Move over rudy: GO ZELL!!!!!!!





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Move over rudy: GO ZELL!!!!!!!
By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit

AHH! DID YOU SEE Zell Miller's speech?!!!

i'm speechless...it's the best promotion Bush ever got. My heart was pounding the entire time and i felt that i was actually there, that's how captivating it was.

all you articulate posters on this board, please elaborate on how you felt about it!

By Emswim (Emswim) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

That was an amazing speech. Zel Miller has to be one of the most energizing, articulate speakers I've ever heard. Has anyone read his book, "A National Party No More"? In it, he criticizes the modern democratic party.

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:45 pm: Edit

I didn't think anyone could top Rudy's speech. Then came Arnold. I didn't think anyone could top his speech. Then came Zel. I don't think anyone can top Zel's speech. I had no idea Sen. Kerry opposed so many weapons essential to the security of our country.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ZEL MILLER YOU ARE DA MAN!!!!!!

Few people can speak like this man. I dunno, but I think the Democrats just got B#TCH SLAPPED by Miller.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit

You had no idea because he is not. Kerry made a speech this morning specifically about how he wants to equip the military with the most technologically advanced weapons and tanks... something Bush has not done

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Scubasteve. For twenty years Sen. Kerry was undermining the military and now all of a sudden he is trying to out-equip Pres. Bush. It is simply not believable.

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:15 pm: Edit

scuba, that's great Kerry feels that way NOW that he's running for office...Zell Miller was addressing you practically directly tonight: Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:22 pm: Edit

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040307-120636-3469r.htm

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Oh good. Are we going to debate whether Zell is really a democrat?

He is a Republicrat. He doesn't really support his party (as he said tonight) because he wrote a book about who wrong the party is. He might as well change that (D) to an (I) or even an (R) on any given day

Zell doesn't represent anything that the Democratic Party stands for and I'm really suprised as to why the Democrats haven't kicked him out yet after he wrote his book.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit

ummm Jauq1, nobody is trying to determine whether Miller is a "real" democrat or a republican. We're talking about his speach tonight.

Anyways, who gives a living sh#t on one's political party and who they are going to vote for. THis is America, you can have whatever friggin opinions you want and vote for whoever the F#@K you want to. That's the beauty of this country.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

Haha. Vancat you silly person. You just contradicted yourself...

"Few people can speak like this man. I dunno, but I think the Democrats just got B#TCH SLAPPED by Miller"

See, so you do associate the fact that he is a Democrat with the success of his speech.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Zell Miller hasn't been a Democrat since he almost lost his reelection for governor in 1992.

His speech wasn't even that good. All negative, typical GOP politics.

1 page was devoted to his biography
1 page was devoted to Bush
and typically, 2 pages were devoted to Kerry

....And doesn't anyone find something wrong with the fact that the Vice President was not the keynote speaker????

Like I said earlier, it is Haloween at the RNC this year. It highlights those with least in common to Bush

By Hayden (Hayden) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Shortcakefairy, I was just listening to an interview with Miller, and the interviewer said that Cheney opposed virtually every one of the military programs Miller criticized Kerry for opposing. Time Mag said the same thing.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit

wtf are you talking about Jaug1. I said that Zell clearly damned the democrats in his speach. And yes, that was pretty funny.

YOU are complaining that Zell should have been kicked out of his party. Further, you are complaining that he isn't a "true" democrat.

I said that it really does not matter whether you are democrat, republican, or whatnot. You can vote for whoever the F#@K you want to.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit

and plus, if Miller was republican and gave the same speach, yes I would still think he B#tch slapped the Democrats.

By Peacefulchaos (Peacefulchaos) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit

it's all about Ahnuld

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit

I was frozen during the speech. That was one of the most incisive, direct, and stinging speeches I have ever heard. No subtlties, just a step by step account of kerry's record, which was ignored during the dnc. The speech serves a dual purpose, of energizing the base, and reaching out to the democrat who feels as if his or her party has moved too far to the left, espessially regarding national security. I could watch it again. My heart was beating unlike any other speech I have ever seen.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 01:14 am: Edit

Yes, incisive, direct and stinging. Also venomous, hatefilled, full of falsehoods and distortions. I realize why I reacted so strongly against his speech, and it finally came to me. I lived through the south during the civil rights movement, and Miller (who was a big advocate of beating blacks and complete segregation) was like all the rest: full of hate and no interest in even beginning to listen to or understand anyone willing to support equal rights. Most of you are too young to understand how people in this country could fear for their lives merely because of their political opinions. Ever met a member of the KKK? It was that kind of hate, and that approach of accusing the opposition of being un-Christian and traitors, that makes me say, oh yes, that's the Zell Miller I know. My heart was beating too, but only in sadness that we're becoming the second Rome.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

so you are attacking his past? I bet you would not attack the only former kkk member of the senate, democrat and bush hater Robery Byrd.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

This thread totally exemplifies the ridiculous partisan politics Miller spoke of. Everyone is so entrenched in their positions that the Republicans/Democrats (fill in the blank) are all bad and have no merit to any arguements. This is a huge problem.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 01:41 am: Edit

Amen and Amen, Mom 101!

