By BuyViagraOnlineLearmweirebal

August 20, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Your site- www.daytondailynews.com is interesting site, good job, admin. viagra [url=http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/member.php?u=25882]buy viagra online[/url] drugs.

By buyliquorSl

August 20, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

The www.daytondailynews.com is good resource, thanks, webmaster. And see this http://howdoqj6.netfirms.com/index.html > buy liquor

By statehotwaterheatersSl

August 19, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

The site www.daytondailynews.com is excellent site, good job, webmaster. But look at this http://carolinecs.150m.com/state_gas_water_heaters.html > state gas water heaters

By Savanation

July 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Not sure who is confused here. The strategy in 2004 was not “cut and run”, as you so inaccurately put it, but rather to do what is right and stop our men from being killed for no reason. Seems reasonable. What exactly would one have “cut and run’ from? First off, let’s stop the “cut and run” stuff. That is a Karl Rove, keep the idiots happy, phrase. Doesn’t mean anything, or at least not what is right about the situation. Let’s say California went crazy(read:Bush) and bombed and invaded Oregon. If California came to it’s senses, or got rid of the fool who started the idiocy, and said we’re sorry to Oregon and went back home before anymore of California’s men were killed, would that be “cut and running”? Or would that be coming to your senses and making the most of a ridiculous situation that California caused? “Did we have a plan to end the Revolutionary, Civil, WWI, WWII, etc?” Well, yes we did. It was called defeating the enemy. Which we did, nicely, thank you. Your question has nothing to do with Iraq. There was no enemy in Iraq worth STARTING a war over. If you didn’t like Saddam, then send an assassin to kill him. None of the other moral depravities of the Bush Admionistration seem to bother you, so I guess that wouldn’t either. But the “problem” would have been resolved and American men would be alive today. And maybe Osama would be caught and hanged by now. But Bush wanted to show up his Dad and by his arogance and stupidity ruined their country and is on the verge of bankrupting ours, in both men and money. And what is better in Iraq today than it was five years ago. Oh, they had elections!!!! The electricity doesn’t work most of the time, huge unemployment, the army, a joke, the police, a joke. Elections!!!???? The same people who wanted to kill eachother still want to kill eachother and will do so as soon as we leave and it will not make any difference when we leave, other than to our troops, who should be somewhere where they are needed. Or at home with their families. So, don’t call it “cut and run”, that just shows that you can follow your instructions on how to deal with someone who thinks. Why don’t you call it what it is? Sense being aplied by seansible people. Naturally that won’t happen till President Obama takes over, but thank God, it will happen.

By TRS

July 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

You seem to confuse rather easily. Your cut/run strategy of ‘04 and beyond is what I was referring to as opposed to today. Never said it was hunky dorey - just said it was much improved - certainly not chaos as it was a few years ago. It still has a ways to travel but now has the opportunity to do so. Your cut/run “strategy” of ‘04 on would not have allowed that. Prior to recent development the Iraqis did not want us to cut/run and said so. Now that the Iraqi government is better able to control their country, then it is time to discuss leaving. No change there - always believed that was the right thing to do. This plan to end you keep referring to is such a fallacy. Did we have a plan to end the Revolutionary, Civil, WWI, WWII, etc? Yes - the plan was to win and take whatever time was necessary to do so. War is not something you can fit into your daily planner. At he end I think I’ve been consistent - seems that you are all over the place because you just can’t bring yourself to admit truth - Iraq is emerging and the Iraqis are taking charge - that has always been the purpose of the mission. While Americans don’t like the war, a Gallop poll in March ‘08 indicated that 65% of Americans felt that a reasonable level of stability should be reached before we left. It appears we are fast approaching that level. World domination — that is truly dillusional. RE Hate - that is a theological debate and this isn’t the forum. It deals with hate the sin but not the sinner. If you want to know more go find a clergy of your choosing (suggest you don’t go to a radical Islamist). The tax issue will rise again for further discussion. Surfice it to say that a good economics is more than income redistribution.

