Nosigar said:
Nosigar,
Read what you wrote, would you not consider what you wrote to be very stereotypical of a Archie Bunker type of statement? I hope that this was posted in jest!
Vietnam Vets against Kerry...
- Thread starter ocelot
- Start date
Nosigar,
Read what you wrote, would you not consider what you wrote to be very stereotypical of a Archie Bunker type of statement? I hope that this was posted in jest!
Gentlemen,
Kerry served 4 months in 'Nam, he was injured three times (the first being in his first 24 hours in Vietnam). He WILL NOT release the details of his injuries for the public to see (I am speculating that he stubbed his toe :lol: ). Additionally, he eventually got out of Vietnam because he wanted to run for office and a senator gave him a "early out". He also stated that we should abandon Vietnam and leave our POWs behind. --> For these FACTS check out your PBS station and look for the Dick Cavett Show with a debate between Kerry and O'Neil. It will disgust you... or, maybe open your eyes to who Kerry really is and who he is not (American). Look at his voting issues, all of them designed to cripple America in some regard.
He states that he is for the average American (along with fabricating every single truth), but who is more American? One who fights to preserve the American way or one who lives off the welfare system? You decide.... He is a traitor to his fellow servicemen and to the United States of America.
Vote or Die!
Viva Bush :clap:
Kerry served 4 months in 'Nam, he was injured three times (the first being in his first 24 hours in Vietnam). He WILL NOT release the details of his injuries for the public to see (I am speculating that he stubbed his toe :lol: ). Additionally, he eventually got out of Vietnam because he wanted to run for office and a senator gave him a "early out". He also stated that we should abandon Vietnam and leave our POWs behind. --> For these FACTS check out your PBS station and look for the Dick Cavett Show with a debate between Kerry and O'Neil. It will disgust you... or, maybe open your eyes to who Kerry really is and who he is not (American). Look at his voting issues, all of them designed to cripple America in some regard.
He states that he is for the average American (along with fabricating every single truth), but who is more American? One who fights to preserve the American way or one who lives off the welfare system? You decide.... He is a traitor to his fellow servicemen and to the United States of America.
Vote or Die!
Viva Bush :clap:
I?ve stood up and fought against Richard Nixon?s war in Vietnam. I stood up and fought against Ronald Reagan?s illegal war in Central America. - John Kerry
President Kennedy was the third President to affirm our basic policy in Vietnam, but the first to expand it to a new, heightened level of commitment. He increased the number of U.S. military combat advisors in South Vietnam to 16,000. The Kennedy administration also committed a tragic blunder that forever changed the equation in Vietnam. On November 1, 1963, a coup encouraged and supported by the Kennedy administration led to the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. By participating in the removal of South Vietnam?s President, Kennedy had made the United States directly responsible for the fate of South Vietnam. What had been Vietnam?s war became America?s war. President Johnson escalated the American role to the level at which President Nixon found it. Following overwhelming Congressional approval of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which ratified his actions, Johnson began sustained bombing of North Vietnam, raised U.S. troop levels to 200,000 by the end of 1965, and 540,000 by the end of 1968. - History of U.S. Involvement in Vietnam
A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi. - World Net Daily
In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart. - John Kerry
Are there extenuating circumstances? Is there a reason for our being in Vietnam? ?To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom ? is ? the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.? It is then, we reason retrospectively, not alone an act of hypocrisy that caused the joint chiefs of staff and the heads of the civilian departments engaged in strategic calculations to make the recommendations they made over the past ten years, to three Presidents of the United States: it was not merely hypocrisy, but criminal hypocrisy. The nature of that hypocrisy? ?All,? Mr. Kerry sums up, ?that we were told about the mystical war against Communism.? - William F. Buckley Jr.
