Symbolism vs. Substance

[SuperScout]

Once again, we were treated to a marvelous example of symbolism over substance. TJ Kerry was at his best, using his pompous style, dour countenance, and an imaginative list of lies to dazzle the audience. His statement that tunnels in NYC were closed due to a lack of funding is absolute horseshit - no tunnels have been closed, period. For a brief period of time, Grand Central Station was closed during the GOP convention in NYC, but it would have been closed too if the Democrat party had been there; it simply was a security precaution.

Then FF (that's "Flip-Flop" for those in Rio Linda) Kerry said he has never wavered. Go back and read what he said in the US Senate on 9 Nov 1997, compared to what his position(s) is/are today. He waffles more than an overworked chef at IHOP. Normal people would not vote to send our warriors into harms way, then not provide the $$ to enable them to do their jobs.

He blathered on about how we don't have a coalition in Iraq (guess 30+ countries in the coalition isn't enough for him, when in fact, we had less than that number in Korea), he impugns the honor of those countries serving, then boasts that he can build a better coalition. How, by insulting the shit out of the leaders? He whined about no coalition, yet when the President reminded us how the US, China, Japan, S. Korean and Russia are working together to pressure N. Korea to forego its nuke program, Kerry whined that we should hold bilateral talks with the N. Koreans. Gentle readers need to be reminded that it was those wondrous bilateral talks held by Madeline Allbright that brought us to the precarious position today, with the N.Koreans closer to having nuke weapons, if they don't have them already.

It typical, and boringly repetitive: Kerry's pomposity and bombast and outright lies is nothing more than more smoke and mirrors, more symbolism instead of substance.

[sfc_darrel]

According to my wife, I got drunk and, every time Kerry referred to his military service , called him a traitor and a lying S&* of a B$@&(.

My personal opinion: Kerry's words and actions from returning home through his discharge from the Naval Reserves constitutes treason and he is one of the people that is primarily responsible for our (for those of us who did) getting spit on and called baby killers upon our return from Vietnam and for years after.

SFC Darrel USA Retired.

[SuperScout]

And since we all know your bride is a saint, (she has to be, having to deal with you! ) and wouldn't varnish the truth one iota, I believe her!!

Here's something more to drive you to drink:

Perhaps the key moment of the debate, as well as the point most clearly delineating just how stage left Kerry is on national security, was his comment, "No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." [Notice this quaint choide of words: 'your countrymen,' 'your people' - hey, TJ, it us you're supposed to be talking about.]

Mr. Bush replied, "I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the 'global test.' You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people."

This tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not multilateralism versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of foreign policy, but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one of globalism versus national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of U.S. interests abroad. Kerry's globalist agenda, by his own admission, would sacrifice U.S. protection of her citizens and soldiers abroad to the caprices of the International Criminal Court. Kerry would seek UN approval for "preemptively" defending the United States -- approval of the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions against Saddam's Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi Annan recently declaring the resolutions' enforcement "illegal." So Kerry wants to go grovel before the UN, to obtain "global test" approval before launching a pre-emptive strike? Does this lying traitor even understand what "preemptive" means? Obviously not.

[reconeil]

Re. : "..., more symbolism instead of substance.", UNFORTUNATELY for both America's Voters and non-Voters alike (ie. most: "Men, women, children, grandchildren and even the unborn") currently being continually and perpetually duped by: "Chamberlain"-like Kerry and clique,...SUCH IS UNARGUABLY MUCH WORSE THAN just: "..., more symbolism instead of substance".

See: "The GOOD or The BAD??", for a better explanation.
It's certainly a better and more honest explanation of political realities than you'll ever read in The Press or hear on Radio or TV,...which is also is UNFORTUNATELY so.

You would think that The Press/Media would have wised-up BY NOW,...instead of still being just as duped as ever by The Democrat Political Machine and "Their" multitude of fanatical propagandists (re. both paid and unpaid for and faithfully obedient followers)? But,...Same-O, Same-O. Duped just as well as The Public. Truly a journalistic shame,...eh what?

Regardless, don't think: "The GOOD or The BAD??" would even bore Gimpy? Do you?