By Savanation

July 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

”, you were willing to cut/run, leaving Iraq in chaos and the innocent civilians there at the mercy of insurgents, AQI and others”(TRS) Gee, I thought you just told me that everything was hunky dorey in Iraq and working just swell. You picture didn’t sound like “chaos” to me. So, please, pick one: Iraq - Good, or Iraq - Chaos. You are so all over the place. Try to be more consistent. Thank you. You are back to that “cut and run” thing again. Did they have sale on that phrase at Republican Central? I believe Bush, and I just saw a clip of McBush saying the same thing, said that if the Iraqi’s elected government asked us to leave, we should leave. Doesn’t sound like “cut and run” to me. It sounds like the Iraqi’s are fed up with Bush and company and want the occupying forces out of there. Sorry that offends your idea of world domination but too bad. “there is a difference between cut/run timetable and setting one which the Iraqis feel comfortable with”(TRS) Sure there is. The Iraqi time table is even shorter than Obama’s very reasonable proposal. “Maybe the American people are smarter than you give them credit for. (TRS) Would those “American people be the same 70plus % who say the war in Iraq was wrong from the start? Or the 70 some % who think George Bush is a total failure? You know, you are right, the majority of the American people is smarter than some think. That’s why it looks like Obama is going to have a landslide victory over McBush and the thiinking majority will put of much larger number of Democrats in the House and the Senate and then they will be able to raise that 9% disapproval rating caused by the obstructionists of the Republican party. Just think of all the good things which could have been done these last eight years if they hadn’t been blocked by the Republican party and George Bush and people like you.” Hate ultimately destroys all that it touches” (TRS) Nice thought. Not quite true, though. If it was true, then Bush would be long come and America would have recovered it’s greatness. But don’t worry, just a few more months and all history will have to hate is the memory of Bush and those who didn’t care enough about America to vote against him. You know that is really a weird statement: That you don’t hate Bush because you don’t hate. You say “hate is contrary to my beliefs”. Do you think? Do you feel? Don’t you hate child molesters? Or are you as OK with them as you are with people who murder soldiers by sending them into a war which had no cause and or plan for and end? Typical Republican, taxes(which would go down under Obama, are more important than people.

By TRS

July 9, 2008 12:35 AM | Link to this

1st, I think Ethel can handle herself pretty well. She, like you, was expressing her opinion except she was articulate and yours are nothing more than emotional rants, saying ridiculous things trying to provoke rather than debate or discuss. I don’t think rational is in your vocabulary. I’m sure Ethel will not only check the analysis from the liberal Brookings Institute but from the conservative Heritage Foundation and/or Wall Street Journal and arrive at a conclusion. She strikes me as someone who thinks through an issue rather than just sprewing hyperbole and mean spirited comments. Ethel, between you and me, I think Savagenation has an issue with women who are smarter than him. Not very becoming for whats supposed to be a tolerant, EEO leftie type is it? As far as conscience, you claim respect for life; yet, you were willing to cut/run, leaving Iraq in chaos and the innocent civilians there at the mercy of insurgents, AQI and others. Many more innocents would have suffered if you would have had your way. That would have been unconscionable. Saw today where AQI has been chased out of Mosul. Most AQI members were killed or sent running. Thats the definition of fighting terrorism. Deal with it. The fact the the Iraqis are looking for a timetable for us to depart shows that we are indeed heading toward a successful conclusion. There is a difference between cut/run timetable and setting one which the Iraqis feel comfortable with. The intent all along was to raise them up in whatever form of democracy they created and give them atonomy. I’m sure some sort of an agreement will be worked out suitable to all and that will happen. I’m not quite sure what question you are refering to that I did not answer. As I look through you rants the only one I can find seems to be about being out of touch with the world (paraphrase). Actually I’ve got a pretty good grip on reality. Fact - while Iraq is not perfect, its doing much better and heading toward a successful conclusion. Fact - our troops defended the Iraqis at a time when they were most vulnerable. It was tough sledding for awhile but it was the right thing to do - much better than your preference of abandoning them. Fact - the Taliban is causing trouble, but the country is in no danger at this point of returning to their rule. Contrary to your statement, troops have left Iraq heading to Afganistan. Fact - Senator Obama wants to raise taxes to redistribute income. It probably makes you feel good to get those mean ol’ rich folks, but history has proven it to be poor economics. Obama’s tax hikes would be higher than the Carter years when the misery index was invented and malaise was all the rage. That really gives everyone something to look forward to now doesn’t it? Fact - as of today’s Rasmusson poll, President Bush’s approval rating is at 32%, nothing to brag about; but, the Democratically controlled US Congress’ approval rating is 9%. Maybe the American people are smarter than you give them credit for. Fact - over 70% of the country believes we should be seeking out our own energy reserves. The current land made available for exploration has yielded nothing so far. We know there is oil in Alaska, on the coasts and in shale. Folks know we need a combined policy which includes drilling, alternative energy research and development. They aren’t buying the “pie in the sky” the Democrats offer and are beginning to realize how beholden the Dems are to the radical environmentalists. The only other question I saw - “why don’t I hate Bush?” Hate is contrary to my beliefs. I leave hate to the radical Islamists and the radical American Left. Hate ultimately destroys all that it touches.