The soldier went to Vietnam to defend the country from aggressive communism in the tradition of World War II. But the soldier learned he was not fighting communism. Communism was not a threat to our country and the war was not moral. - John Kerry
It doesn?t matter that the iconic president bearing Mr. Kerry?s initials (as a young man, Mr. Kerry dated Jackie Kennedy?s half-sister, Janet Auchincloss) sent the U.S. into Vietnam on a flying carpet of moral certainty. Or that the political commitment to repulse communism in Vietnam, a commitment that troubled Mr. Kerry as he departed in 1968 for heroic service in the war and revulsed him when he left, was set by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Primary Democrats, for reasons that await the tools of psychoanalysis, believe Vietnam was ?Nixon?s war.? After winning Iowa?s caucuses, Mr. Kerry volunteered, ?I stood up and fought against Richard Nixon?s war in Vietnam.? The Republican Nixon?s too-ardent anticommunism, they came to believe, was the provenance for Ronald Reagan?s wrongful spending on the communist ?threat.? - Daniel Henninger
Sen. John Kerry wants to be president of the United States so he can promote a brand of multi-nationalism as the solution to the world?s problems. In fact, his views on that subject haven?t changed that much since he came back from Vietnam in 1970, urging the United Nations take over command of the U.S. military forces. In April 1985, Kerry, along with Sen. Tom Harkin, ventured to Nicaragua to meet with President Daniel Ortega, a Marxist revolutionary who idolized Fidel Castro and received aid from the Soviet Union. - Joseph Farah
The Cold War was reaching its final stages when Kerry entered the Senate in 1985. Reagan had been re-elected in a thunderous landslide in November of 1984 and was using his administration to help the contra armies destabilize the Sandinista government of Nicaragua as part of a global strategy to give the tottering communist empire a final shove. Reagan had carried Massachusetts that fall, but the contra cause was unpopular in the state. House Speaker Thomas ?Tip? O?Neill Jr., a Democrat from Cambridge, feared the United States would be drawn into another Vietnam in the jungles of Central America, and he worked with Congressman Edward Boland, an old Democratic pal from Springfield, to attach a series of ?Boland amendments? to appropriation bills, banning or limiting US aid to the contras. At first, Kerry?s audacity cost him. Within weeks of taking office in 1985, he was off to Nicaragua, accompanied by reporters on a 36-hour, self-appointed fact-finding mission with another freshman, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Congressional Democrats had accused the White House of exaggerating the communist threat posed by the Sandinista regime. So the two senators were publicly castigated when ? just days after meeting with Daniel Ortega and other leaders of the regime ? the Sandinistas climbed aboard a plane to Moscow to cement their Soviet ties. - John Aloysius Farrell
John Kerry?s record of service in our military is honorable. But his long record in the Senate is one of advocating policies that would weaken our national security. In 1972, when John Kerry first campaigned for Congress, he made a commitment to vote against military appropriations. After he was elected, he went one step further, actively introducing legislation to reduce funding for defense and intelligence. In addition to his opposition to defense funding, John Kerry opposed the policies that led to victory in the Cold War. In 1984 he called for a freeze on testing, production and deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems. In 1985, he introduced a Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill, and sponsored two amendments to freeze SDI-related nuclear development. - Ed Gillespie
Yeah okay bigbud -
Nosigar if anyone reads that crap you posted (as follows):
"Degas, Monet, Renoir and the rest could have been labeled as progressionists with regards to the arts. If you'd like to call it a movement, historically it was. Progressionist is a way of thought, as applied to evolution it involves intelligence as a contributing factor to changes, be them in structure or philosophical and spiritual matters. It advocates the rejection of the automata theorem stating that we are primitive reactionary individuals incapable of self-sustained progress and free will choice, unable to progress beyond pre-set limitations."
...they will just have experienced the heights (depths?) of pseudo-intellectual drivelbabble.
Still waiting for you to point me to a reference on your "Progressionist" philosophy...hmmm?
Nosigar if anyone reads that crap you posted (as follows):
"Degas, Monet, Renoir and the rest could have been labeled as progressionists with regards to the arts. If you'd like to call it a movement, historically it was. Progressionist is a way of thought, as applied to evolution it involves intelligence as a contributing factor to changes, be them in structure or philosophical and spiritual matters. It advocates the rejection of the automata theorem stating that we are primitive reactionary individuals incapable of self-sustained progress and free will choice, unable to progress beyond pre-set limitations."
...they will just have experienced the heights (depths?) of pseudo-intellectual drivelbabble.
Still waiting for you to point me to a reference on your "Progressionist" philosophy...hmmm?
Bigbud,
How many minutes did Bush spend in Nam? How many minutes has Cheney spent in battle? At least Kerr yserved over there where both Cheney and Bush had other priorities other than serving their country.
