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

Prediction: Dan Rather will resign from CBS

Longhorn85 said:
Bush is a republican's republican.

In my book, anyone who would rather see a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-defense, pro UN candidate who has ALREADY promised to raise taxes and has the NUMBER ONE liberal voting record over the last two decade in office is not a republican no matter what he thinks.


No. Bush is an idiot. An underachieving idiot failure.

Bush Sr. = Failure.
Bush Jr. = Failure squared.

Just because you have your head up Bush's ass so far you can't see sunlight unless he yawns, that is just stupid of you. Are you saying no one can be a Republican unless they think exactly like a no-minded bush clone (you)?

I guess that makes Arnold a Democrat then.
 
AAP said:
No. Bush is an idiot. An underachieving idiot failure.

Bush Sr. = Failure.
Bush Jr. = Failure squared.

Just because you have your head up Bush's ass so far you can't see sunlight unless he yawns, that is just stupid of you. Are you saying no one can be a Republican unless they think exactly like a no-minded bush clone (you)?

I guess that makes Arnold a Democrat then.

The emporer has great new cloths... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Longhorn85 said:
Bush is a republican's republican.

In my book, anyone who would rather see a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-defense, pro UN candidate who has ALREADY promised to raise taxes and has the NUMBER ONE liberal voting record over the last two decade in office is not a republican no matter what he thinks.

Where do you get this misquided info that Kerry is anti-defense??? Before you answer that DO NOT include:

1. He's vote "against funds for the troops". Its a given fact he was voting against a provision that gave IRAQ an outright grant of billions of dollars. Kerry wanted part of it to be a loan..It just so happens that the provision was part of a larger Iraq spending package...

2. His vote "against" funding additional B-2's, Cruise missiles, CIA funds, etc, etc....I can pull up plenty of records showing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr trying to kill big ticket weapon systems too...(including the B-2).
 
hooch said:
2. His vote "against" funding additional B-2's, Cruise missiles, CIA funds, etc, etc....I can pull up plenty of records showing Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr trying to kill big ticket weapon systems too...(including the B-2).

Bingo. And I'll take you up on that offer to demonstrate that Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld have anti-defense voting records that compare to Kerry.
 
75th said:
What about a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun control, pro-defense, anti-UN guy who wants to lower taxes. Does this person fit into your black/white standards, or will the mere fact that a person like this exists throw the space-time continuum into distress and end all humanity?

Is this a hypothetical? Because my description above is not. It describes the man who would be president, John Kerry. A pro-abortion "Catholic" with the #1 liberal voting record in the US Senate over the last 20 years who has already pledged to raise taxes and can't articulate what actions he would take as commander in chief other than he would not make a move without Kofi Annan's permission.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Is this a hypothetical? Because my description above is not. It describes the man who would be president, John Kerry. A pro-abortion "Catholic" with the #1 liberal voting record in the US Senate over the last 20 years who has already pledged to raise taxes and can't articulate what actions he would take as commander in chief other than he would not make a move without Kofi Annan's permission.


Longhorn, what 75th is demonstrating to you is that not every Republican agrees 100% with every stance the R party takes. Someone CAN be a Republican and not agree completely with the party. You seem to have a hard time understanding that, but it's more common than you think it is. I am one for example.
 
Thanks for the assist, but I know exactly what he was doing. The bottom line is we have a choice today between John Kerry who fits the actual, not hypothetical, description above, vs republican George Bush.

For any true republican it is a no-brainer.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Thanks for the assist, but I know exactly what he was doing. The bottom line is we have a choice today between John Kerry who fits the actual, not hypothetical, description above, vs republican George Bush.

For any true republican it is a no-brainer.

For any SHEEP republican maybe. He barely won the last election with the electorate, and that with extreme controversy. He lost by popular vote, which doesn't count in electorate terms. It's not exactly a resounding call for him as president.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Is this a hypothetical? Because my description above is not. It describes the man who would be president, John Kerry. A pro-abortion "Catholic" with the #1 liberal voting record in the US Senate over the last 20 years who has already pledged to raise taxes and can't articulate what actions he would take as commander in chief other than he would not make a move without Kofi Annan's permission.