By Savanation

July 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

” The main thrust of his writing was civility”, which point he made by pointing out the totally uncivil and “equally bizarre, and equally shameful,and equally crude”(Leonard Pitts) lies put out by your friends, the Swiftboaters, for the political benefit of your friend, Mr Bush. BTW, the chance” you missed in 2004 was getting rid of Bush. Since you didn’t care about our soldier’s lives, you didn’t take it. I thought I had made myself clear on that point. Sorry. “and it’s their country”(TRS) Exactly since when? Since you are covering for Ethel, you might want to point her to the Comparison Of McCain and Obama Tax policies put out on 6/11 by the Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution. I am sure you know what it says but obviously Ethel doesn’t. But that has never stopped Ethel from spewing fiction and libel before. And, oh, yes, you still haven’t answered my question. I guess you have been too busy thinking up “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or maybe you have “BDLC” (Bush Denial and Lack of Conscience)

By TRS

July 8, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

The Iraqis are feeling their oats and its their country. Frankly, I think its more of a negotiating ploy to satisfy their Shite constituancy - that happens in democracy, but whatever the end result, I’m OK with. Obvious, it is you that hasn’t been reading because we have transferred some of our troops to Afganistan. It is a differing war than Iraq and we must be careful to remember that the Russians tried to win with a massive influx of troops and that didn’t work. Fortunately, General Pretraeus, the architect of the successful Iraq policy, is in charge of oversight for both and I’m sure he’ll figure do just fine. (Chance to leave in 2004?) Iraq was broken in 2004 - there was no chance to exit without leaving it in chaos. Don’t know where you got that. (Wear the proper equipment?) Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the “proper equipment” for debate is. Here is rule #1. “Questions or challenges should be professional. Insulting, condescending, or comments involving personal language or attacks are unacceptable”. I realize this is contradictary to the radical left’s way of doing business. The Code Pinks who protest at the swearing in of new Americans are no different than the Fred Phelps who protest at GI funerals. They are both obnoxious, tasteless and wrong. Earlier, I note you quoted Leonard Pitts comments about Kerry (by the way, nice try in changing the subject but it didn’t address Kerry’s untruths told before Congress). The main thrust of his writing was civility; but, you seemed to have overlooked that point.

By Ethel S.

July 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

In a speech last Thursday, the Taxocrat Sen. Obama found a new way to “reform” Social Security by wanting to give benefits to domestic partners. Given the fact that there is no Federal recognition of domestic partners, the type of giveaway spending is about the worst idea any one at anytime has ever proposed to save the SSA program. The new kind of change, Sen. Obama had in mind is really called pandering. And on the subject of Iraq, Sen. Obama’s position is all so predictable too. Since he has not been to Iraq since 2006, he will go and decide that we can savage something there. So he will “adjust” or “fine tune” a strategy or a new position if Iraq is still the important issue of this election. The new kind of change should really be called by its right name, pandering for votes.

By Savanation

July 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

” Iraq seems headed toward a successful conclusion.”(TRS) Now you have proved that you have no sense at all. The Iraqi Prime Minister just asked us to get out as soon as possible with a sensible time table(just as Sen. Obama suggests). Mr Bush ahs said in the past that if the Iraqis wanted us to leave we would. Now, Mr. Bush, not so much. ” he believed the cause was just”(TRS). Ah, so did Hitler. Big Deal. It wasn’t, There was a chance in 2004 to stop the silliness, you didn’t take it.The Taliban no longer rule Afganistan “(TRS) You been following the news lately? Now the place where we should have been all along has now erupted back into chaos. But we have to tell our generals there, sorry, but all the troops are tied up trying to control the country TRS says is well on the way to statehood and being a sight for the SuperBowl. Boy, you really have bought every lie they wanted you to buy, haven’t you. How can you be so far out of what is happening in the world? “Yes, I hate Bush. Why the hell don’t you?”(Sav) You didn’t answer my question. BTW, Ethel’s comments are usually dumb, immature and totally wrong. Your’s are usually just wrong. But if she wants to play, let her wear the proper equipment.

