Here we go again!

Does it matter?

What do YOU think?

Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm)

Originally posted by ColWTH
Here we go again!

Does it matter?

What do YOU think?



If it was more than speculation at this point it might. GW was a drunken cokehead and he got by alright.

who cares.

It speaks about his character.
Remember another slimebag who cheated on his wife around 92 and got a pass?

If its no big deal than why would Kerry "rush" her out of the country.

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
who cares.

You sound like a "who cares about character?" liberal. I'm not talking about Kerry, but in general... don't tell me you think character doesn't matter when it comes to the highest up leader of the country.

Originally posted by buttercup


You sound like a "who cares about character?" liberal. I'm not talking about Kerry, but in general... don't tell me you think character doesn't matter when it comes to the highest up leader of the country.

character sure does matter from my studies of gandhi. that's why I don't identify with someone who is a smug aristocrat, has a lust for oil, and has no visible qualms about war. :p

Originally posted by ColWTH
Here we go again!

Does it matter?

What do YOU think?


For somebody to break a vow with the person you supposedly love the most in the world in such a matter is despicable.

Especially in this age of divorce.

And I don't care if they're demos (Clinton/Kennedy/and now allegedly Kerry), Pubbies (Gingrich/Guiliani/Hyde), or whatever.

I lose respect for such a person just like that.

Originally posted by BIG GABE

character sure does matter from my studies of gandhi. that's why I don't identify with someone who is a smug aristocrat, has a lust for oil, and has no visible qualms about war. :p

Hey, you get no argument from me on that. I'm not a Bush supporter.

apparently after Clark claimed this would ruin Kerrys campaign, he decided to endorse him

Originally posted by buttercup


Hey, you get no argument from me on that. I'm not a Bush supporter.

wasn't looking for one...

That article had far too many exclamation marks to be taken seriously. Did no one else read the word "alleged"?

The blue dress story was also "alleged". It turned out to be quite factual.

We will see.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Did no one else read the word "alleged"?

I did!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<< note the extra exclamation pts.
Used that word in my response too
:D

Originally posted by Powerboss
It speaks about his character.
Remember another slimebag who cheated on his wife around 92 and got a pass?

If its no big deal than why would Kerry "rush" her out of the country.

What about Bush's drug use. And the related drug use in the family. What does that say about the character of the entire family.

If the spotlight can be pointed at Kerry it can just as easily be pointed at Bush.

Well, everyone screws up and a person shouldn't put too much weight on one infidelity in a candidate's past. Now, being a womanizer is an all together different thing, which, by all accounts, Bill Clinton was (and is), for instance.

That being said...

I'm more concerned that Kerry was just a male gold digger. Of course, that is pure speculation and there will really be no way of proving that he married these women just for their money. I believe that to be the case, however, and that's all that matters where my vote is concerned.

Character does matter, and I hardly need a report of an alleged affair on Kerry's part to tell me that he's severely lacking in that department.

Originally posted by Powerboss
The blue dress story was also "alleged". It turned out to be quite factual.

We will see.

As was Bush's desertion, the WMDs in Iraq (that no one can find), the existence of that mythical Libyan hit-squad...

You sound like a "who cares about character?" liberal. I'm not talking about Kerry, but in general... don't tell me you think character doesn't matter when it comes to the highest up leader of the country

You presume that any of them have character.

Does it matter?

What is called 'politics' in America is nothing but a ridiculous sideshow. We don't even really discuss (seriously) or debate the real issues (immigration/race/free trade) anymore. Instead, the free press™ makes a big deal out of personalities and sound bytes to compensate for the lack of substance in the positions of the 'two parties'. Think of Dubya landing on the aircraft carrier in his flight jacket and all the jingoistic patriotism on television. I suppose this is understandable though. Keep in mind how ignorant the average American is. The average American who keeps track of this kind of 'politics' is a fool looking to be entertained. Witness the popularity of The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News Channel, the World Wrestling Federation of broadcast journalism.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
As was Bush's desertion, the WMDs in Iraq (that no one can find), the existence of that mythical Libyan hit-squad...

And bush's coke use, his lying to the american people.

Its all 'alledged' bill, does that mean its true?

No, of course not. Alledged in fact means, no basis of proof. Clinton's blue dress fiasco was proved, through a lab test and physical evidence.

If someone can prove Kerry in fact did cheat on her, then yes, it is truth.

But, again, Im not sure I care.

