calling you moron. i was being close minded....but the end is the same...
Dude...The quote from the Washington Times is a lie.
 
WODIN said:
There should be outrage over such a blatent attack by the Washington Times and Fox News who are clearly non partisan and in fact suck republican cock.

Where is your dan ratheresque outrage for the truth?

Fucking conservative media bias!

well let me pull a dan rather.

although the qoute is wrong, the premise is true.







he's still a flip-flopper!!!
 
spongebob said:
well let me pull a dan rather.

although the qoute is wrong, the premise is true.







he's still a flip-flopper!!!
Dan Rather did say it was a mistake and he did issue an apology.

Where is the apology from Fox? Where is the apology from the Washington Times?

And to bring out that tired ass lie of being a flip flopper proves you drank the kool-aid.
 
WODIN said:
Dan Rather did say it was a mistake and he did issue an apology.

Where is the apology from Fox? Where is the apology from the Washington Times?

And to bring out that tired ass lie of being a flip flopper proves you drank the kool-aid.

i guess your not in a joking mood this morning? and lol at "lie".
 
Kerry flip-flops? What politician doesn't? Exhibit A...........

In 2000, Bush argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He's done both in Iraq.

He opposed a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

He opposed creation of an independent Sept. 11 commission, then supported it. He first refused to speak to its members, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him.

Bush argued for free trade, then imposed three-year tariffs on steel imports in 2002, only to withdraw them after 21 months.

Last month, he said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would.

A week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." But he told reporters six months later, "I truly am not that concerned about him." He did not mention bin Laden in his hour-long convention acceptance speech.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Bush keeps revising his Iraq war rationale: The need to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction until none were found; liberating the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator; fighting terrorists in Iraq not at home; spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Now it's a safer America and a safer world.


Bush has changed his positions on new Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, tobacco subsidies, the level of assistance to help combat AIDs in Africa, campaign finance overhaul and whether to negotiate with North Korean officials.

As for this post, I think Wodin has pointed out quite nicely that this is another partisan attack based on a half-truth or outright lie. Kind of like the big GOP one about Kerry voting to go to war and then against funding it. Looks bad on the surface until you dig a little and see that he voted FOR $60 billion in funding but against the larger amount as he and a number of others felt they didn't wish to hand President Bush a blank check. That seems to indicate.........gasp!........ support for the troops AND fiscal responsibility! Wow!

I'm not saying Kerry doesn't flip-flop, every politician in history, including and especially George W. Bush, does it to get elected. That said, Bush has led America into an unjust and ill-advised war, presided over a stagnant and sputtering economy, alienated the vast majority of the world community and American allies along with lying at every turn/never admitting his mistakes. He's been a terrible President and it's time to give someone else a chance to fuckup. The shitty part is you only have one other viable candidate. Vote him in and give him a shot, if he fucks up, vote his ass out in 4 years too. In the meantime, start working toward a real democracy where you have more than a 50-50 shot at picking the right person.
 
rushx79 said:
MULTIPARTY SYSTEM IS EVER SO SLIGHTLY MORE PROBABLE UNDER A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION

that makes sense, especially knowing that kerry and his team are actively trying to keep out a third party candidate that is a threat to their party.


because thats how the system works right now... if you dont vote for one of those 2 people the other will win ,right now.....thats how the game works....and a progressive aministration would be more likleyto listen to new ideas ......why is this so hard to understand ?...the republicans dont care what you want ,need or care about ..if its different from thier views(most republicans) and that is the truth and if you dont believe it i feel sorry for you . unless you make 500,00 dollars a year and are voting just for you wallet,in which case i would have no problem pulling the trigger .....
 
Top Bottom