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 02:37 am: Edit

I know nothing about Miller's past, but it's hard to believe the Republicans could be dumb enough to invite a speaker who has a history of being in favor of beating blacks.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:02 am: Edit

Miller was a protege of a man named Lester Maddox who was elected gov of Georgia on a platform of chasing blacks out of his establishment (a restaurant I think, but I don't remember exactly) with a bat. Very strong segregationist. And a lot of things are hard to believe these days, but are true nevertheless.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:06 am: Edit

and give him the keynote spot over their own vice presidential candidate mind you..... really shows where the Republican's priorities are... slander above all else

To my surprise I actually heard fox news (along with a string of other news networks) criticize the RNC

...they have failed to do what is most important: tell us their plan for the next 4 years. The whole RNC has been noting more than a 9/11 rememberance / Kerry slugfest.

No plan at all..

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:34 am: Edit

But I do want to say that in re-reading my post I do not mean to imply that Republicans support segregation, because clearly they don't. And Robert Byrd's past was just as horrible. Miller, Byrd and Strom Thurmond all renounced their past views, and that is admirable of all three. So in answer to Jlq3d3, I do put Miller in the same position as Byrd.

What I am saying is I totally deplore the type of hatred of others that I'm seeing in the national discourse, as exemplified by Miller's speech. It seems we can't just disagree with each other any more in a rational way. Many of those in the national debate begin by turning the others' positions into cartoons of the actual positions or past statements. Then some - too many - take it to the next level of positioning the other as hateful, traitorous, or heretical. I saw the same hateful, demonizing approach during the Civil Rights debates when I lived in the deep South. It's the worst of people, not the best. The question is, why are we doing this? What's the driver that causes us to turn the national discourse into this cesspit.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:16 am: Edit

What I am saying is I totally deplore the type of hatred of others that I'm seeing in the national discourse, as exemplified by Miller's speech.

I must confess to not having seen Miller's speech, but we must be very careful to not equate "hateful" with "informative" just because the information that is being conveyed is negative. Clearly the part of his speech that was quoted above does not attack Kerry's patriotism but rather his judgement. This is fair game and an essential part of the political discourse. Each party will naturally put out the "good" of their candidate. But, we need to know the other side as well. It can seem pretty ugly and nasty at times, but I agree with Paul Begala that negative campaigning is not necessarily bad.

Scuba: I think you should drop the point about the keynote not being the VP - this never happens in any convention. For it to be so would be truly precedent setting.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:26 am: Edit

That's interesting... Edwards was keynote at the DNC.

Fundingfather, when you see the rerun of the speech you will see that it was not only negative... it was angry negative.

As I said before the breakdown of his speech was 1 page autobio
1 page on Bush
2 pages on Kerry


Jlq,

There is a huge huge difference between Byrd and Miller. One was keynote at the RNC while the other did not even speak at the DNC

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:33 am: Edit

Hayden, it's clearly scary that the Country is in a hateful mood. Being in NYC earlier this week gave me a very real glimpse into this. A heck of a lot of extremeists believing it's OK to do illegal and just plain silly things to disrupt the RNC. 2 cops on every street corner. Just read the anger on this board! Between the war and the economy, we have a Country seriously divided. And all we're getting from both sides is rhetoric. The Scubasteves think the Republicans have no plan! Conservatives and anyone who understands economics knows there is no way the Democrats can fulfill their trillions of dollars plans. No one is talking about the real issues. What's going to happen?

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:39 am: Edit

so what is the difference - we will just print more money. Running up deficits is not a God given right of republicans only.

I don't understand republicans - on one hand they talk about fiscal responsibilities, but on the other hand they tolerate the irresponsible spending of their own.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit

Nope: Obama was keynote

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit

Mom101: That was the republican talking point on FOX on .....

Let us have some independent thinking.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:15 am: Edit

"By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit


Nope: Obama was keynote "


Nope wrong again. Obama and Edwards did not speak on the same night. Edwards was keynote the night he spoke.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit

On the topic of Obama/Miller, the below is from Andrew Sullivan's Web site. If you know anything about him, you'll know he's no Democrat.

-----------------------------------------------

THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party. I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift. Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.

THE "OCCUPATION" CANARD: Miller first framed his support for Bush as a defense of his own family. The notion that individuals deserve respect regardless of their family is not Miller's core value. And the implication was that if the Democrats win in November, his own family would not be physically safe. How's that for subtlety? Miller's subsequent assertion was that any dissent from aspects of the war on terror is equivalent to treason. He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats. He said the following:
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents. But the term "occupation," of course, need not mean the opposite of liberation. I have used the term myself and I deeply believe that coalition troops have indeed liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.

OPPONENTS OR ENEMIES?: Here's another slur:
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear. Miller has absolutely every right to lambaste John Kerry's record on defense in the Senate. It's ripe for criticism, and, for my part, I disagree with almost all of it (and as a pro-Reagan, pro-Contra, pro-SDI, pro-Gulf War conservative, I find Kerry's record deeply troubling). But that doesn't mean he's a traitor or hates America's troops or believes that the U.S. is responsible for global terror. And the attempt to say so is a despicable attempt to smear someone's very patriotism.

THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country. Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals. What's remarkable about the Republicans is their utter indifference to fairness in their own attacks. Smearing opponents as traitors to their country, as unfit to be commander-in-chief, as agents of foreign powers (France) is now fair game. Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:54 am: Edit

Scuba: a convention has only one "keynote" speaker; the night that he/she speaks is irrelevant. The Democratic keynote speaker was Obama; the Republican keynote speaker was Miller

By Hayden (Hayden) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Funding Father, I only ask that you listen to the Miller speech in its entirety. You are right that we should not equate "hateful" with "informative", and I am not doing that. I do not think anyone could justify as "informative" saying that John Kerry - or any American - would wait for France's permission to defend America. That's the cartooning of the other side's opinions that is so destructive and polarizing. And definitely read Andrew Sullivan's comments that Noodleman quotes above, as they are accurate as I remember the speech.

David Gergan (sp?), the Nixonian Republican, said he was deeply disappointed by Miller's speech. He said that Miller's speech might win in the short term, but in the long term it has done perhaps irreparable harm to our political climate. In his understated way, that about sums it up.

By Nycdad (Nycdad) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Zel Miller...

Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Thursday 01 March 2001

It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.

I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.

I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders - and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor - but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 - when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection - some might say an obsession - for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know ... Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.

************
flip flop, anyone?

here's the original:

http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm

By Marite (Marite) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

"Listing all the weapon systems that Sen. Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security," charged Miller. "This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?"

The Post's Dana Milbank, in his usual fashion, fact-checks that, pointing that Miller—who three years ago called Kerry "one of this nation's authentic heroes"—was basing his charge on just one vote and that THEN SECDEF CHENEY "WAS DEMANDING EVEN DEEPER CUTS" (my capitals)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106116/

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Hayden: Hmmm, to give any credibility to the Gergen quote, I would have to hear what, if anything, that he said about the hate speeches of Kennedy, Gore, Byrd and Dean. If he was consistent in pointing out harmful political speech, then he will have been on record in denouncing these speeches as well.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Fundingfather none of the above gave a speech even resemblent of the hate filled, inaccurate hypocritical, propoganda Miller dished out.

Sad part is he was the keynote of this whole convention!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit

funding father, you must download the speech, it was great.

Second, there is nothing wrong with negative attacks on policy and record. Zell Miller gave an excellent speech that gave the litany of Kerry's anti-defence votes, something which the DNC totally ignored, and something that stuck fear into kerry's campaign. Zell really did give kerry hell, and rightfully so.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Jlq you are starting to scare me...

Zell Miller..Great???


There is something wrong with negative attacks if they are misleading and even at times totally wrong.

That whole "Kerry cutting military weapons" stint was total garbage. It was based on one vote and Cheney, Secretary of Defense at the time, pushed for even larger cuts. What do you have to say about that? I wonder if Zell Miller even knew that?

Look at NYC DAD's post. Can't wait untill the sound bytes of that introduction get out into the media (along the whole weapon issue that Cheney was in agreement with Kerry on)

I don't know what you are so excited about. This speech will not only totally discredit Miller once the media takes control, but the whole RNC and Bush Campaign as well for making this tool the keynote speaker.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

Did anyone notice that Zell Miller plagarized not one but two Internet chain mails in his speech?

Courtesy of Google:

Here's One:

It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.


Sound familiar? I don't recall a citation...

one more:

Zell's speech:

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.


Which all sounds very damning if true, which it isn't. Of course it also sounds like yet another chain email which is the basis for an Urban Myth, one which has been thoroughly discredited. From Snopes:

Claim: Senator John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988."

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

Sen. John Kerry

Democrat from Massachusetts
HE says he is strongest
Presidential Candidate on National Defense!

He said Check the Record..
We Did !

Here is what we learned.

He voted to kill the B-1 Bomber
He voted to kill the B-2 Stealth Bomber
He voted to kill the F-14
He voted to kill the F-15 Strike Eagle
He voted to kill the F-16
He voted to kill the AV-8B Harrier Vertical Takeoff and Landing Jet Fighter
He voted to kill the AH-64 Apache Helicopter
He voted to kill the Patriot Anti-Missile System
He voted to kill the Aegis Anti-Aircraft System
He voted to kill the Trident Missile System
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the Tomahawk Cruise Missile

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.



Substitute clubs for spitballs, and Zell was repeating an email hoax, almost word for word.

As Snopes goes on to explain, "all the citations stem from votes on three Congressional bills, none of which were about a specific weapons system or group of weapons systems." All three votes were appropriations bills, voted as a package, and Congressmen vote yes or no on, and in many instances support alternatvie appropriations packages which contain the same or even more weapons systems -- or even because they think the bills should allocate more dollars for defense. As Snopes explains:

Senators and Representatives might vote against a defense appropriations bill for any numbers of reasons — because they object to the presence or absence of a particular item, because they feel that the government is proposing to spend too much or too little money on defense, or anything in-between. Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military.

In other words, Zell's accusations are a complete and total lie, and either he is too dishonest to admit it, or too big a rube to see it.

Making Zell's attack even more insane is the fact that both Dick Cheney and President Bush I actually spoke specifically in favor of spiking some of the very same weapons systems Miller falsely claims Kerry tried to kill. Cheney, for example, complained about Congress "forcing" him to buy more F-14s and F-15s, two systems Zell accuses Kerry of opposing. As Snopes points out, Secretary of Defense Cheney himself testified before Congress that he favored cutting the Apache Helicopter program:

So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Above courtesy of Martini Republic


Not the best sources for a nationally televised speech, I think...