This is what amazes me about a lot of the 'reachers' in the media/populace/this site. They will bitch/moan about the 'smear campaign' democrats are running against Bush when it comes to Bush's service record, as well as his WMD/Iraq war issue.

Yet, they are heralding this as a great thing, very news worthy, etc and so forth.

Which is more important? If Bush dodged his server and/or lied to us about intelligence in Iraq? Or, if John Kerry had sex with someone other than his wife?

One is an issue of legality, the other is an issue pretaining to all of us as a whole. And Kerry's situation would be a private matter between him and his wife. Yes, it does matter to his character and peolpe should be free to make their decision based upon that, but shouldn't they be allowed to do the same about Bush's alledged drug use, his alledged service dodging, his secret energy meetings, his bungled intelligence?

Originally posted by dhaas


What about Bush's drug use. And the related drug use in the family. What does that say about the character of the entire family.

If the spotlight can be pointed at Kerry it can just as easily be pointed at Bush.


We are talking PRESENT DAY Kerry.

All you can dredge up us allegations from 25-30 years ago.
He gave up his vices.

Lets stick to present day.

I just want to say :werd: to Manu, since he said it all better than I could :)

Has anyone ever produced one iota of evidence that Bush used coke?

Clinton's own brother among others accused Clinton of having a nose like a Hoover, yet not one idiot here who refers to Bush as a cokehead on no more grounds than wishful thinking ever once referred to Clinton in such a derogatory way.

Bush has provided us with plenty of ammunition or reasons to criticize without resorting to fantasies about his character or lack of it.

Kerry has proved himself to be a person of low character, the left has stated numerous times they don't think character counts for anything, Kerry's dalliances are typical of that type of person, I don't care about it or them since I don't support him. It is sad that the people who will vote for him think his character is unimportant.

Holy crap..you guys are so desparate. Powerboss <"we're talking about present day kerry"> you guys aren't even worth the argument as I've said before :rolleyes:

When it comes to character, Kerry has far more than Bush. I mean at least I can look at Kerry and know that he's actually got some neurons going back and forth. Bush honestly hasn't a clue, and has no shame in selling out everything America is.

ColWTH you're a real class act. I remember in that thread about Bush's military service you said it wasn't an issue, and yet you make threads like this....

I have no respect for republicans..they dig for anything...and then say they hate diggers.

Bring back ther DEANIE WEENIES.


WOOOHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:D

Originally posted by Volconvo


ColWTH you're a real class act. I remember in that thread about Bush's military service you said it wasn't an issue, and yet you make threads like this....

LMAO - ColWTH posted once in this whole thread - and he was seeking opinions on whether or not it was an issue. He posted a topic to stimulate conversation, and you've decided to read something into it that wasn't there. :rolleyes:


I have no respect for republicans..they dig for anything...and then say they hate diggers.

I have no respect for bandwagon fanatics who abandon their candidate the instant things start to look bad. Further indignation from a liar who was caught in the act is simply icing on the cake.

Originally posted by RedLine99
Bring back ther DEANIE WEENIES.


WOOOHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:D

You didn't get the memo? The Dean revolution didn't quite resonate with America. If you'd been sporting a Dean avatar, you'd have had to sell out the last shred of integrity you had and abandon it.

;)

I find it more than a little strange that this is not being reported by anybody else. JUst Drudge

Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
I find it more than a little strange that this is not being reported by anybody else. JUst Drudge


Well, Batboy only seems to get coverage in the tabloids, so it makes sense..

Originally posted by Powerboss



We are talking PRESENT DAY Kerry.

All you can dredge up us allegations from 25-30 years ago.
He gave up his vices.

Lets stick to present day.

So past vices do not make up character? Past vices do not present, perhaps, contradictory situations?

If Bush dodged service, how can he effectively send peolpe to combat?

If he had a drug problem, how can he incarcerate people with drug problems?

How does his past moral character not reflect on his current?

You want a double standard

Originally posted by Shawn
I have no respect for bandwagon fanatics who abandon their candidate the instant things start to look bad. Further indignation from a liar who was caught in the act is simply icing on the cake.



You didn't get the memo? The Dean revolution didn't quite resonate with America. If you'd been sporting a Dean avatar, you'd have had to sell out the last shred of integrity you had and abandon it.

;)

Whoa..what a geek. I abandoned Dean because I switched my avatar? I switched my avatar because I like my logo. I still have my Dean bumper sticker on my car, but it's irrelevant.

