John Kerry is going to LOSE!

on Sep 05, 2004

What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.

It would have been difficult for Kerry's campaign to put Kerry's record as the prime focus, as much of his record appears at odds with the platform he is running on. This left him little, except for his war record, which probably seemed like a good idea to try to counter the widely held belief that Democrats are weak on defense.

32

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

Dean wouldn't do. In fact, the Bush team (during the democrat primary) made the assestment that Dean is easy and Liberman is tough. Dean is a northeastern liberal. He may have some crazy spark but most people won't vote for him. Why? Look, he is running at on a liberal plateform, right? The only way for a candidate who run on the extreme side of their party and win to energize the hell out of his own party. To get them all out to vote for you and not rely on independent voter. But look at Dean, he didn't make it close in primary, he is not number one, he is not number two, and he might well not be number three if Gephart and Wesley didn't drop out early. Dean only won one state (maybe two). How can someone win one state in his own primary win Bush. Dean, a liberal democrat who cannot energized his party to vote for him, has absolute no chance to run against Bush.

33

couchman

on Sep 05, 2004

A line from the RNC convention says it best bout Kerry's problem...."He (kerry) would have to do a google search to find out where he currently stands on an issue!"

I forget who said it but it is prob the best overall political statement in a while.....

Dick Gephart or Joseph Lieberman were far more qualified candidates for the dems to run....I may strongly disagree with them but atleast I know if they make a statement regarding an issue...they will stand by it.....Kerry hasnt learned this political stategy in 19+ years in politics....and America is still waiting for him to talk bout his senate experience for longer than the 22 seconds during the DNC convention

this among other things (x-mas in cambodia, issues regarding his medals on his dd214 and dd215, testimony of alleged war crimes, meeting with N. Vietnamese officials while the war was going on) are finally taking a toll on him....while I'm not sure if this is gonna be a landslide for bush...he will wil

34

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

Again, Bush may still lose if he screams like Howard Dean tomorrow.

35

Lee1776

on Sep 06, 2004

Two Navy officers told an interesting thing to me last week. The latest rumor running through the Navy is that the investigation, cited in the original post, is started for one reason. The Navy has asked Kerry five times for his authorization to release the AARs and other detailed reports about his four months in Vietnam. He has refused. The only documentation released by Kerry is his awards and a few other items. (This includes all of his medical records, but he has only release a summary by his doctor of those.)

The rumor is that someone read one of those unreleased documents and what was read revealed major faults in his awards documentations. Kerry may not allow these records to be released, but that does not prevent the Navy personnel from looking at them for legal reasons.

Call it party politics, but the bombshell may land in Kerry’s lap just before the elections when the review of those records will be open to the JAG personnel.

Maybe it's just rumors, but these two guys did not think so.

36

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!

Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence.

37

kingbee

on Sep 06, 2004

If this ain't a challenge then I don't know what one would be!!!

i agree. youre having difficulty discerning the difference between judicial watch challenging kerry's medals and the navy investigating judicial watch's claims--which will very likely turn out to have as much validity as the swiftboat vets truth. if kerry has any sense, hell realize honor has become a badly devalued currency in this election and stop trying to defend his against attacks by those to whom the word--and the concept--means nothing.

38

kingbee

on Sep 06, 2004

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

exactly. i was just about to address that issue but gideon did it more competently than i would have.

39

kingbee

on Sep 06, 2004

Call it party politics

Maybe it's just rumors

a mixture of both seems most likely.

40

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2004

Reply #36 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 2:22:35 AM
B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!

Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence

Actually Gidieon it's NOT my church, I'm a Lutheran. But I live in a predominantly Catholic region (Pittsburgh,PA). I apoligize for the cursing. Somtimes I tend to get carried away. But again as I said before that ain't going to happen. They can ill aford to anger that large of a block of voters weather what they're doing is wrong or not.

41

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2004

Reply #36 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 2:22:35 AM
B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!

Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence

BTW if what they were doing was illegal, I'd be willing to bet the farm "John Kerry" would be SCREAMING his head off and bringing legal action against them!

42

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

dr,

It's not illegal in a criminal sense, it is an IRS issue. And I guarantee, if they are publicly advocating for or against a candidate, the IRS is looking into it. My point was, I highly doubt the Catholic church is making such public proclamations, because it has been made clear to ministers of all faiths that this is the law since it was enacted.

What they can do, and is most likely, is advocate for or against certain ISSUES...they cannot name candidates, but they can leave the implications of their issues stances out there for their congregation...for instance, many conservative churches are advocating for the federal marriage amendment...pretty much any educated voter knows which president backs that piece of legislation.

43

drmiler

on Sep 06, 2004

Reply #42 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 10:09:26 AM

dr,

It's not illegal in a criminal sense, it is an IRS issue. And I guarantee, if they are publicly advocating for or against a candidate, the IRS is looking into it. My point was, I highly doubt the Catholic church is making such public proclamations, because it has been made clear to ministers of all faiths that this is the law since it was enacted.

What they can do, and is most likely, is advocate for or against certain ISSUES...they cannot name candidates, but they can leave the implications of their issues stances out there for their congregation...for instance, many conservative churches are advocating for the federal marriage amendment...pretty much any educated voter knows which president backs that piece of legislation.

Excuse me sir but........ If the IRS is looking into it then it IS a criminal offense! There would be NO other reason for them to do it. So by your own words it's not illegal in a criminal sense and ain't spit going to happen about it

44

AR-15

on Sep 06, 2004

It may turn out that Kerry was even less electable than Howard Dean, with all the baggage from Vietnam, (throwing his medals at White House, calling his brothers war criminals, etc.) his 20 year Senate record of being on the wrong side of history time and time again on defense, and his obvious ambition to raise taxes on ALL Americans, and even after he raises those taxes, his spending plans will still triple the deficit. With the way the numbers are now, Kerry would have to defy history to prevail in the election.

45

kujo55

on Sep 06, 2004

I agree a women has the choice. . . to keep her legs together. Abortion is murder plain and simple! Homosexuality is wrong, end of story! For myself, what I base my vote on is Morals, and it is very clear George W. has moral conviction and grit (sticks by what he says). Kerry is a typical liberal democrat who changes as much as the tides. Don't get me wrong there are a few good democrats out there. Americans need to get common sense back instead of leaning on their emotions so much. Look at how our country was founded and by whom; 97% of them were God fearing Christians. We need to get back to God if we want out country to be great again.

When you have an absolute (never changes) why go astray from it and try to change. Again, absolutes don't change 2+2=4 (ALWAYS) It doesn't matter how many bleeding heart liberal goofs try and say different. The sad thing is so many get caught up on arrguing about the results of a problem instead of the problem itself. If we want aAmerica to be great again, then get back to God. And, I don't mean whatever God you believe in. The one true triune God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit. The God of the BIBLE!