How many minutes did Bush spend in Nam? How many minutes has Cheney spent in battle? At least Kerr yserved over there where both Cheney and Bush had other priorities other than serving their country.
Please excuse me for talking about an item that I recieved in my e-mail Thursday, but I simply must talk about this one too.
The crack team of researchers at the WSJ Opinion Page dug up and printed this damning bit of Congressional testimony (Courtesy of Human Events Magazine) by a young, spineless and megalomaniac Vietnam Vet with a penchant for gold-digging in Feb. 12's, Best of the Web Today.
Asked whether the United States should withdraw from Vietnam and abandon Indochina to the tyranny of communism, Sen. John "'effing" Kerry says:
"If we don't withdraw," Kerry said, "if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
"The war will continue," said Kerry. "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America."
Murdered? Is that how he earned his Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts and a Partridge in a Pear tree? By murdering Vietnamese? If that's how he really feels, don't you think Team Kerry's slogans should read more like, "Vote For Me I'm A Baby Killer?" Or, "I'm Better Than The Other Guy, Because Although I Was Busy Murdering Innocents, I Was Only Following Orders!" I'd like to see him come clean with his VFW brothers: "You're all war criminals! Put me in the White House, because I am one of you!"
OpJournal continues:
The transcript indicates that later in the testimony, under sympathetic questioning from Sen. Clifford Case (D.-N.J.), Kerry drew laughter from the crowd when he dismissed the administration's rationale for the war, to keep Communism at bay. "I think it is bogus, totally artificial," he said. "There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."
Wow! He really is French, not just "French-looking"! But enough name calling, as you can see from the following comments below, Kerry doesn't need me to paint him as slime, because, deep down, he really is pond scum:
Page 181: "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."
Page 186: "The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own future and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway."
Uh, yeah. Does this make any sense to you? I guess it would if you were Michael Moore or if you think that anything that America does is inherently wrong, either because 1) you hate Americans, 2) you hate yourself, or 3) you hate yourself because you're American. And while it might be kind of harsh to judge a man after events have shown him to be a complete chowderhead, but it seems to me that, as of yet, no communist state has resulted in either freedom or self-determination for its peoples. Especially in Southeast Asia, where South Vietnam was "obstensibly" invaded by North Vietnamese, who, after they rolled their tanks into Saigon, promptly annexed the South in a war of agression. I realize that things might have looked differently in the proletarian wanabee 1960's (and judging by the dirt, clothes and the fact that sitting around and chanting stupid songs waiting to get tear gassed was a wonderful way to pick up chicks, they did), but are you kidding me? Sen. Kerry, I for one would like to know if you have succesfully extricated your head out of Jane Fonda's Ass. And now for the piece d'resistance (my emphasis):
Page 195: "The United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers. . . . I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those felt needs with any kind of political structure, giving it one name or another. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."
Ask youself this: Was the U.S. correct to be skeptical of Stalin's U.S.S.R. following WWII? Is democracy really communism or benevolent dictatroship by any other name? Did communism and benevolent tyranny really ever serve to satisfy the needs of its people? (BTW, If you answered yes to any of these questions, please e-mail me with your name and address so's I can kick your ignorant, totalitarian ass into the 21st century.)
Then ask yourself this: Is Kerry's view of government as centralized bureaucratic structures that exist to satisfy the felt needs of the people the same thing as "government for the people, by the people, of the people"? Give you a hint: Bismarck began the welfare state in pre-WWI Prussia precisely so that the peasants would be kept sufficiently satiated and indebted to the government, that they wouldn't ask for pesky things like "rights". A welfare state is not political freedom, its indentured servitude.
Finally, ask yourself: After hearing his explicit articulation of government's primary function as a welfare state -- and whether that state is dictatorial, communist or democratic is a semantic matter -- do you really want John Kerry to be the President of the United States of America? Is this the guy that's going to protect your freedoms? Is this the guy that will protect your lives?
I think not. Kerry doesn't believe in what makes America a singular nation -- our shared creed -- rather, it's all about satisfying the material needs of the little people, however it gets done. Also, bear in mind that it's not about what people want, it's about what people need. And, whatever "structure" best gives people what they need, well, that structure will endure.