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Scuba: You're joking, right? Comparing the Republican party to Nazis (the brownshirts)? saying that Bush concocted the Iraq war for political purposes? (which is about as stupid as it is hateful) Saying that George Bush betrayed the country? etc. This isn't hateful speech? Probably not to you because it's your guys doing the hate mongering.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Whoa! Hold up there Funding. I think if we are gonna be talking about hate mongering you should look at your own party. In now way did Obama or Kerry ever directly attack the policies of the current administration except for one use in Kerry's speech where he used the name Dick Cheney.

As Americans we love to see someone fail. Take the latest instance of the Kobe Bryant Case. This made such great publicity because a superstar was going down in defeat (yeah for dismissal!). Anytime a negative thing happens to someone, it gets more media coverage than the good things.

For that reason above, people in the Republican party enjoy the slander used because it shows the negative sides of Kerry. There is no substance I have heard in any of the speeches pertaining to what Bush/Cheney will do for us in the next four years. The fact is most Americans are voting for Bush in recent polls because they are hearing about all the "bad" things Kerry has done. That's the sticking point.

Now Fundingfather, to take your points:

1) Comparing the Reps. to Nazis- The ads on MoveOn.org are independent of the Democratic Party. They are created by ultra leftists to display their hatred of Bush. The day after the ads came out, Kerry denounced them. Now, if we are going to talk about slander, why hasn't Bush denounced the Swift Boat Ads which have done more damage based on lies. (Take a look at Naval Records. It might shock you to see what you find.)

B) Bush concocted the Iraq war for political purposes. I really hope you haven't been living under a rock. See, if one were to take a look at the location of US and coaltion troops as of this moment, an extremely large amount are guarding oil pipe lines. Shocked? Well, if you dont want to believe that, this is one to knock your socks off. OPEC Convention 2001- The 13 OPEC nations meet to discuss the trading of oil and in what currency. The result- 11 countries are for the US Dollar, 2 are not. Those 2- Iraq and Venezuela. Obviously we all know about Iraq. What most people don't know about is the US sponsored and supported military coups (yes, there have been 2) to overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a democratically elected president. So I'm confused on the fact that on one hand Bush supports all democratically elected leaders...yet...he seems to try and overthrow them. Flip-flop? So yes, the idea of the war in Iraq is a political strategy. Bush also doesn't like the fact that the Saddam guy who we just ousted made an assassination attempt on his father. That may make Bush Jr. and Cheney a little resentful.

C) Saying George Bush betrayed the country. Well, there are two arguments here and I will spell both out for you. Argument one: He didn't betray the country. Bush took action to try and secure our freedom by getting rid of a mass murderer. So in a sense, I guess he was doing us a favor. Argument two: Bush lied about where Saddam got his weapons from, whether or not he had them and then force fed this information to the Senate, the House and the American people. This is also true. Not to mention in the latest interview with Matt Lauer, Bush has changed his opinion on Saddam from "He had WMD's" to "He had the capability to make WMDs." So...if someone has the ability to make WMD's we should immediately go in and attack them? Also, we supported the rise of Hussein in the early 80's under Reagan. When we didn't follow through with out promise, Hussein began to resent the US. Same thing with Osama. We sponsored him in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded and when he asked for help in setting up a government after the Russians were defeated, we neglected to. Going back to Bush though, I believe that while he did take immediate and drastic measures to ensure our freedom, the threat didn't exist from Iraq, never did and never would have. The reasons we were given were false, have been proven false, and supported by former CIA Director George Tenet. So yes, I do believe Bush betrayed the country by lying to us.

And oh yeah, if we are going to be fighting wars against dictators with WMD's why dont we go fight in North Korea? It's not like the Dictator is a raging drunk and is completely irrational and it's not enough that he has publically started a nuclear program?

By Fundingfather (Fundingfather) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:33 pm: Edit

1) not what I'm talking about - I'm referring to Gore's reference to the brownshirts

2) complete drivel and has nothing to do with "politics" essentially what you are talking about could be related to the Carter doctrine which admits that the oil in the mideast is part of our national interest. Bush didn't blaze any new ground here - it's been the US position since Jimmy Carter. I am referring to Kennedy claiming that Bush concocted the war for POLITICAL gain - a very stupid and hateful comment

3) check out McCain's speech for a simple rationale for the war - he boils it down to its essence. The "lies" are nonsense unless you include in the conspiracy just about every world leader as well as the Clinton administration

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

1)My bad, I didn't know Gore said that, but then again, Gore isn't running for President this year

2)It's not complete drivel if its factually based. Even if the Carter Doctrine says that the oil in the mideast is part of our national interest, Bush is the first President in history to make a move for it without precident. Bush politics boils down to helping big business, as anyone who is a conservative would agree. The oil that was found in Iraq, and the billion dollar contracts that went uncontested to Halliburton and other major Bush/Cheney supporters IS a political move. That cannot be denied.