As I said, for a lot of people (yourself included) it is only black and white. What would you call a person who fit the description I posted? Confused?
 
I guess that makes Arnold, Rudy, McCain, and Cheney himself all liberals as they don't support the silly "bush doctrine" 100%.
 
Where does that leave Collin Powell?

Embarrassed, humiliated to have told BS to the entire world and not attending the RNC convention.
 
AAP said:
I guess that makes Arnold, Rudy, McCain, and Cheney himself all liberals as they don't support the silly "bush doctrine" 100%.

Are you sure about Cheney? He's PNAC through and through.
 
Mr. dB said:
Are you sure about Cheney? He's PNAC through and through.


He already publically disagreed with georgie on the FMA. If you disagree with ANYTHING by georgie, you are not a republ.
 
NYTimes

"After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night."

Poor Dan

"We may see Michael Jackson's baby before we know the final outcome of this race for the House of Representatives tonight."

Dan Rather
 
75th said:
As I said, for a lot of people (yourself included) it is only black and white. What would you call a person who fit the description I posted? Confused?

No, not confused. If you watched the RNC you saw many republicans with varying views. Much more so than at the DNC, where varying views are not tolerated.

All of those varying views you saw at the RNC had one thing in common: they support the republican President.

My point with you and others here is that republicans prefer Bush over Kerry even if they don't see eye to eye on each issue.
 
A Powell presidency would be much more moderate and a great relief from the unilateralist course of the Bush administration.

But do you really believe that the GOP would ever nominate him?
 
AAP said:
As if Powell would run under the GOP banner. HA!

Let's see. He has been a part of the Reagan, GHW Bush and Bush administrations. He is a top cabinet member of the current one. I don't think he is hiding the fact that he is a republican. I know it is difficult for you and other liberals to swallow.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Let's see. He has been a part of the Reagan, GHW Bush and Bush administrations. He is a top cabinet member of the current one. I don't think he is hiding the fact that he is a republican. I know it is difficult for you and other liberals to swallow.


Wrong. Why would I find it difficult?

For someone in office, he certainly doesn't support the party with his prescence. Rather than spin it to say I claimed he wasn't a repub, stick with the original statement, that he will never run under the GOP banner.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Why wouldn't he? Are you saying he is not really a republican?


Why WOULD he?

Are you saying he is happy with his party? Where's his support?
 
Longhorn85 said:
His support is that he is doing his job as SecState. None of the cabinet is involved in campaigning.


Of course not... because they wouldn't That is why bush was stuck with the sad case of using mostly liberal voting republicans.. haha.. something you say isn't a true repub. The people campaigning for bush are not even as far right as he is. what you fail to realize is that they are not campaigning for bush, but for the party.

bush = loser
 
Longhorn85 said:
What's wrong with that? That's the way it should be.


didn't you claim if you didn't vote for bush, you were not a republican?
 
Longhorn85 said:
I said I don't see how a republican could possibly support Kerry over Bush.


Why don't you tell me? Your words were unless someone agreed 100% with Bush, they couldn't possibly be a Republican. (you directed these at SSS and another registered repub who wasn't voting bush) And if they were a repub, then they would vote bush.

Got a spin for those statements?
 
Longhorn85 said:
I expressed doubt that a genuine republican could support Kerry over Bush.


Nope you expressed doubt that a genuine republican would have no less than the same 100% views of bushie. Going by your statement, that would make Arnold, Rudy, McCaine, Powell, and Cheney himself liberals.

Of course after SSS and the other person (can't remember, it was your thread go look it up) showed it wasn't that way, you backpedaled. Then questioning whether these two registered republicans were in fact, republicans.

Face it, the GOP has registered members that are sick of bushie too. When your own party is voting against you.... ugghhhh!
 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

war stories
John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT



Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.