If John Kerry's worldview is right, the inscription at the bast of the Statue of Liberty, "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus would not read:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Instead, I think it might read something more like this:
"Feed your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to eat bread,
Insure the wretched of your teeming shore,
They're fools one and all, and once fed,
We'll stay in power, evermore!"
Watch, soon he'll unveil his new campaign slogan, "Peace, Land, and Bread!" to wildly cheering enthusiasts from trade unions everywhere.
For the love of God, at least Dean was really nothing more than a hockey-mad Canadian, but Kerry is the worst, most loathsome and contradictory example of all human beings, a Patrician, Anti-War, Anti-Freedom, Communist!
The crack team of researchers at the WSJ Opinion Page dug up and printed this damning bit of Congressional testimony (Courtesy of Human Events Magazine) by a young, spineless and megalomaniac Vietnam Vet with a penchant for gold-digging in Feb. 12's, Best of the Web Today.
Asked whether the United States should withdraw from Vietnam and abandon Indochina to the tyranny of communism, Sen. John "'effing" Kerry says:
"If we don't withdraw," Kerry said, "if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
"The war will continue," said Kerry. "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America."
Murdered? Is that how he earned his Silver Star, Bronze Star, Three Purple Hearts and a Partridge in a Pear tree? By murdering Vietnamese? If that's how he really feels, don't you think Team Kerry's slogans should read more like, "Vote For Me I'm A Baby Killer?" Or, "I'm Better Than The Other Guy, Because Although I Was Busy Murdering Innocents, I Was Only Following Orders!" I'd like to see him come clean with his VFW brothers: "You're all war criminals! Put me in the White House, because I am one of you!"
OpJournal continues:
The transcript indicates that later in the testimony, under sympathetic questioning from Sen. Clifford Case (D.-N.J.), Kerry drew laughter from the crowd when he dismissed the administration's rationale for the war, to keep Communism at bay. "I think it is bogus, totally artificial," he said. "There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."
Wow! He really is French, not just "French-looking"! But enough name calling, as you can see from the following comments below, Kerry doesn't need me to paint him as slime, because, deep down, he really is pond scum:
Page 181: "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."
Page 186: "The only other important point is that we allow the South Vietnamese people to determine their own future and that ostensibly is what we have been fighting for anyway."
Uh, yeah. Does this make any sense to you? I guess it would if you were Michael Moore or if you think that anything that America does is inherently wrong, either because 1) you hate Americans, 2) you hate yourself, or 3) you hate yourself because you're American. And while it might be kind of harsh to judge a man after events have shown him to be a complete chowderhead, but it seems to me that, as of yet, no communist state has resulted in either freedom or self-determination for its peoples. Especially in Southeast Asia, where South Vietnam was "obstensibly" invaded by North Vietnamese, who, after they rolled their tanks into Saigon, promptly annexed the South in a war of agression. I realize that things might have looked differently in the proletarian wanabee 1960's (and judging by the dirt, clothes and the fact that sitting around and chanting stupid songs waiting to get tear gassed was a wonderful way to pick up chicks, they did), but are you kidding me? Sen. Kerry, I for one would like to know if you have succesfully extricated your head out of Jane Fonda's Ass. And now for the piece d'resistance (my emphasis):
Page 195: "The United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers. . . . I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those felt needs with any kind of political structure, giving it one name or another. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."
Ask youself this: Was the U.S. correct to be skeptical of Stalin's U.S.S.R. following WWII? Is democracy really communism or benevolent dictatroship by any other name? Did communism and benevolent tyranny really ever serve to satisfy the needs of its people? (BTW, If you answered yes to any of these questions, please e-mail me with your name and address so's I can kick your ignorant, totalitarian ass into the 21st century.)
Then ask yourself this: Is Kerry's view of government as centralized bureaucratic structures that exist to satisfy the felt needs of the people the same thing as "government for the people, by the people, of the people"? Give you a hint: Bismarck began the welfare state in pre-WWI Prussia precisely so that the peasants would be kept sufficiently satiated and indebted to the government, that they wouldn't ask for pesky things like "rights". A welfare state is not political freedom, its indentured servitude.