By TRS

July 8, 2008 1:30 AM | Link to this

It always gives me a chuckle when someone says “they told you and you believed them”, trying to diminish others reasoning and elevate your own. Your accusation that Bush didn’t care is just silly. Of course he cared. The difference is he believed the cause was just and you don’t. Once we were in Iraq, we just couldn’t go “never mind” and walk away. That happened in ‘91 and Saddam killed 6000 Kurds with gas. Had we just cut/run (as you advocated) the ensuing power stuggle not only would have devastated the population but left a vulnerable state available as a safe haven to AQI, Iran and even the Baathists. AQI came to Iraq, bringing its foreign recruits and tried to destabalize the country. The Sunni changed of heart coupled with the surge has descimated them and today most of AQI is either dead or on the run. Iran sought to provoke the Shites, providing them arms, IED, etc. The Iraqi and US Armies assumed control of Sadr City and things are going well. AQI consists of terrorists and Iran sponsers terrorists; thus, we have been and currently are fighting terrorists. Much to your chagrin, Iraq seems headed toward a successful conclusion. Its not there yet; but, its moving toward its benchmarks politically and militarily assuming control of the country. Other countries are opening Embassies, recognizing the new government and businesses are looking to invest there. There infrastructure is being rebuilt well beyond what is was in the days of Saddam. If all continues there will be a democracy, in the Middle East - the second one. The Taliban no longer rule Afganistan and Saddam no longer rules Iraq. Both hated the United States. While all is not done, we have two governments, friendly toward the United States, an AQI with greatly diminished capacity and alot of dead terrorists. Those are the facts - it seems to be you who are being told by the left, who encouraged our enemy to begin with, who is now stuck in the past, mired in anger, bitterness and hatred. I’ve always thought BDR (Bush Derangement Syndrome) was just something someone coined up, but you truly have it. Most folks would take no pride in treating others as you treated Ethel. Perhaps you’ve always been rude, crude and totally lacking in class or perhaps BDR has pushed you over the edge. Again, counseling and meds could be helpful. Edna St Vincent Milloy once said I love humanity but I hate people. Considering the way you personally attack others, I’d say that pretty much describes you.

By Savanation

July 7, 2008 7:49 AM | Link to this

” You hate President Bush and have since Florida 2000” Well, TRS, it was disgusting to see a drunken coward steal and election from the American people, but I didn’t hate Bush until he stopped the war on those who attcked us and changed it into a personal war on those who were easier to conquer. He couldn’t do the job, so he shouted a few inane patriotic slogans and gullible people, like you, said: Hey look he is fighting terror in that hotbed of terror, Iraq. Even though there were no terrorists in Iraq. But you didn’t care. “advocating “cut and run”” (TRS). Rightwing words, calculated to inspire rightwing hatred of reasonable thought. Looks like those who control your mind did a good job. “Cut and run” lets take a look at those words. Mr. Bush cut a sovereign nation into little pieces of junk for no reason. He cut their infrastructure, he cut their food supplies, he cut their armed forces out completely. The only thing he didn’t cut was the chaos he created. Then he had no idea how to control the chaos. The only thing he could do, short apologizing and getting his men back home or in Afganistan, where they belonged, was to allow the chaos to continue. He didn’t care how many men died, as long as people like you didn’t care either. He called it a War on Terror, and you believed him becuase it was easier than acknowledging that you voted for an idiot who committed the worst blunder in American History.”I don’t profess that GW has done everything right”(TRS) Then why did you vote for the second time? Duh! “Run” That would be the rightwing word for: Bringing our troops home or at least to a place where they would do some good. That thought has nevered occured to people like you. Better they be killed than acknowledge that Mr. Bush sent them to the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, supported by the wrongheaded unthinking votes of accessories to murder, like those who claim they support the troops and allow them to be killed for Bush. Yes, I hate Bush. Why the hell don’t you?Our troops are fighting a war against terror “(TRS) NO, TRS, they are not. Not in Iraq. Never have been and are not now. You think if you shout “War on Terror”, you are being a good American. You would be right IF we happened to be fighting a War on Terror. Bush stopped that war the minute he bombed Iraq. But of course we now know, he was planning that little piece of diplomacy from the day the Supreme Court gave him the White House. Nice guy you support. One of your kind, right? No wonder America is in such terrible shape.

By Savanation

July 7, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this

Congratulations, TRS, Ethel agrees with your posts. That’s something like Larry agreeing with Curly and Moe. So, Ethel, you have made my day. What better start to a day than to see you saying farewell. Sorry you didn’t like my “foul language. I guess you just approve of s**t when it isn’t called s**t.

By Ethel S.

July 6, 2008 11:29 PM | Link to this

I agree with your posts, TRS. And Savanation, I did not appreciate your use of the foul language in your last post. That language does not reflect proper manners, respect, and behavior and it certainly is not welcomed in my home computer. So I do not plan to address any more discussion with you Farewell, Savanation.

