← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 14942 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2004-09-09
2004-09-09 14:46 | User Profile
"Meanwhile, John Kerry sails along, leaving in his wake a string of errors easily as impressive as those of President Bush. So since the mainstream media hasn't covered them, let's review just a few.
In July 2003, Kerry uttered this lulu: "The obligation of the United States government is to rapidly internationalize the effort in Iraq, get the target off of American troops, bring other people, particularly Muslim-speaking and Arab-speaking Muslim troops, into the region." I've looked everywhere for classes in speaking Muslim, but I just can't seem to find any. No wonder Muslim speakers are in such high demand! (Note: Associated Press reported this ridiculous gaffe with no comment at all.)
During his nomination speech at the Democratic National Convention, Kerry made the boo-boo of announcing that under his administration, "We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations," before correcting himself. If Bush's statement about damaging America was a Freudian slip, why was this far more visible slip simply ignored? Could it be because John Kerry is a liberal? Just a thought.
In August, Kerry delved into football with equally disastrous results. While speaking in Michigan, he noted that "We just came from Bowling Green, and I was smart enough not to pick a choice between the Falcons and the, you know ... all the other teams out there. I just go for Buckeye football, that's where I'm coming out." Except that the Buckeyes are from Ohio State University, and they're bitter rivals with the University of Michigan. Oops. But should this be a surprise coming from a man who holds ears of corn upside down while traveling through Iowa? "
"Yet Kerry still gets press about being articulate, while Bush is labeled a dumbbell. But if Kerry is articulate, then I speak Episcopalian."
[url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20040908.shtml[/url]
The jewish, leftist media is pro Kerry and anti- Bush... and people fall for the media's tricks! The truth shall set you free!
2004-09-09 16:21 | User Profile
The problem I see is that neither of these men are qualified to lead this nation. They are both molly coddled, spoiled aristocrats who seek to enlarge the government in order to give power to those who really control them. Certainly many media outfits are liberally biased but there are plenty who are republican/corporate biased as well. Basically they are biased to whomever puts money in their pockets. The republican party under the Bush administration is closer to Stalinistic Communism than it is to true conservatism. They seek to ever enlarge the federal policing bodies and give contracts to there masters, just as Kerry will do if he gets elected. If the US continues on the path it is following, regardless of who we elect, then our empire will fall. Look to the Romans for an example of Republicanism turned Empirial power turned into a feeding ground for the hungry barbarians who surround them. These barbarians exist today and we hand them our industries and our economy because they give a low bid. If we continue under the rule of Bush or Kerry then these barbarians will one day be our masters.
2004-09-10 09:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]The jewish, leftist media is pro Kerry and anti- Bush... and people fall for the media's tricks![/QUOTE]
You're falling for one of their tricks if you think the choice really matters. Its 1940 all over again, when the Judeo-Bolshevists preferred Frank Delano Rosenfeld, but would have been quite satisfied with pro-New Deal, pro-war "Republican" Wendell Wilkie. Kerry is just a Democratic Wilkie, albeit since he IS a Democrat, he's the one the media prefers, rather than Dumbya; that's just been a given for decades.
2004-09-13 14:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe] Its 1940 all over again, when the Judeo-Bolshevists preferred Frank Delano Rosenfeld, but would have been quite satisfied with pro-New Deal, pro-war "Republican" Wendell Wilkie. Kerry is just a Democratic Wilkie, albeit since he IS a Democrat, he's the one the media prefers, rather than Dumbya; that's just been a given for decades.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad there's someone else around here who's of a sufficiently historical bent to remember Wendell Willkie. Interesting, isn't it, that just at the critical moment when amerikan participation in the European war was to be put in the hands of the voters, the staunchly anti-interventionist Republican party was steamrollered into accepting a presidential candidate whose views were not significantly different from his Democratic rival? No matter who won, amerika was assured of a candidate who was gung-ho for war. Not much of a "choice," was it?
Must have been just a coincidence. Anything else would be a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory, after all.
2004-09-13 17:08 | User Profile
The hapless, inefficient, flaccid Kerry campaign is deliberately so because it [I]must[/I] fail. Heads they win, tails you lose. George W Bush has already been in that smoke filled underground room somewhere in DC and has sworn to complete the work of The Cabal in his second term by revealing NWO and the beginning of Israeli Hegemony. Just look at how white Mr Bush's hair has gone is just the past several months. The Cabal has it's sworn man and nothing....nothing will stop the re-election of Emperor George W Bush.