3)What the hell are you talking about Funding? McCain gave that speech because he was forced to by his party. If you saw last night when Cheney was speaking McCain was rolling his eyes while weakly applauding. The lies are just that, lies. If you are going to come here and say that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in his aresenal then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but we haven't found any. Even the President's position has changed from "he had" to "had the capability to make" WMD's. See, I would agree with you on your other point but in fact, just about every other world leader has denounced this war, including France, Germany, Spain, all the South American countries, and many others. There are just over 240 independent nations on Earth. Only 30 are in our coalition. So if by mass conspiracy you mean about 12.5% then sure, I'll go with you.

What does Clinton have to do with the War in Iraq?! Is he President? No. Does he have any connection to the current administration? No. So how exactly is Clinton (the Conservative's main target for the past 12 years) involved again?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Just fyi, a point Fundingfather was trying to make about Clinton was that much of todays terrorism against the US has been caused by Clinton's own negligence. Particularly his failure to pursue Osama when provided with the best intelligence the US has gotten in a while, among many other things. And plus, Clinton was another one who knew Iraq was a credible threat to the western world. You may be forgetting a very important action Clinton took called Operation Desert Fox. Google it. Don't accuse Bush of purposely leading America to war and lying about stockpiles of WMD or IRaqs ability to produce them.

Also Jauq, I think you need to read the news more. THough we haven't found massive stockpiles, there have been instances where sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, and other illegal weapons have been used (without success fortunately) against US troops in Iraq.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit

WOULD EVERYBODY JUST SHUT THE •••• UP?

For the love of God, go read Mom101's post, you are all so entrenched in your lib/conserv positions that you will not give any credit to either side and seem determined to prove that there is an objectively right or wrong candidate/political party. It will never happen because there is no right or wrong candidate or party- it is all circumstancial.

Now please, with regards to this partisan bickering, please shut the •••• up.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

•••• you, you •••• and •••• my •••• while you're at it, you •••• •••• •••• •••• . Yeah. You better •••• my •••• .

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

The most disturbing thing to me is the zealous partisanship of the young kids here, often bast on eronious "facts." Are they just echoing their parents? The misinformataiaon flying on these threads is truly frightening.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

And Mom, believe me, you haven't exactly been telling facts either.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit

So Jauq, do your views reflect those of your parents?

By Gianscolere (Gianscolere) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:43 pm: Edit

or maybe your heart was pounding because you were afraid he was going to mess up somehow?
i haven't had the time to watch the republican convention because APUSH homework takes up most of my time but i know i should listen to the other side to remain level-headed.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

jauq, in terms of knowing basic facts about current events and the economy, you get an F. Just because you go to a westside preppy private school and have that club of yours does not mean you know and understand basic facts and current events.
I am being harsh, but that is because your nerve in insulting mom101 about facts.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Westside Manhattan? That would explain a lot! My daughter's about to leave for John Kerry's high school god help her!!

By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Mom101: I am the parent - and as Jaug said you are pretty liberal with facts and rheotric as well.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

I do however, try to express my info as opinions where they are, Simba. And I am willing to give credit where due to both Democrats and Republicans. But thanks for confirming my suspicion. As for Kerry, he was as popular in high school as he was with the swift boat crowd. His class raised money for his opponent in his first MA election.

By Kelly1 (Kelly1) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit

It seems that many republicas posted on this particular thread are way right to the most...

Read attached:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897622/

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:19 pm: Edit

no, he goes to a prep school on the west side of Los Angeles/valley, in North Hollywood, which is a pretty wealthy area.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Hey Jlq, how about we don't disclose information about where one lives/attends school. And by the way, Noho isn't very wealthy at all.

Actually my parent's are much more moderate than me. I am the one who goes online and looks at the BBC, Reuters and other foreign news sources for what really goes on in politics because American news is very highly censored.

Anyways, if we talk about facts, at least I have shown them. Just because Jlq and Mom don't like what they are, doesn't mean they are incorrect. I mean, at least my posts have substance. I cannot say the same for most of Mom and Jlq's. I'm sure both are intelligent people, but if we are going on purely facts, I have put a lot more on the table.

By Tongos (Tongos) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

why do people cuss and attack others on these boards sometimes, its rather ridiculous, and quite childish to say the least.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit

First, you posted on cc the things I "disclosed".

Second, your claims about job numbers, edward's profession, the "revolution" in venezualia that never happened (that is from another thread), and your overall uneducated comments on the economy and arithmatic are just plain factually wrong. All you put on the table is your uneducated drivel, hoping to persuade people at the cost of leading them to wrong facts.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

jauq, I have not commented on this thread, but I have reading. I find it funny that you can claim that mom and JLg3d3 are wrong. You might not agree with their level headed opinions, but the facts they put out are indisputable.

You come off as a misinformed, elitist, high school teen progressive, who needs to learn some basic facts, take a course in economics, and just stop trying to prove your point with erroneous information. There are ways to prove your point without putting out so much outright incorrect garbage.

Just accept the fact that you are not as well read, informed, and honest as mom101 or JLg3d3.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

Bunmushroom, agree with everything you said except the elitist part. Jauq strikes me as an upper middle class faux anti-elitist. But give him a break, he's young!

By Shortcakefairy (Shortcakefairy) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:35 am: Edit

How i LOVE politics =)!

anyways, all i can say is, the Republican Convention did its job...it made a WHOLE LOTTA firm statements.

it got people talking, Governator, Hell-Zell, Rudy, and Dubya.