By TRS

July 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

History tells us that after the Viet Nam war the NVA (thats North Vietnamese) recounted the fact they were totally defeated after Tet; but, they say one glimmer of hope that eventaully allowed them to prevail - the American left. Thats a historical fact. If they kept on fighting, the American left and the media would wear down the will of the American people. They were right. Over the course of the next years 20,000+ soldiers died and in many ways it can be attributed to the encouragement the American left gave the enemy. Circa 2005-06, again comes the radical left. The enemy, Al Quaeda and the insurgents, supported by Iran, saw the radical American left and the news media rising up again advocating “cut and run”, a strategy which had nothing but negative ramifications. It could be argued that it is your position, Savagenation, which caused the death of many of our troops. When we showed the will to win, the enemy began to crumble. In 2005-06 during the dark days of the war and when you were giving the enemy hope - troops were dying. Our troops are fighting a war against terror. True, it is different than envisioned when it began. I appreciate the fact that some have a conscious issue with war, or this war - I have no problem with that. Most express their objection and we can agree to disagree; but, that doesn’t apply to you. Your issue is simple. You hate President Bush and have since Florida 2000. The sad commentary is that you would rather see the country fail than anyone you disagree with to succeed. Your greatest concern isn’t the country, but your need to be right. Perhaps some counseling or calming medications might help but I doubt it. I don’t profess that GW has done everything right; but after Florida 2000 folks with the hatred you hold for him were just looking for a reason to pounce and politicalization of a war was the perfect issue. Power, not the troops, are your concern as it is with most on the left. I know not if you are truly concerned about the troops. Your language is filled with so much anger, hatred and hyperbole that one can draw the conclusion that they are simply a tool in your linguistic quiver which you throw out there trying to make a cut throat point. Anyone who served honorably deserves respect, you call those you agree with heros and those you disagree with liars. You didn’t even bother to fact check and even in your response only defended him again - Why? Because you agree with him and you disagree with the others. Facts are irrelevent to the radical left - its only the seriousness of the charge that you make that matters to you. The bigger the charge, the greater the hyperbole - the greater point you think you’ve made - the bigger gotcha. At the end of the day it only reflects another angry, radical, out of control leftie. Our troops are winning a war on terror. You are so blind with hatred of Bush you don’t even recognize that terror exists. Fortunately, your candidate seems a bit more reasonable than you. My only concern is that much of his support is derived from the radical left and heaven knows what he’ll do when the folks such as yourself start calling in their chits. Socialism simply doesn’t work.

By Savanation

July 5, 2008 10:40 PM | Link to this

“Soon GWB will leave office and a new era will begin”(Ethel) Not if McBush is put in. Ethel, congratulations, you are not as dumb as you make your self out to be. Almost but not quite. Sen. has no ploicy on energy. He wants to stop the Fed. gas tax for three months. Every economist in the country says that idea is pure bullshit. He says drilling holes in wildlife preserves will bring gas prices down. Bullshit, All experts say that might reduce prices by three cents in about ten years. That does nothing to help America today. He is in favor of continuing tax braks for the oil companies which are making montrous profits now and doing nothing with them other than giving themselves fat bonuses. When was the last time the oil comnpanies invested in new refineries? They won’t because they cost a lot of money and they are making billions now, so why should they invest any more when they have people like Bush and McBush shoveling it to them. Sen. McCain has no policy on National Seciurity other than keep our soldiers in Iraq doing what they should be doing in Afganistan and getting killed for no reason. He is hot headed man in need of anger management who is not to be trusted with the security of the United States. He is so bipartisan that he voted witht he worst Preisdent in our nations history 95% of the time. He didn’t even want to give our GI’s a decent living after they came home from the carnage he wants to keep going. Experience? he only experience he has demonstrated is an amazing ability to change any principled opinion he has ever had to the worng side because he realized that the Republican nomination couldn’t be gotten by anyone who was half way reasonable. So he decided to flip flop on everything he ever stood for and to toe the Bush line all the way. If McCain is elected, and that won’t happen, thank God, all the Bush economic policies which are bankrupting our country would get even worse, all the sickening tax cuts for the wealthy, at a time when we are terribly in debt because of Bush, would go on, even worse. Our soldiers would continue dying for no reason and we would have no backup military for new problems which he would cause. Religious fanatics like John Hagee and rod Parsley would tell McCain who to select as judges and what science to shut down. And what “love and Dedication” has Sen. McCain demonstrated? The same “Love and Dedication” he showed to his first wife as he was dumping her for the big bucks of his trophy wife? No, Ethel, McBush is the same old s**t, wrapped up in an even older package, waiting for fools to say: Isn’t that a nice old man and, gee, he was POW.

By Ethel S.

July 5, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

Soon GWB will leave office and a new era will begin. We need someone who has the maturity and leadership to rise above the GWB style of politics. Savanation incorrectly wants me to admit that “I voted for that idiot for President twice.” Savanation you have that oh so wrong! GWB lost my support when he was Governor of Texas and would not pardon Carla Fay Tucker and ended up executing more people than any other Governor in our history. And then GWB started his lies about Sen. McCain having an illegimate black daughter when the truth was he has an adopted daughter from Bangladash. With those lies, GWB secured the 2000 nomination and more propoganda lead to the 2004 nomination and election. Although Sen. McCain is a GOP, he is vastly different from GWB. That is why it is important to look carefully on the issues, character, experience, and the maturity of both candidates. And when I look over those qualifications, it is my position that Sen. McCain has the best policies on energy, national security, actually delivering on major bipartisan legislation over a long period of time, and has demonstrated by words and actions his love and dedication to this country. My vote for Sen. McCain has absolutely nothing to do with GWB!