The Stock Market is above 10,000. Gas prices have fallen a bit and should continue to do so. Wal-Mart is open. Football season has begun and Baseball will soon have it's playoffs and World Series. The shelves are bursting with processed foods and meats and suckling fruits and vegetables at every supermarket in the USA. The Iraq War is deliberately being mis-reported.
The Fix Is In.
2004-09-22 09:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]I'm glad there's someone else around here who's of a sufficiently historical bent to remember Wendell Willkie. Interesting, isn't it, that just at the critical moment when amerikan participation in the European war was to be put in the hands of the voters, the staunchly anti-interventionist Republican party was steamrollered into accepting a presidential candidate whose views were not significantly different from his Democratic rival? No matter who won, amerika was assured of a candidate who was gung-ho for war. Not much of a "choice," was it?[/QUOTE]
Its important to note here that the polls in 1940 were showing 91% of the American people opposed to intervening in the European war. There's a book on how British intelligence conspired (along with the Jews "and" the Communists) to get America into that conflict (it was reviewed in Chronicles a few years back and I'd really like to read it, if anyone can recall its title) which apparently concludes that the man who was in charge of the delegate accreditation committee at the 1940 Republican National Convention, a staunch supporter of Sen. Robert Taft, didn't just die the week before the convention due to a poor heart, but rather because MI6 slipped something into his drink. In any event, his death was very fortuitous for the Wilkie campaign, as he did not intent to permit many of the Wilkie delegates to be credentialed (and thus, they wouldn't really BE Wilkie delegates).
2004-09-22 23:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Its important to note here that the polls in 1940 were showing 91% of the American people opposed to intervening in the European war. There's a book on how British intelligence conspired (along with the Jews "and" the Communists) to get America into that conflict (it was reviewed in Chronicles a few years back and I'd really like to read it, if anyone can recall its title) which apparently concludes that the man who was in charge of the delegate accreditation committee at the 1940 Republican National Convention, a staunch supporter of Sen. Robert Taft, didn't just die the week before the convention due to a poor heart, but rather because MI6 slipped something into his drink. In any event, his death was very fortuitous for the Wilkie campaign, as he did not intent to permit many of the Wilkie delegates to be credentialed (and thus, they wouldn't really BE Wilkie delegates).[/QUOTE] You are giving too much credit to the TAFT family; they are every bit as big a bunch of bumbling idiots as the BUSH family. :bash:
2004-09-23 06:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]You are giving too much credit to the TAFT family; they are every bit as big a bunch of bumbling idiots as the BUSH family. :bash:[/QUOTE]
The current generation of Tafts are scum, of course. I don't believe that was the case with previous generations. Sen. Robert Taft condemned the Nuremberg trials, if I'm not mistaken, and in any event, was strongly isolationist and utterly opposed to U.S. intervention in the Second World War.
2004-09-25 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]The current generation of Tafts are scum, of course. I don't believe that was the case with previous generations. Sen. Robert Taft condemned the Nuremberg trials, if I'm not mistaken, and in any event, was strongly isolationist and utterly opposed to U.S. intervention in the Second World War.[/QUOTE]From my book: [QUOTE]The patriarch of the [COLOR=Red]Taft family of Ohio politics was writing friends that he was ready to throw Lincoln and his cabinet into the Potomac and cudgel his generals as cowards and traitors. He was beside himself for the failure of the administration to come to grips with the slavery issue. But Taft's mood changed swiftly after the Battle of Antietam when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and he spoke with renewed enthusiasm for emancipation at patriotic rallies around Cincinnati. With two sons, one born in 1843 and one born in 1845, one might have had a small hope that these children would have been sufficiently motivated to enlist for the sake of their father's fervent beliefs. But they did not. The great battle of Chattanooga was raging in 1863 [[COLOR=Black][B]the year of Gettysburg[/B][/COLOR]] when the younger turned 18, but the younger had listened to his father's admonition: "there is no place like college to teach the value of each particular moment". He hustled off to Yale. What bullets crashing around his head, or smashing into his body could have taught the lad about appreciating other tranquil moments was not considered appropriate for the offspring of Taft, the patriarch, but he certainly was not shy in urging the children of others not so worthy to have the experience[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]The cowardly mendacious ruling class of America arose during the Civil War and they have not changed. I also include Jews along with the Tafts, Morgans and Rockefellers.