Who cares what people thought about the Democratic Convention? Everything was so forgettable.

By Dovaan05 (Dovaan05) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 02:35 am: Edit

Zell was incredible!!! What an amazing speech and flawless delivery!

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 07:55 am: Edit

When you have nothing to run on, you buy attack dogs.

By Ambitiousyokel (Ambitiousyokel) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:49 am: Edit

How can anyone say that was a good speech? Was I watching a different one? Did no one else hear his spittle-flecked, raving vitriol? Did no one else see the madness in his eyes?

Zell Miller is the consummate flip-flopper. "Zig-Zag Zell," as he's known in his home state, has for twenty years blown with the prevailing winds, sometimes with great results (he was a wonderful governor); I think now he's misread the change in the weather. I'm not certain whether he's legitimately lost it or he's just zig-zagging opportunistically in hopes of an appointment in a second Bush term or a primetime show on Fox News. Whatever his motivations, he's an embarassment to the state of Georgia.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

"Who cares what people thought about the Democratic Convention? Everything was so forgettable. "

Again, amazingly ignorant. 2 months from now people will only remeber 2 things about the conventions. The DNC was focused on hope and optimism while the RNC focused on hate and fear.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:56 am: Edit

Before anyone senselessly attempts to support Zell Miller again (the great keynote selection for the RNC lol)

let me repost what NYCdad already did earlier.

Zel Miller...

Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Thursday 01 March 2001

It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.

I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.

I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.

My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders - and a good friend.

He was once a lieutenant governor - but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.

In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.

John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."

John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 - when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.

He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.

As many of you know, I have great affection - some might say an obsession - for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know ... Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

JLg3d3 WELL-READ? The guy's a walking talking point!

By Simba (Simba) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

The name Zig-Zag Zell fits like a glove

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit

Noodleman, look at the date of speech. March of 2001. Zell Miller may have liked Kerry, but clearly he respects Bush for his leadership and fight against terror post-9/11. During these past years, Zell has seen through Kerry's poor conduct and poor decisions. Zell has also seen Bush's strength and determination in this era of terrorism.

I believe you are trying to say: hey if Zell Miller used to like this guy, how can he turn against him???

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Vancat think a little next time.

You are forgetting that Zell Miller devoted 1/2 of his speech (litteraly) to bashing Kerry for the same exact issues that he praised him for in the 2001 introduction.

Yes I'm sure he suddenly had a moment of clairty these past 3 years and suddenly realized its time to flip flop and bash Kerry for everything he praised him for just 3 years ago...

By Browninfall (Browninfall) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Steve: Miller was a real Democrat then so he had to stretch the truth. It goes with the territory. Now that he's seen the light, he's starting to tell the truth. That's just the way it is.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

lol oh so it is your contention that he is similar to a born again christian?

Why can't you guys ever admit when something is wrong? You are just like Bush.

Brown, Miller stopped being a real Deomcrat after he almost lost his re-election in 92

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

"You are forgetting that Zell Miller devoted 1/2 of his speech (litteraly) to bashing Kerry for the same exact issues that he praised him for in the 2001 introduction."

Why are you complaining about Miller bashing Kerry? Is it because Zell used to like him before the 9/11 attacks? Ever stop to think maybe WHY Miller does respect Kerry as a leader anymore? Miller and Kerry may still "respect each other as friends," but the truth is Miller has seen Bush's leadership and dedication post-9/11 and believes it is most important.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Vancat,

You fail to resemble anything that could be considered a logical statement.

Forget about Bush for right now. That is not my issue.

My issue is that Miller only devoted 1 page to Bush and 2 to bashing Kerry.

I am complaing about Miller bashing Kerry because he is bashing him for the exact same thing he praised him for in 2001. Perhaps you would like to explain why Miller does not respect Kerry as a leader anymore?

He bashed his senate record going way further back then 3 years ago. The same senate record he praised 3 years ago. Nothing has signifcantly changed in the last 3 years with Kerry's record to cause such a change in Miller.

Not to mention that whole "spitballs" tangent... Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense at the time and actually pushed for larger cuts than Kerry voted for.

Hypocritcal.."Flip Flopper"... more waffels than a house of pancakes wouldn't ya say??

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Hmmmm... Maybe Miller realized how indecisive and ludicrous most of Kerry's campaign promises were during his campaign. Maybe Miller, after seeing what happened on 9/11, knows that Bush is a stronger leader. Maybe Miller knows that, in this day and age, Kerry would be worse choice for a leader than Bush.

Have you noticed that Miller's speech was on March 2001? Very very different time back then.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit

I'm going to work. Catch you on the flip side.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Vancat, yes, March 2001 was different, but Kerry's record was the same. Miller can change his views and support Bush on certain issues, but a 180 degree turn on other issues makes no sense. To quote part of Miller's intro "In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.

Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so."

Now, what about that changed after 9/11?