By Savanation

July 5, 2008 1:22 AM | Link to this

” you both are so critical of Bush for alleged “lies and exxagerations”; yet, you it was perfectly all right when Kerry did it. You claim I find excuses for Bush but then you make them for Kerry.”(TRS) A. Kerry did not lie and/or exagerate. B. Kerry did not and does not need any excuses. Whereas Bush and you sorely need to have some. Sorry, the record speaks for itself. Heroes, like John Kerry, are still heroes. Lying, soldier killing scum, like Bush and his Swiftboat shills, are still just that. No excuses needed. BTW saying you support our troops and also saying you support Bush, and the lying Swiftboat bastards, is the biggest hypocrisy of all.

By Savanation

July 5, 2008 12:48 AM | Link to this

Interesting paragraph from a column by Leonard Pitts, published today, July 5th in the Hamilton Journal: “Indeed, if you were making a movie out of this, you’d call it “Swift Boat II: The Revenge,” after the equally bizarre, equally shameful and equally crude 2004 attacks on John Kerry, another senator who was regarded as a war hero. Kerry was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for braving enemy fire while wounded to rescue a Special Forces officer. But that heroism was slimed (Kerry was never under fire, they claim) by people working for the re-election of a president who served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and a vice-president who dodged service altogether. Delegates at the GOP convention even mocked Kerry’s wounds, sporting bandages bearing purple hearts.”(Leonard Pitts) Mr. Pitts was writing a column about how someone had slimed John McCain. Very interesting, his choice of who to use as an example of scumbags who would do that kind of thing. Sounds like he was talking about TRS’s friends.

By mwm

July 4, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Kerry did not use lies, deceptions and propaganda to start a war. Bush did. Kerry did speak out against the VietNam war; as did many veterans. Kerry, Gore and McCain are veterans. I’m a veteran. Kerry spoke of the evils he saw in VietNam. And, war has a tendancy to dehumanize the military after a period of time. Mi Lai happened. And, there were other cases of abuse by our military in VietNam. Just as there were cases of abuse committed by the NVA/VietCong on our military. Abugrabi did happen; along with other abuses by our military. Of course, since Bush is not a veteran, (never finished his obligation) and is a habitual liar, he knows nothing of war or those that suffer in war. He does, however know how to use lies and propaganda on the public. But, many Americans are wise to his evils now.

By TRS

July 4, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

No you don’t remember correctly because you do not hear what you do not want to here. Let me remind you of what he said our veterans “….raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country”, all of which turned out to be proven false later. Funny, you both are so critical of Bush for alleged “lies and exxagerations”; yet, you it was perfectly all right when Kerry did it. You claim I find excuses for Bush but then you make them for Kerry. I believe that is called hypocracy.

By Savanation

July 4, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

” he sought to dishonor all Viet Nam veterans” (TRS)”Kerry wasn’t called names.”(TRS)What do you call that? It has been awhile since I saw Sen.Kerry’s statement to Congress after coming back from Vietnam as a hero. If I remember corectly he said nothing which was not the truth. Maybe not the truth as you would like to have it spun, the the truth, nonetheless. It wasn’t a question that Sen. Kerry disparaged Vets, he honored tham by telling the true story about a sorry episode in our history. Which exactly why you hate anyone telling the truth about the past eight years. The same kind of nutjobs (Yes, that is a name, but an apt description) whosought to lie about Kerry because they couldn’t stand the truth, are now trying to smear Obama because they have no other option. They cannnot argue on the merits because the last eight years have spectacularly shown that there is no merit to whatever they say. So they do what Republicans are so very good at - they lie. No one who knew the truth or cared about the truth, rejected Kerry. Unfortunately there were too many like you, who didn’t give a damn about the truth, just to have a tax cut and to continue the killing they prefered.

By mwm

July 3, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Veteran status is not a prerequisite for being elected president. Bush may have served in the Texas National Guard, (due to his fathers influence) but, did not complete his military obligation. I do not consider Bush a veteran. John Kerry is a VietNam veteran. As was Al Gore and McCain. Regardless of what they did in the service, they are veterans. The “Swift Boat Veterans” were tools of the Republican hate machine. Like the terror alert color code scam. And other Rove tactics. The Republican party has mired itself in so many lies, deceptions and propaganda. That is why the term “Republican” has so many bad connotations. Actually, Bush, Rove, Cheney and the rest made the Republican party appear to be evil and dishonest. It will take many many years for the American public to trust another Republican. Perhaps even a generation.

By TRS

July 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

Kerry wasn’t called names. His testimony before Congress was brought to light, played on television so the American public could see what was said in his own words. I believe they call that fact rather than ranting hyperbole such as your response. At the end of the day the American people measured what they saw and determined Kerry not to be fit to be Commander in Chief. By the way, while you checking polls, look at Congress - 18%. One thing I will say for you - there is not an objective bone in your body, even in the face of fact.

