#1. "RE: Sportsman Kerry" In response to Al (Reply # 0) Thu Oct-14-04 01:29 PM by Shelly
Shelly does not talk to Myk, nor does he consider a the NY Post a journalistic paragon. Your desperation is beginning to show. You are beginning to see the writing on the wall that says President Kerry.
#2. "RE: Sportsman Kerry" In response to Shelly (Reply # 1) Thu Oct-14-04 03:47 PM by nightlyreader
If Kerry had hunted in the past, it would have sounded better to just acknowledge the fact without going into techniques that raise eyebrows. That part doesn't really bother me. What does is his voting record. He has a 100% rating from the anti-gun crowd and is labeled a "hero" by PETA.
You don't consider a news source worthy because it says something you don't want to hear? LOL, what else is new? Isn't that the real reason you don't talk to me, but you'll still talk about me? I don't care if you won't talk to me, since you still take time to call me names to other people, I know still you read what I write. I get to speak my piece, you listen yet don't say anything. It's a win win situation, it's better than duct tape.
You could research any of those Kerry quotes and come up websites that would suit you. (You know, research, that thing you claim you do but refuse to do whether it builds Kerry up or tears Kerry down.)
The point is that Kerry is lying. What he says is deer hunting is far removed from it. You do remember your largest deer, you remember them in categories. My dad quit hunting before I was born, he still had hunting stories.
Kerry is even out of touch with what it takes for day to day life, cooking. "You clean them. Let them hang. It takes three or four birds to have a meal," said the Massachusetts senator. "You might eat it at a picnic, cold roasted. I love dove."
WTF is cold roasting? Hanging dove? He's seen some stuff in pictures, he's heard some stuff and his spin masters have written him lies. Double barrel sounds good, cold filtering is for beer so call it cold roasting. It's a bunch of lies from a liar.
"I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach."
Guys like him are always fun to have around the hunting camp. Fights break out over who gets to give them their first tobacco chewing lesson just to shut 'em up.
Did you happen to read? Did you attempt to run those quotes through a search engine so you could check on how biased or unbiased the opinion piece is? Did you see mention of Field And Stream? Is that too biased for you? How many issues have you read?
Kerry made those statements, nobody forced him to say them. It doesn't take a major trophy hunter to know Kerry is full of crap. There are 4 year olds that know how to hunt better than what he described as deer hunting.
Go away, Paul. You don't have a horse in this race and your trolling of Al is getting as old as what went on at other boards with other people. Talk about an obsession.
#10. "RE: Sportsman Kerry" In response to Myk (Reply # 8) Thu Oct-14-04 08:58 PM by Paul D
Field and Stream. Not biased. Now, there's an oxymoron.
And you probably don't realise this because you're obsessed (by your own admission) with gun control, but there are other issues involved here. The whole world has a horse in this race. You can't claim your country to be the world superpower and then get upset because the world take an interest in its affairs.
"Field and Stream. Not biased. Now, there's an oxymoron."
Field And Stream doesn't particularly like Bush. They've had plenty of articles bashing him over the past four years. They've had a lot of letters to the editors complaining about it and lost readership because of it. You've obviously never read Field And Stream. If their being unbiased is an oxymoron, what does your ignorance make you? I'm betting it contains about three letters less.
The above quotes are from an interview in last month's issue. Both candidates were interviewed. Kerry lied about hunting, Bush did not (or at least if he did they weren't obvious like Kerry's belly crawl for deer lie). Nobody forced Kerry to lie about his hunting.
You think you have a RIGHT to influence other countries' elections!!!!!!!!! Nice little imperialist dog. If I throw a stick, will you leave?
#14. "RE: Sportsman Kerry" In response to Myk (Reply # 13) Thu Oct-14-04 11:44 PM by Paul D
I'm not conceited enough to believe I'm influencing anything. I'm just expressing my opinion in a supposedly free and open forum domiciled in but not restricted to a supposedly free country.
If you think I'm capable of influencing your election results you must be pretty insecure about your electoral process.
Way to ignore that you come into a thread about something you don't know about in order to offer that uneducated opinion.