Browninfall said "Miller was a real Democrat then so he had to stretch the truth. It goes with the territory. Now that he's seen the light, he's starting to tell the truth." As the attorneys always say, we know he's lying. the question is, was he lying then, or lying now? Yes, browninfall, it goes with the territory. I think the territory is politics, and that hasn't changed.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 01:14 am: Edit

zell miller is a nut. we all now have video to prove it. as for thinkingoutloud's comment:

"I had no idea Sen. Kerry opposed so many weapons essential to the security of our country."

i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but you should see dick cheney's record. he supported the same cutbacks in military spending that kerry did when he was in congress. as usual, the republicans distorting the truth.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:11 pm: Edit

I believe you are correct, Anakat. I have not checked the Congressional record, but I read in several places that most of the weapons systems they listed were in one particular bill, and that Cheney, as a member of the administration, supported even deeper cuts than Kerry did.

As for Miller, I don't know. He's known as Zig Zag Zell because he goes whichever way he needs to, to get ahead. So he could be just exhibiting more of the opportunism he's well known for.

Or you could be right, and he's nuts!

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:33 pm: Edit

very opportunistic. sure... He is never running for another political office again. The speech was authentic because it was what he believes. No politician would be able to give such an overtly strong bitter speech out of fear.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:28 am: Edit

Jlq,

You evade that fact that his speech was totally contradictory to what he said 3 years ago. You think that speech was authentic? If it was he would have chastised Cheney even more so than Kerry when it came to weapon cuts.

Miller is a faltering figure in politics. He needed this speech to hold onto any rememberance that his dismal career as a politician failed to create.

I got to admit... you guys really know how to pick a keynote!

(Obama vs. Miller...truth and optimisim vs. hate and propaganda..... the vote is yours people)

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:32 am: Edit

The speech he made 3 years ago was before 9/11 and the partisan politics daschelle played with national security, which is what set him off to support Bush. In addition, he was introducing kerry at some event, and was given this biography.

Cheany was not against all the cuts in 80s that Reagan pushed for, and most importantly, Cheany was against a nuclear freeze, which is what kerry wanted.
Kerry was a consistent anti-defense senator, over 35 votes in this manner. You cant point to a few things Cheany wanted in the early 90s and say they are equivelent. You need to look at the whole record of both.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:39 am: Edit

Again, very evasive. The exact same anti weapon votes Miller cited, were the same ones Cheney pushed bigger cuts for. So do not cite stuff that is not relavant to what Miller said.

9/11 has nothing to do with what Miller erroniously berated Kerry for (unless you consider the "kerry wants approval from the french to go to war" comment legitamate, in which case I feel as embarrassed for you as I did for Miller at the time). Most of what Miller talked about, happened way longer than 3 years ago...

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:52 am: Edit

he's crazy. i don't think this one needs that much more analysis. i mean the guy wanted to challenge chris matthews to a duel, for god's sake. whether he's a democrat, a republican, a flip-flopper, angry, or in need of a better haircut . . . all take a backseat to his being CRAZY!

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit

lol agreed.. and I love how some even make the attempt to defend him.

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:03 pm: Edit

WSJ:"Miller was passionate when he was a racist 30 years ago ... and now he's passionate as a Republican."

Miller once worked for Georgia's axe-handle wielding segregationist Governor, Lester Maddox.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

I really hate to say it... but the Kerry campaign really needs to launch an attack against Miller.

It is a golden oppurtunity since he was keynote at the RNC... plus it is well deserved since Miller blasted him for hypocritical propoganda

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

" he's crazy. i don't think this one needs that much more analysis. i mean the guy wanted to challenge chris matthews to a duel, for god's sake. whether he's a democrat, a republican, a flip-flopper, angry, or in need of a better haircut . . . all take a backseat to his being CRAZY!"


And Al Sharpton is also Cra-cra-cra-CRAAAAZAAAAAAAAYYYYYY

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Al sharpton was not keynote speaker at the DNC. And Miller is far more crazy. True Al Sharpton can be overwhelming at times, but at least his passion and drive is consistant with what he fights for....and he is not so irrational as to challenge a newscaster to a duel.

Miller basically took everything he said 3 years ago and decided to reverse every single comment at the RNC

But see im noticing a Republican trend here. Everytime they are cornered, instead of conceding defeat, they turn the tables on some random guy who has nothing to do with anything.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Another attack Scuba, I rgought you were above that! Do you check the oxygen before dives?

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit

"Everytime they are cornered, instead of conceding defeat, they turn the tables on some random guy who has nothing to do with anything."

LOL Scubasteve, I think both of us know very well that you are the LAST person to be able to concede defeat.

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:40 pm: Edit

zell miller challenged chris matthews to a duel. to those of you who think this is rational behavior, a duel usually means fighting to the death. like i said before, the republicans can have him. that mindset is more in line with the "survival of the fittest" mentality that is part of the republican mantra.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:04 pm: Edit

I bet you did not watch the interview, he did not challenge him to a duel, he said he wished he lived in the days where he could challenge him to a duel. You love to twist things to your advantage, and have no sense of respect for the truth if it gets in the way of your agenda.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Mom101,

You boarder pathetic (and I have heard a very respected poster say a similar thing to you once before). What are your intentions for even posting on this forum? You are many years our elder, so perhaps you think that if you debate with teenagers some of us will not fall for your ignorant, fact less, and most of the time, assumptious assertions that would not last for a second in the adult world.

Wrong.

You embarrass yourself just as much, perhaps more than you would arguing with adults (even we can call out your •••••••• and we are half your age!)