The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A22260-2004Feb7&notFound=true


"Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate includes thousands of votes, floor statements and debates, committee hearings and news conferences. That long paper trail shows that, on most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans and a 1996 federal law designed to discourage same-sex marriages."
 
hooch said:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/

war stories
John Kerry's Defense Defense
Setting his voting record straight.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT



Before George W. Bush's political operatives started pounding on John Kerry for voting against certain weapons systems during his years in the Senate, they should have taken a look at this quotation:

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

The speaker was President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

They should also have looked up some testimony by Dick Cheney, the first President Bush's secretary of defense (and now vice president), three days later, boasting of similar slashings before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

Cheney proceeded to lay into the then-Democratically controlled Congress for refusing to cut more weapons systems.

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.


The Republican operatives might also have noticed Gen. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, testifying about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft carriers by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of "major reductions" in fighter wings and strategic bombers.

Granted, these reductions were made in the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution and the Cold War's demise. But that's just the point: Proposed cuts must be examined in context. A vote against a particular weapons system doesn't necessarily indicate indifference toward national defense.

Looking at the weapons that the RNC says Kerry voted to cut, a good case could be made, certainly at the time, that some of them (the B-2 bomber and President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile-defense program) should have been cut. As for the others (the M-1 tank and the F-14, F-15, and F-16 fighter planes, among others), Kerry didn't really vote to cut them.

The claim about these votes was made in the Republican National Committee "Research Briefing" of Feb. 22. The report lists 13 weapons systems that Kerry voted to cut—the ones cited above, as well as Patriot air-defense missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and AH64 Apache helicopters, among others.

It is instructive, however, to look at the footnotes. Almost all of them cite Kerry's vote on Senate bill S. 3189 (CQ Vote No. 273) on Oct. 15, 1990. Do a Google search, and you will learn that S. 3189 was the Fiscal Year 1991 Defense Appropriations Act, and CQ Vote No. 273 was a vote on the entire bill. There was no vote on those weapons systems specifically.

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq—but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.

The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.

In the latest war, B-2s—modified to carry conventional munitions—were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars—the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions—there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.

The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.

Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.

At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

Are there votes in Kerry's 20-year record as a senator that might look embarrassing in retrospect? Probably. But these are not the ones.

booyah
 
Longhorn85 said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A22260-2004Feb7&notFound=true


"Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate includes thousands of votes, floor statements and debates, committee hearings and news conferences. That long paper trail shows that, on most issues, Kerry built a solidly liberal record, including support for abortion rights, gun control and environmental protection, and opposition to costly weapons programs, tax cuts for wealthy Americans and a 1996 federal law designed to discourage same-sex marriages."


Typical repub. only has to talk about the opponent rather than their own platform and issues. Oh wait.... bushie can't run on issues can he? Because he failed all of them.
 
The Nature Boy said:
7 more days and it'll be a month. Got anymore awesome and accurate predictions?!?!?!?!??!!?! Lets hear them!!!!

Here is what I told you before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nature Boy
well if this is a prediction thread, when EXACTLY is he going to resign? Because I could predict that Rather would eventually resign, there's no ESP needed there.



Fair enough. Within a month of the revelation of the source of those fake documents.


________

Do you know who made the documents? If so share it with the rest of us. Until then, thanks for playing, "Try to Stump Longhorn"
 
Longhorn85 said:
Here is what I told you before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nature Boy
well if this is a prediction thread, when EXACTLY is he going to resign? Because I could predict that Rather would eventually resign, there's no ESP needed there.



Fair enough. Within a month of the revelation of the source of those fake documents.


________

Do you know who made the documents? If so share it with the rest of us. Until then, thanks for playing, "Try to Stump Longhorn"

It's an easy game. Trust me dude.
 
Longhorn85 said:
Well, well. He finally did it. Long overdue.

He didn't resign from CBS, he only stepped down as anchor of the evening news. He'll still be doing 60 Minutes.
 
I predict the sun will come up tomorrow.
 
I think Rather had too, he just lost too much credibility with that whole fiasco. He's getting too old anyway. :D
 
superdave said:
GOtta admit longhorn called the ball on this one.

I'll give him 70 points. It took longer than he said it would, and Rather didn't resign from CBS, just from the evening news.
 
I thought he would do it once the crafter of those fake memos became known. We still don't know, but maybe the investigation will tell us.
 
Top Bottom