Finally, ask yourself: After hearing his explicit articulation of government's primary function as a welfare state -- and whether that state is dictatorial, communist or democratic is a semantic matter -- do you really want John Kerry to be the President of the United States of America? Is this the guy that's going to protect your freedoms? Is this the guy that will protect your lives?
I think not. Kerry doesn't believe in what makes America a singular nation -- our shared creed -- rather, it's all about satisfying the material needs of the little people, however it gets done. Also, bear in mind that it's not about what people want, it's about what people need. And, whatever "structure" best gives people what they need, well, that structure will endure.
If John Kerry's worldview is right, the inscription at the bast of the Statue of Liberty, "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus would not read:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Instead, I think it might read something more like this:
"Feed your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to eat bread,
Insure the wretched of your teeming shore,
They're fools one and all, and once fed,
We'll stay in power, evermore!"
Watch, soon he'll unveil his new campaign slogan, "Peace, Land, and Bread!" to wildly cheering enthusiasts from trade unions everywhere.
For the love of God, at least Dean was really nothing more than a hockey-mad Canadian, but Kerry is the worst, most loathsome and contradictory example of all human beings, a Patrician, Anti-War, Anti-Freedom, Communist!
MICHAEL MOORE
Dear friends,
With the revelation last night of the drunk driving arrest and conviction in 1976 of George W. Bush, this marks the THIRD arrest -- that we know of -- involving this man who would be president.
Let me ask you, the readers of this letter : How many times have YOU been arrested? Me, none. Most of you -- once? twice? This guy has been arrested AT LEAST THREE TIMES! How many people do you know have been arrested three times? Go ahead, do a quick count on your fingers. The answer? NONE!
Yet, we are being asked on Tuesday to vote for a man who has been arrested THREE TIMES. For President of the United States! Are they kidding? The Republicans must take us all for idiots.
The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.
What's the next crime committed by George W. Bush that we will learn of? When will we learn it? It is time for everyone to demand the truth from Governor Bush. I'm telling you, we haven't heard the last of his criminal behavior.
But next Wednesday will be too late to find out.
The press should be ashamed of itself for its laziness. I cannot believe it took a young woman, Erin Fehlau -- at a FOX affiliate, no less -- up in Maine to stumble onto this story and do the necessary work to uncover it. Where have the big networks' investigative reporters been?
I'll tell you where : ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
After seeing this local Maine reporter on "Nightline" last night explain how a policewoman told her she overheard a conversation between a lawyer and a judge, and then the reporter started digging around and found out the facts, it was clear the story was not planted by the Gore campaign, as Bush and his people have been insinuating.
The real story here is how did this conviction get covered up for so many years? I spoke to a lawyer last night familiar with these kinds of cases. She said that a D.U.I. in and of itself, is not something worth covering up. Had Bush revealed this himself, he would have found the public forgiving of his infraction.
No, my lawyer friend continued, the only reason to cover it up would be that there was something ELSE connected to the arrest that night e.g., drugs or resisting arrest. This other potential charge could have been dropped and expunged. The reporter was shown only the court docket which listed Bush's name, address, and the charge to which he pleaded guilty. What we need to see is the actual POLICE REPORT from that night. Assuming it hasn't been doctored, that will tell us the truth.
The Bush people have already lied about the nature of the D.U.I. arrest (they said the cop pulled Bush over because he was "driving too slowly" the arresting officer last night said it was because Bush had "swerved off on the shoulder of the road". Bush himself lied last night when asked about the night he spent in jail. "I didn't spend time in jail" he insisted. The officer told the local reporter that Bush, in fact, was handcuffed, taken to the station, and held in custody for at least an hour and a half.
This is not just some simple traffic ticket. I don't want to hear one word comparing this drunk driving conviction to Clinton's transgressions. Lying about consensual sex you had with another adult is NOT the same as getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk and endangering the lives of others (including the life of your own sister, Mr. Bush, who was in the car with you that night).
It is NOT the same as Gore volunteering he smoked pot in his youth. That act endangered no one's life and he did not try to cover it up.
And don't tell us that the drunk driving and the "drinking problem" was just a "youthful indiscretion" You were NOT a "youth" when you were in your THIRTIES on the night you were arrested while careening off the road. The fact is, according to your own admission (if not in these words), you were a drunk and a bum 'til the age of 40, living off your rich daddy who spent his time bailing you out of trouble.