Expressing your opinion is one thing, IF you were knowledgeable on the subject. But, "Yet another impeccably unbiased and reliable source." and "Field and Stream. Not biased. Now, there's an oxymoron." proves that you are not. You have no clue about the topic and you assume that because it comes from a hunting and fishing magazine that they praise Bush for everything.
Do you know that deer hunting is done with double barrel shotguns and belly crawls through the woods? If so Kerry must be hunting in Australia, because that's not how it's done here. If you don't believe that decoys are illegal in Massachusetts, look it up on their fish and game site. If you can find a hunter on "the Cape" who has seen a 16pt whitetail, bring him forward. If you would like to eat a dove that's been hung and then cold roasted, be my guest, I may even send some "get well quick" wishes.
Otherwise, sit back and take interest. This is just another instance of Kerry lying for votes. The lies are of interest to hunters because they are so blatant. They should be of interest to others including anti-hunters because they prove that you can't trust a thing this man says.
Shelly, I'm glad that you pointed out that link to others here. It does show how the results of the polls that site uses changes. And they use a combination of polls.
Paul, I think you misunderstood my comment. I expect people in other nations to take an interest in the elections. But I do have a problem with the idea of people who aren't citizens taking some kind of active roll in the process.
I must have misunderstood, and still do, because I don't see how commenting in a forum is playing an active part in the process.
And I also maintain that the result of your elections affects the whole world, so the the whole world has an interest.
I assume you would also rebuke the US ambassador to Australia (whose sole qualification is that he and Dubyer once co-owned a baseball team), because he, from a far more influential position than me, made several blatant attempts to influence the result of our recent elections.
Perhaps it's the vigor you comment with. Perhaps it's the insistence that you claim you are right and those who are here are wrong. Perhaps it's that you tell outright lies or falsehoods and then argue if someone speaks the truth.
I guess it's just me, but that seems like you are trying to influence people's votes rather than simply taking an interest. You have an opinion and you try to sway others to it. If that's not trying to influence a vote nothing is.
I maintain that the whole world's elections effect the whole world. I guess we should fire up that one world government.
It's comments like your "Dubyer" that paint you for what you are. BTW, what qualifications do you think Shirley Temple had to be an ambassador? Funny that you don't like an ambassador influencing an election but you deny knowing about Kerry doing the same thing. My guess is that your bias has blinded you again. You know about both, but one was OK because of the party she was for.
You also contradicted yourself. You claim a distaste for the ambassador (who actually does live in that country correct?) campaigning, yet you claim you can do the same in a country you don't live in because the whole world is effected.
First, find anything good I've directly said about Kerry. I admit I don't know as much about the guy as I do about Bush, because obviously until recently Bush has had far more coverage in both the world press and forums like this. But I've also said several times recently that I think he and Bush are both pretty poor candidates. So perhaps I could be accused of encouraging Americans not to vote at all but it seems many of you don't need much encouragement for that course of action anyway.
In fact I'd probably be happier knowing I'd convinced one person to change from not voting at all to voting for Bush because he/she disagreed strongly with me, but I don't expect you to understand that.
"Funny that you don't like an ambassador influencing an election but you deny knowing about Kerry doing the same thing. My guess is that your bias has blinded you again. You know about both, but one was OK because of the party she was for."
I assume you mean Kerry's sister. Sorry Bud, I didn't know about it. One article in the back pages of one newspaper doesn't equate with the coverage Scheiffer gets every time he opens his mouth to change feet. He's at it again already since the election, bullying our government over the "free trade" agreement.
Of course he's more newsworthy. He speaks as an accredited diplomat and is defying all diplomatic conventions. Kerry's sister speaks as a private citizen, just as I do. As such in our free society she is welcome to say what she pleases. Scheiffer because of his position does not have that freedom, although obviously he doesn't understand that. And it reflects poorly on our government that he is allowed to get away with it without rebuke.
Paul In between some of the barbs, are attempts to enlighten people about John Kerry. They come from public records, available to anyone that chooses to read them. Yes, the two candidates may not be the best this country has to offer, but they are who we will be choosing from.
I will not vote for him for two reasons. He is one of the biggest liberals around, and I personally can not ignore what he did to slam the Viet Nam veterans.
"I will not vote for him for two reasons. He is one of the biggest liberals around..."