Do you think claiming to be neither stricken to the Democratic or Republican party will give more validity to your ill fated points? You support Bush, as you have said before. So with that in mind,it does not really matter your party affiliation as you will obviously be biased towards Bush in any debate, despite your self proclaimed objectiveness you attempt to pollute people’s opinions with. If you want to attempt to make a point in favor of Bush, then by all means do it. However do not play the role of Mrs. Obejective Grand Ayatollah who is speaking from above without any slanted bias.


Granted I have praised you for a much better economic knowledge than most but you are obviously not multifaceted throughout the whole political spectrum.

Stick to talking economics, you sound foolish when you veer away from your one area of knowledge.

From your posts I have no choice but to say with confidence that you are less mature than the majority of the posters on this forum (inciting childish, personal attacks on other posters)

Thank you for wasting my time.

With Love,
ScubaSteve <3

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Oxygen Scuba, oxygen.

By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit

mom101, they are just desperate, since all they have is hate and illogical and untrue explainations for your, jlq, and other's well reasoned and backed up statements.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Nice response. You have only further proved my point...

By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit

I dont know that much about american politics, since I live in Japan since I was a child, but I have started paying attention a lot the last few months.
scuba steve seems so angry when someone like mom101 or jlg posts a well thought out factual response. I do not know why he is so angry and mean to those who are civil, maybe because kerry is sinking.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

masterchris, buried somewhere in this list of topics is a thread concerning Team USA BAsketball and the Olympics. I highly recommend you read it. Then I think you will get an idea of why Scubasteve is so angry all the time.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit

The irrational anger is frightening but common in the US right now. Bunmushroom, doesn't it scare you to see this in kids so young? What happens with this generation? They are disillusioned and don't believe in the American dream. They are watching parent's lose the middle class security that their grandparents enjoyed. They are graduating with fewer job possibilities. And they really believe it's about Dems versus Republicans. This is not pretty.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

"I dont know that much about american politics, since I live in Japan...scuba steve seems so angry when someone like mom101 or jlg posts a well thought out factual response"

Chris, I do not mean to jump on your back here, but since you do not know much about american politics, you are really in no position to determine what constitutes a well thought out factual response.

And while we are on the topic of well thought factual responses, would any of you who credit Mom101 of this like to back that statement up. Economics exclusive, because I have already praised her for that.

But honestly now, just take a look at her other posts. Show me one that is well factually supported ...or one that does not reak of the Republican bias that she denys in order to appear superior to the uninformed.... or how about one where she does not talk down in an almost elitist, condescending tone just because she is older (i apologize to all those who subscribe to confucianism, however I beleive respect is not assumed by age and should only be given to those who deserve it)

I also find it funny for a self proclaimed moderate without strict party affiliation to have two republicans come to her defense. Perhaps that says something about the deceptive objectiveness you attempt to con others into believing in your postings Mom101? (look back at her posts and the overwhelming number of times she includes something along the lines of "I am moderate and not republican")

And Bun, I am not some self absorbed blind to the world liberal. I will very easily admit that at times Jlq makes very compelling points and he does so respectfully (most of the time). Even if you disagree with them, they are at least factually sound or as close to it as possible. You cannont say the same thing for mom101 (sad thing is she's twice his age)

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Scuba give her a break. She is just tired of eating bon bons at the pool and rides in Rolls Royce. Can you imagine the empty life when you have to print the posts on these board and read them for entertainment?

Simba, please read my post on Scubasteve. Let me spell it out for you: if I read one single word that I will construe as an attack, even if disguised under an attempt to be sarcastic, you will be banned on the spot. If you value your posting ability, I would highly suggest your drop your rethoric and tone at once. Again, there will be ZERO tolerance. You have exhausted your feline 9 lives on CC!

Moderator Trinity

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 04:01 pm: Edit

lol

Scubasteve, enough is enough. Warnings do not seem to impress you. Your tank gauge has reached the empty mark and it's time for you to resurface from the murky waters. I am banning you from this board. As an additional warning, please be aware that I will enforce our TOS to the letter and will ban -without hesitation- anyone who attempts to discuss this banning in any way or fashion!

Moderator Trinity

By Hayden (Hayden) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Watch it, folks. I know it can be frustrating when you feel others don't hear you or your arguments. But it seems people are starting to get a little too personal. I am sure you don't mean to start attacking in such a way. Please stick to the arguments, not the personalities. I know that's what you mean to do.

By Appliedmath (Appliedmath) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Scubasteve, lay it off.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 04:19 pm: Edit

I have said all I needed to say... and even if I didn't out of respect for all of you I would lay off.

It is not your choice anymore, Scubasteve. Goodbye!

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

jlq, i did watch the interview. why does everything have to be so literal for it to have any real meaning for you? maybe this is why you buy bush's doublespeak--if he doesn't say something literally, then it doesn't have that meaning, is that it? miller said he wished he lived in a time when you could challenge someone to a duel. how is that different? i hope you don't make such literal interpretations in your school work or in life in general. inference is a good thing, an essential thing, a very real thing. weak response, jlq.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

I'll hand you this one Annakat. Zell sounded like a total fool in the Matthews intervies. The look on Matthew's face after the duel comment was priceless.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page