By Savanation

July 3, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

“Any fool can call someone names” (TRS) So true. Please apologize to Sen. Kerry and the thousands of our troops who you and your Medal of Honor liar caused to die. I don’t think your “honor” will allow you to do that. What is it down to these days? 23% is the last figure I heard to still cling to immorality and country hating of the Bush Administration. You must have paid a great deal for all the crap you have bought from your rightwing controllers. It must have been a lot because it is worth more to you than decency and truth and the lives of your countrymen. I don’t what this Bud Day did in win the Medal of Honor, but I am sure it was something heroic and deserving. It is too bad that something snapped in his mind which made him want to dishonor that medal. Maybe it was the same thing that happened to you.

By Savanation

July 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Ethel did you vote for George W, Bush in 2000 and in 2004? I bet you did. Therefore my statement is not incorrect. If you did not vote for Bush, just say so. “he (McCain) loved this country and he focused on the big picture of helping others.”(Ethel) That is exactly what Sen. Obama feels and has said many times. Strange you believe Sen. McCain, who wants to continue killing our soldiers for no reason, while you don’t seem to believe that of Sen. Obama, who wants to rescue America from the chaos you and TRS have helped create.

By Ethel S.

July 3, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this

There goes the nasty Obama supporters again incorrectly stating that I voted twice for an idiot to be President. What is your point for making such a stupid comment, Savanation? Sen. Obama was going to be a different kind of candidate to bring “hope” and “change” to this country. And all I read is “mean spirited” comments which does not bring this country together at all. I had the opportunity to attend a rally for Sen. McCain recently. A young vet asked him how he was able to handle the torture and the POW experience. His response was that he loved this country and he focused on the big picture of helping others. I think this is instructive to those nasty Obama supporters who need to start thinking of how to help others and this country. Then maybe we might get impressed with how well Sen. Obama serves as a good role model for his supporters.

By TRS

July 3, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

The crux of the swift boat men of honor was that John Kerry lied. That cannot be disputed. He exxagerated and lied in front of Congress with that whole Ghengis Khan routine. He betrayed his fellow Veterans and went beyond the pale of decency (a place you seem quite familiar with) by accusing his fellow veterans of the most horrible of atrocities for which he had no proof. He was the one who presented himself as a war hero with his “reporting for duty” intro and he was the one who brought his record forward for examiniation. I have always honored his service in Viet Nam, anyone who puts themselves in harms way deserves that honor; but, call it what you will - back stabbing for his own self engrandizement, betrayal, whatever - he sought to dishonor all Viet Nam veterans with false accusations, innuendo and flat out lies and for that reason lost his creditability the lead such men and women as Commander in Chief. For years, little was said; but, it was he who presented himself as capable to lead based on his veteran status and that invited examination of that record. Obviously, he was found wanting. I suppose if you want to call Medal of Honor winner Bud Day and others liars, etc then you are free to do so; but, it reflects who you are and what your all about. Anyone who doesn’t fit your world view is considered a liar, an idiot, stupid, etc, only a few of the names I can remember you calling others. Such talk is heard where dictators and oppressive governments rule, but most in America can agree to disagree without the hyperbole and disrespect you show. Any fool can call someone names - they do it on the playgrounds across America all the time. If defending the Swift Boat folks, their records, their honor and their accomplishments defines me then defending one who betrayed his fellow vets defines you. I know you intend my defense of the Swift Boat folks as a put down (more playground stuff); but, I’m honored to stand with them.

By Savanation

July 2, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

Now we see the real TRS come out. “The Swift Boaters were men of honor”(TRS) These liars are what TRS calls men of honor. You can still smell the s**t from the last time these “men of honor” spread their crap to gullible fish like TRS. The Swiftboat Liars was the most hateful and despicable episode ever pulled by rotten lying scum in the history of American politics. Anyone who even stands on a stage with that trash is not worthy to be dogcatcher in Dayton, Ohio. TRS tries to talk a good argument but everytime he posts, a little more of the real TRS shows through. The “Swiftboaters are men of honor” lunacy finally negates any attempt at reason TRS tried to show. Now we know he is a complete whacko who loves liars more than he does his country. Have you no shame at all? Any true American would want those liars banished from American soil. Your “honorable” Swiftboaters, with their lies, caused the deaths of every American soldier killed since the 2004 election. They are “pimple on the rear end” of America, and they and those who accepted their filth should never be honored by being called Americans. Don’t ever try to talk about lack of character and immaturity when you offer things like “Swiftboaters are men of honor”, when you voted for cowardly drunk who hid in Alabama while John Kerry was becoming a hero in Vietnam/ You prefer drunks and liars over heroes. Don’t have the nerve to talk about immaturity or lack of character. You know, TRS I was starting to enjoy debating with you, but sometimes an opponent says something, like you just did, that is so far from reality and morality, that I just have to say: This man is simply nuts. And leave it at that.