For crying out loud -- if any Republican is reading this, I implore you : this man does not deserve to be placed in the highest and most respected office in the land!
Bush voters, come to your senses! If you can't bring yourself to vote for Nader or Gore, then show your love for your country and just stay home next Tuesday.
Please, save our nation this incredible, unfolding, never-ending embarrassment.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Dear friends,
With the revelation last night of the drunk driving arrest and conviction in 1976 of George W. Bush, this marks the THIRD arrest -- that we know of -- involving this man who would be president.
Let me ask you, the readers of this letter : How many times have YOU been arrested? Me, none. Most of you -- once? twice? This guy has been arrested AT LEAST THREE TIMES! How many people do you know have been arrested three times? Go ahead, do a quick count on your fingers. The answer? NONE!
Yet, we are being asked on Tuesday to vote for a man who has been arrested THREE TIMES. For President of the United States! Are they kidding? The Republicans must take us all for idiots.
The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving.
What's the next crime committed by George W. Bush that we will learn of? When will we learn it? It is time for everyone to demand the truth from Governor Bush. I'm telling you, we haven't heard the last of his criminal behavior.
But next Wednesday will be too late to find out.
The press should be ashamed of itself for its laziness. I cannot believe it took a young woman, Erin Fehlau -- at a FOX affiliate, no less -- up in Maine to stumble onto this story and do the necessary work to uncover it. Where have the big networks' investigative reporters been?
I'll tell you where : ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!
After seeing this local Maine reporter on "Nightline" last night explain how a policewoman told her she overheard a conversation between a lawyer and a judge, and then the reporter started digging around and found out the facts, it was clear the story was not planted by the Gore campaign, as Bush and his people have been insinuating.
The real story here is how did this conviction get covered up for so many years? I spoke to a lawyer last night familiar with these kinds of cases. She said that a D.U.I. in and of itself, is not something worth covering up. Had Bush revealed this himself, he would have found the public forgiving of his infraction.
No, my lawyer friend continued, the only reason to cover it up would be that there was something ELSE connected to the arrest that night e.g., drugs or resisting arrest. This other potential charge could have been dropped and expunged. The reporter was shown only the court docket which listed Bush's name, address, and the charge to which he pleaded guilty. What we need to see is the actual POLICE REPORT from that night. Assuming it hasn't been doctored, that will tell us the truth.
The Bush people have already lied about the nature of the D.U.I. arrest (they said the cop pulled Bush over because he was "driving too slowly" the arresting officer last night said it was because Bush had "swerved off on the shoulder of the road". Bush himself lied last night when asked about the night he spent in jail. "I didn't spend time in jail" he insisted. The officer told the local reporter that Bush, in fact, was handcuffed, taken to the station, and held in custody for at least an hour and a half.
This is not just some simple traffic ticket. I don't want to hear one word comparing this drunk driving conviction to Clinton's transgressions. Lying about consensual sex you had with another adult is NOT the same as getting behind the wheel of a car when you are drunk and endangering the lives of others (including the life of your own sister, Mr. Bush, who was in the car with you that night).
It is NOT the same as Gore volunteering he smoked pot in his youth. That act endangered no one's life and he did not try to cover it up.
And don't tell us that the drunk driving and the "drinking problem" was just a "youthful indiscretion" You were NOT a "youth" when you were in your THIRTIES on the night you were arrested while careening off the road. The fact is, according to your own admission (if not in these words), you were a drunk and a bum 'til the age of 40, living off your rich daddy who spent his time bailing you out of trouble.
For crying out loud -- if any Republican is reading this, I implore you : this man does not deserve to be placed in the highest and most respected office in the land!
Bush voters, come to your senses! If you can't bring yourself to vote for Nader or Gore, then show your love for your country and just stay home next Tuesday.
Please, save our nation this incredible, unfolding, never-ending embarrassment.
Yours,
Michael Moore
Yet, we are being asked on Tuesday to vote for a man who has been arrested THREE TIMES. For President of the United States! Are they kidding? The Republicans must take us all for idiots.
The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel. At least it wasn't in the oval office... what did he steal a towel? hee hee really seriously concerning!
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game. wooopy doo!