Neil or "Alpha 11 - OUT"

[Jerry D]

I was watching the debates and couldn't take Kerry's grating voice any longer so I switched to Univision (Mexican Direct TV station) and thought the spanish speaking Kerry was easier to take . I couldn't understand the spanish but it sounded much better and didn't upset me as much listening to Kerry in Spanish

[Seascamp]

Then in the aftermath, there was the ultimate exercise in Liberal, ?relativism? group- think Kerry squeezed out of some dark abyss of hell. According to one of TJ?s band members, as in, ?Band of Brothers? , ?The Hanoi POW's were going to be tortured anyway?, as a rationalization for Kerry?s gutless, heartless, pathetic self-serving, ?Winter Soldier?, diatribe. A walk through the abyss of that band member?s soul would yield nothing but hot, smoking, scorched, lifeless volcanic ash, either that or the payday must be mighty fine, mighty fine indeed. I wonder what job Kerry has lined up for that idiotic, mindless-shit. Aarrgg, I shudder to think and somehow the mnemonics ?SA? come to mind. Or maybe something different like the "New Pioneers"

What the heck, an Earnst Rholm now and then don't hurt the runnin none, right?

Scamp

[SuperScout]

Here was a statement from TJ that almost caused me to puke: "My position on Iraq has been consistent." Sen. Kerry repeated those same words some half dozen times over the course of the 90-minute debate, so we just can't resist saying it: "Methinks he doth protest too much." (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam "service" about half a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the "consistency" of his position, over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq was a "colossal error of judgment" [in his opinion] on the part of the President and referred to the war as a "distraction" from "the real war on terror," [ and how does TJ think he's going to attract more Coalition countries by inviting them to this "distraction"?] but he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free, and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S. forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose contributions he "respects," pick up the slack. He also implied he'd build a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open reconstruction contracts to those nations -- the very ones who profited most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam's rule, and who have both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition, even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent eh?

On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "I understand what the president is talking about because I know what it means to lose people in combat. [Oh, I forgot, was TJ Kerry really in Vietnam?] And the question, 'Is it worth the cost?,' reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before." [Did it remind him of how he sold us out, the spineless, gutless traitor?]

More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that confusion? Was Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in 1971 of war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! -- Kerry was accusing U.S. troops in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands of the Communist North. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements." [So TJ Kerry was just a lapdog for the KGB, doing the Soviets bidding, which is so typical of a traitor] General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.

Kerry lied in 1971, and probably started long before that, has continued to lie, and he's still lying in 2004, and will probably continue to lie until his dying breath.

[razar]

The substance of both parties is decieve,lie,spend,get reelected and shovel pork down our throats until we gag.God,if we could only start over.Where are the Puerto Rican terrorist?Don't take literally,just making a point.

-----GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR BRAVE TROOPS------

[Seascamp]

Let?s see, consistently inconsistent equals inconstant consistency. Now I got it, I think, or maybe not. Mayhaps TJ will splain how that works a few more times as there appears to be some funny math happening. Something like pi except when he secretly changes it to the reciprocal of lambda when no one is looking, maybe. :cd:

Scamp

[SuperScout]

Math Lesson # 649: pie are round, cornbread are square.

And to temprarily borrow your favorite nautical verb, Methinks TJ should be renamed, from Flip-Flop to Flim-Flam. Are better yet, he can the the "F-Man to the 4th Power," or the Flip-Flopping Flim Flam Man.

... and finally, History Lesson #398: More Flip-Flop/Flim-Flam from TJ Kerry: On Iraq as a source for terrorist WMD... Flip: "Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That...is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed no terrorist threat, but then flips again in the middle of the debate, saying, "I have always agreed on that, and from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat."

On support for American forces in combat... Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition and body armor even though he said before the vote, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to ' to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." He explained later, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Flop: Now Kerry now says, "My message to the troops is...help is on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today."

On "lies"... Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: "This administration has lied to us. They have misled us." Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator, "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word ["lie"] as you just did."

In closing, I remind you gentle readers that Kerry lied in 1971, lied in subsequent years, lied during the first debate, and wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in his elitist ass.