To a European this is a really strange statement. Here to be called liberal means that you believe in freedom, civil liberty for all and that you hold moderate political views. In fact, that you generally hold liberal or moderate opinions in most things. European Liberal political parties are usually parties of the centre.
It obviously must mean something entirely different to Americans.
So is that what "liberal" means to you, that he has leanings to the left?
When I really think about it, I suppose it depends on where the centre is, our centre is obviously different from your centre. By British standards the idea that the American Democratic Party is even left enough to be in the centre (as we see it) is laughable, to us both parties are right-wing with the Republicans being a bit further right than the Democrats.
Our three main political parties are Labour (left), Liberal Democrats (centre) and Conservative (right).
May have been true in the past, but with the exception of Zell Miller and a few others, the Democratic Party has sure moved left. And their platform does read like that of the Communist Party. Maybe the Communist Party aren't socialists?
It may have moved left, but it's not socialism. At least, socialism as I understand it, but I have a feeling our definitions are probably not on the same wavelength either. And I hate to bring it up, but the RNC and several of it's state/county chapters have platforms which sound more like religious dictatorships than anything else.
Welcome to our fractured nation. There's nobody left in the middle.
The Communist party is Marxist, not Socialist. There are differences, though they are probably beyond the ability of monolithic thinkers to discern. If you have too much trouble understanding political and economic systems, and the differences among them, there are a number of books on the subject.
I don't have much use for either Marxism or Socialism. I believe in a capitalistic system with enlightened social values. I have always been an economic conservative, and a social liberal. As a society, we can only be as free as the least free among us. Where you would tell those who don't share in the American dream to sink oe swim. I would work to help them swim. If that makes me a hated liberal in your view, I will gladly accept the label, it has a better ring to it than fascist.
Well then, Shelly, I guess you are telling me that the Democratic Party is Marxist, because the American Communist Party has selected their platform as properly representing them.
By the way, I believe that government control of the workplace, government control of industry, government control of wages all put together equal socialism.
And would you mind telling me if this qualifies as socialism or Marxism?: "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"
I'm all for helping people to improve themselves. I'm just not for the government being who does it. They end up in that self-perpetuating cycle of keeping people around who need help to maintain the beaurocracy.
You are really disintegrating, Al. Most communist's like ice cream (Russian ice cream is very good, ever been there Al?), I like ice cream, so I suppose in your eyes that makes me a communist?
Party platforms aren't ice cream, Shelly. Come now, you can do better than that. Even the most basic student of symbolic logic wouldn't pull that boner.
Now, this one:
A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J=A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J
That is the one that applies.
When the party platforms share the exact same points and tenants, that has a tendency to indicate they share the same assumptions and even philosophy.
And it's precisely because I do volunteer work for a charity that I know that it's important, but it's not the answer. In fact suggesting that all help for society's less fortunate should be the responsibility of volunteers is a cop-out of such monumental proportions that I'm surprised even you could consider it, because unfortunately there are too many self-centered greedy people in society.
It doesn't help that our free enterprise government doesn't think they deserve tax breaks and taxes them like businesses. But I suppose you wouldn't agree they should get tax breaks either.
#58. "RE: Sportsman Kerry" In response to Al (Reply # 57) Sun Oct-17-04 05:59 PM by Paul D
Certainly some. They need to incorporate for legal purposes (insurance, public liability etc) and doing so renders at least some liable to taxation.
I'm not up on the legal technicalities, but one pretty substantial charity here that among other things provides community housing for those mental patients who can be safely domiciled in the community is having to close many of its institutions in Queensland. Decrease in government support (Federal and State), lack of income (donations) and tax costs are being cited as some of the reasons.
Further, quite a few of our major charities run shops selling donated used clothing, housewares etc. It may be that only such business-like activities are taxd, I don't know.
And I do recall that the legal definition of a charity was tightened a few years ago to what seemed to many to be an unfair level.
As I recall, you were all for Socialist measures in business, as long as they were benefiting your business. As I recall, "it's a global economy, you either sink or swim". Of course that was said because laws were passed that helped you swim and sank many others.
So you do still have time to read my posts. I'm so glad. I was feeling so left out. The last person I knew with alzheimer's died last year and without your abusive attitude directed at me I was missing him.