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving. He only tasted but didn't swallow... :142lmao:
What's the next crime committed by George W. Bush that we will learn of? When will we learn it? It is time for everyone to demand the truth from Governor Bush. I'm telling you, we haven't heard the last of his criminal behavior.
Michael Moore food, Fatbastard hee heee this is funny!
I still take that over a communist any day!
The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel. At least it wasn't in the oval office... what did he steal a towel? hee hee really seriously concerning!
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game. wooopy doo!
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving. He only tasted but didn't swallow... :142lmao:
What's the next crime committed by George W. Bush that we will learn of? When will we learn it? It is time for everyone to demand the truth from Governor Bush. I'm telling you, we haven't heard the last of his criminal behavior.
Michael Moore food, Fatbastard hee heee this is funny!
I still take that over a communist any day!
ocelot said:
chit I just saw this Ocelot figures you would reply like that... Your one of the Gaymorecrats, not a Democrat :moon:
:soapbox: let me stop because I have not insulted or direspected anybody directly ever!
"The first arrest of George W. Bush was for theft at a hotel.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving."
Hate to say this but am a little sceptical of these opinions especially from M Moore.Should be all kind of police reports on net,can anyone find any?
I have no prob finding reports on Slicks impeachment-perjury-disbarment-white house theft-pardoning 10 most wanted criminal for cash ect and this is just in years as office as president--oh almost forgot he pardoned his brother on drug charges too.
Will be curious to see Bushes pardon record if defeated--I've left myself wide open for retaliation and once they come to print will put up against Slicks to compare.
The second arrest was for disorderly conduct at a football game.
The third arrest, we've now learned, is for a very serious crime -- drunk driving."
Hate to say this but am a little sceptical of these opinions especially from M Moore.Should be all kind of police reports on net,can anyone find any?
I have no prob finding reports on Slicks impeachment-perjury-disbarment-white house theft-pardoning 10 most wanted criminal for cash ect and this is just in years as office as president--oh almost forgot he pardoned his brother on drug charges too.
Will be curious to see Bushes pardon record if defeated--I've left myself wide open for retaliation and once they come to print will put up against Slicks to compare.
BTW, BIGBUD, the information you posted regarding Kerry and the commies is pretty similar to the info. I've had on him for some time. Thanks for posting it. Good to see that others know this thug's background.
In the meantime the "centrists" will continue to confuse us with populist and instant gratification ideas, the need for a change in our evil ways as a country, disrespecting those who hunger for true freedom of the oppressed. Also the sentiment of guilt over our wealth while others sink in famine and poverty due to an imperialistic monster's infinite greed.
These are words that Kerry's foreign political buddies use to oppress people in other countries, to hold them under their control while using the good ole USA as the scapegoat. Meanwhile the power over poor puposely ignorant people continues as the state becomes more and more necessary to save the average citizen from himself.
I can't believe that common sense people can actually vote for Kerry and not see the agenda behind the two-faced lying sack of red beans. He wants nothing good for America. Howard Dean and some of the other anti-war guys were whackos but you knew where they were coming from. Kerry and others like him have been planning the takeover of power for decades with the only objective to make America smaller and more dependent. Why do so many listen to a Michael Moore or some crazed out Hollywood coke addict or performer? You be the judge. Is that the America you want for your kids? Hell, not me.
But what the hell do I know.
In the meantime the "centrists" will continue to confuse us with populist and instant gratification ideas, the need for a change in our evil ways as a country, disrespecting those who hunger for true freedom of the oppressed. Also the sentiment of guilt over our wealth while others sink in famine and poverty due to an imperialistic monster's infinite greed.
These are words that Kerry's foreign political buddies use to oppress people in other countries, to hold them under their control while using the good ole USA as the scapegoat. Meanwhile the power over poor puposely ignorant people continues as the state becomes more and more necessary to save the average citizen from himself.
I can't believe that common sense people can actually vote for Kerry and not see the agenda behind the two-faced lying sack of red beans. He wants nothing good for America. Howard Dean and some of the other anti-war guys were whackos but you knew where they were coming from. Kerry and others like him have been planning the takeover of power for decades with the only objective to make America smaller and more dependent. Why do so many listen to a Michael Moore or some crazed out Hollywood coke addict or performer? You be the judge. Is that the America you want for your kids? Hell, not me.
But what the hell do I know.