By Ohio Vet

July 2, 2008 8:41 PM | Link to this

I’m a vet and have been to war, does that qualify me to President. I don’t think so. General Clark said it best, McCain has not made any executive decision concerning anything. He used to be a Maverick till he got with lobbyist Phil Gramm who invented the Enron Loophole that made our gas prices go up. John McCain first fought against the bill then supported it after Gramm became his campaign manager. Now he wants to drill but closing the enron loophole will lower gas prices up to 50% NOW. McCain went to Canada to tell them how NAFTA was good for there country, then came to Ohio (whose lost over 275,000 jobs because of NAFTA), said nothing about job creation, then went to Mexico and told them that he supported CAFTA. Which country is he trying to be President? John McCain was a Maverick but after voting with President Bush 95% of the time since 9/11 now he’s just a McBush.

By TRS

July 2, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this

Actually, its the maturity level of some of his supporters I question (hint, hint Savagenation). You talk about McCain flip flops - here’s a few from your camp. He was against giving telecom companies immunity before he was for it; he was for gun control in DC before he was against it in agreeing with the Supreme court decision; he was going to accept public financing before he was against it and decided to go private; he was going to renegotiate NAFTA immediately before he decided that wasn’t such a good idea and has backed away from that; he was for the states deciding gay marriage until he was against California doing so and of course he was against welfare reform before he was for it. Not to rehash old news, but I see the press and Dems going after the Swift Boat veterans. These folks served with Kerry, knew him intimately and knew his character. He returned home and lied about them - accused his fellow veterans of the most horrible crimes for which he had no evidence and exxagerated his own resume (going to Cambodia). The Swift Boaters were men of honor, highly decorated and did their duty by revealing the truth. Only the left would be low enough to try and smear them for revenge. Only the left would seek to demean McCain’s service by asking “what did he do other than get a few beatings”? Such statements reflect a group that claims outrage at the loss of life by our troops and then willingly throws them under the bus if it doesn’t suit their agenda, ie Murtha and Keith Oberman and the Hadetha Marines. Perhaps thats the character and lack of maturity Ethel was talking about. Frankly, those that do so aren’t qualified to be a pimple on the rear end of the Swift boaters, McCain or those fine Marines, tried and convicted by the American left and Murtha only to see the charges dismissed.

By Savanation

July 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

Ethel, you are totally unbelievable. “Sen Obama is too immature to be President”(Ethel) Ethel, let me point something out to you: YOU VOTED, TWICE, FOR AN IDIOT TO BE PRESIDENT! I don’t think you have any qualifications to call Sen. Obama “immature”. “Poor associations”(Ethel) Sen McCain has the endorsement of George W. Bush, John Hagee, the NRA, the Swiftboat Liars, his champaign is controlled by the biggest batch of lobbyists ever assembled, and assorted nutjobs like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Talk about “poor associations” Why doesn’t that bother you? Yes, McCain is the best candidate - if you want to continue to be screwed.

By red sailor

July 2, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

As a military vet, i’ll never vote gop again,the last 8 years, of total incompatence has made me vary openminded. the more i here karl rove, the more im beginning to understand just what happened. GO OBAMA.

By Ethel S.

July 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

Sen. Obama is too immature to be President. When he has poor associations he has a lot of excuses, i.e. his ministers, his church, Rezko, Bill Ayers, they are not the people he knew and throws them under the bus (even his grandmother). His legislative record is thin, he has not held one Senate hearing on his NATO committee responsible for Afghanstan using the campaign as an excuse, he has not been to Iraq since 2006, his wife needed a “makeover” while Cindy McCain was on a humanitarian tour in Southeast Asia. Sen. McCain has been a Naval officer and in the Senate for 21 years. He has been responsible for working across the aisle to pass landmark legislation including public campaign finance reform. Sen. Obama signed a pledge to follow that and then had some weak excuse to break his pledge. Sen. McCain has stoop up to GWB on the torture issues, global warming, and getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld to name a few. Now Sen. Obama is more like GWB wanting to bring faith-based programs in his administration. Sen. McCain is the best candidate.

By TRS

July 2, 2008 12:44 AM | Link to this

RE Welfare reform, bit more than a wiff of doubt, in 1997 he was quoted as saying “he probably wouldn’t have voted for welfare reform” which was signed into law by President Clinton.

By Ohio Vet

July 1, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this

EXCELLENT!!!! America is only as strong as its middleclass workers. Obama will be a great President and champion that will put the poor and middleclass first. Who will fight to unite America into the force that we once was.