I recall Shelly being for the unfair trade agreements because they help his business. He doesn't care about all the businesses they hurt. They need to sink or swim. But when it comes down to having to actually deal with free trade or trade regulated for what's best for the country, he gets up in arms about it.
>In the United States, Liberal has taken on the meaning of >socialist.
Al, we are in similar positions, as American living outside the United States, a decision each of us made for our own separate reasons. I have no Idea of your legal status in Thailand. I am both a citizen of State of Israel and the United States of America. I know that my position on the subject may be unique but I feel I have to choose between voting in one place or the other, because I reside in Israel I choose to vote here.. That is my own decision. I still have an opinion just as you do. I'm not quite as ambitious as you are and don't write on and on mixing good substantiated facts with circumstantial evidence, character assassination and a bit of fiction here and there. You would be an asset to any campaign. The reason I began this was essentially because I wanted to Shout to everybody I AM A LIBERAL. Both here in Israel and in the States the right has put great effort in making the term LIBERAL into a four letter word. I AM A LIBERAL. One of the things That makes the U.S.A. the most wonderful and the strongest nation in the world is that it is the worlds greatest example of Capitalism at the same time maintaining SOCIALIST (another four letter word) safety nets to ensure a successful future generation and to respect our elders by not forcing them to eat from the garbage. Of course it is not perfect and too many fall through the net. That is the main reason that Kerry needs to be elected president. The strengthening Oligarchy that is becoming America must be slowed down. I don't really expect any candidate to stop of it.
Ethan
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene
If you check back in history, those socialist safety nets were the start of a lot of the problems.
So you are saying Kerry needs to be elected President because of campaign promises? You dare say that in this thread? He's a liar, why would you believe is promises? They're the same promises that Clinton made and after 8 years of him we still don't have healthcare for everyone. This thread proves he's a liar, not one part of his description about deer hunting is what goes on in a deer hunt.
Kerry's lying for votes shows me he will be all the Clinton was but worse. One week Kerry will throw a bomb at Iran to get some votes, the next week he'd bomb someone else to get some votes. He would have the world at our throats. You do know that the reason the Taliban got popularity in Afghanistan was because of one of Clinton's failed missile tosses don't you?
I really don't see how you figure that putting a career politician in office over a businessman is going to do anything to slow down any Oligarchy.
There's a sick part of me that wants Kerry to win, just so we can get a draft, Iraq can turn into a Vietnam and I can say I told you so to all the protesters, draft dodgers and crying parents. I want to laugh at my sister who claims she didn't get any tax cuts from Bush when she gets a tax increase from Kerry.
Liberal used to mean, liberal with rights. Those liberals are now called libertarians. Liberal now means liberal with government regulation.
Conservative used to mean conservative with rights. It now means conservative with government regulation. These are closer to the libertarians than the liberals are.
If your "liberal" means center, then you are with the old way because that is generally where libertarian comes out on the line.
If you want to be confused even further, it used to be the Southern Democrats that were the right wing Christians. They were also the ones who were the racists. Again, I suspect the change is nothing more than to confuse the issues and play both sides of the fence.
Thanks for that link. The subject is more complicated than I realised although generally as I thought. I noted the following..... "As discussed above, the most common contemporary U.S. use of the term liberal is somewhat at variance from the use of the term in the rest of the world".
Al: ">May have been true in the past, but with the exception of >Zell Miller and a few others, the Democratic Party has sure >moved left. And their platform does read like that of the >Communist Party. Maybe the Communist Party aren't >socialists"?
No Al. It is the Republican Party and all its knuckle-dragging sycophants like the NRA, "Christian Conservatives", White People's Party, White Citizens Council, Anti-abortion nuts-etc. who have moved to the far Right, which positions others to the "left". The Republican Party is in the hands of Pat Robertson, the Guru of the Christian movement. He has moved more scared whites to the Republican Party than anything you have said or think.
His movement, grounded in the SODS (Sons Of Dixiecrats), is lead by "born-again" Sourthern whites, being lead by a born-again, opportunist (carpetbagging) President.
Just call him Davy, Davy Kerry...King of the wild frontier...
Whatever anyone thinks about Kerry, his gun, (Bertelli? I'm told), is sure a legendary gun and expensive (what else)? He also has gone places on hunts you (Al) could only dream of.