I went into the elections loving Dean. His issues were great, his energy..top notch. The problem is that the media propped him up, and the opponents launched all these dirty ads, and he lost a primary. So, the media begins to rip him apart. Then he screams to a group of young people, and mainstream moronic America goes...uhHUH...what a WEIRDO...I DONT GET IT..AHAHHAA..HES FUNNY.

But now, while I still love what the man stands for, I know that he has less of a chance than Kerry does at beating Bush because of the media attention.

I will always support Dean, and if it means puting back my avatar for Ad homonym users, then so be it. Dean gave the needed energy, and the questions that nobody like Lieberman would have asked. It would have been a very boring primary without the man...win or lose. He gave any candidate against Bush the energy we needed to get rid of him.

Originally posted by Volconvo


Whoa..what a geek. I abandoned Dean because I switched my avatar? I switched my avatar because I like my logo. I still have my Dean bumper sticker on my car, but it's irrelevant.

I went into the elections loving Dean. His issues were great, his energy..top notch. The problem is that the media propped him up, and the opponents launched all these dirty ads, and he lost a primary. So, the media begins to rip him apart. Then he screams to a group of young people, and mainstream moronic America goes...uhHUH...what a WEIRDO...I DONT GET IT..AHAHHAA..HES FUNNY.

But now, while I still love what the man stands for, I know that he has less of a chance than Kerry does at beating Bush because of the media attention.

I will always support Dean, and if it means puting back my avatar for Ad homonym users, then so be it. Dean gave the needed energy, and the questions that nobody like Lieberman would have asked. It would have been a very boring primary without the man...win or lose. He gave any candidate against Bush the energy we needed to get rid of him.

Once again, Volconvo trumpets his superior intellect against those who hold political views that differ from his. This time it's "geek" and "moronic mainstream America".

How on earth did we ever get by without your wisdom and enlightenment???

So Dean's fall is directly attributable to the media?? How sad is that? All that energy, all that motivation, all that truth - a true "grassroots movement" manipulated and destroyed by the media.

:rolleyes:

When are you going to grow up and realize that each person you sit back and mock for being "moronic" may consider you in the same manner?

I understand where you're coming from. In my idealogic university days, I was convinced that at least 85% of the world was dumber than me. After I got out of that protected environment, I realized how much of a farce that was. Maybe you'll realize it too.

It's a tough call, though. You've already demonstrated your willingness to blatantly lie over something as trivial as a post edit --- if you can't man up to admitting something like that, why should anything you post be taken seriously??

Kerry has proved himself to be a person of low character, the left has stated numerous times they don't think character counts for anything, Kerry's dalliances are typical of that type of person, I don't care about it or them since I don't support him. It is sad that the people who will vote for him think his character is unimportant.

Has anyone ever produced one iota of evidence that Bush used coke?

Clinton's own brother among others accused Clinton of having a nose like a Hoover, yet not one idiot here who refers to Bush as a cokehead on no more grounds than wishful thinking ever once referred to Clinton in such a derogatory way.

Bush has provided us with plenty of ammunition or reasons to criticize without resorting to fantasies about his character or lack of it.

Very well stated Bo.

I have no respect for bandwagon fanatics who abandon their candidate the instant things start to look bad. Further indignation from a liar who was caught in the act is simply icing on the cake.


Ignore him. His posts are nothing but "Bush is stupid".

They are re-running the 2000 campaign.

You also have to understand the seething rage and anger that the Deanyboppers have flowing through their veins.

So close, but yet so far.

I find it more than a little strange that this is not being reported by anybody else. JUst Drudge

Drudge is first with most stuff.

Secondly, the liberal media is holding this back because they want to protect Kerry.
As a liberal stated on the radio today, "there was not enough proof". ALthough that didn't stop them from sliming Arnold or the phoney Bush AWOL charge.

But don't we have the right to know if this is indeed being investigated by the media? Who are they to dictate what we should and should not read?

All I can say is thank the good Lord for the internet and radio. The mainstream media are no longer the gatekeepers of information.
It makes you wonder how much they held back over the years, before the internet and radio became popular.

So past vices do not make up character? Past vices do not present, perhaps, contradictory situations?


Indeed past vices and actions should be noted. But it should also be noted if people have rectified those vices anc changed their ways.

Of course, that just invokes name calling of "hypocrite" from many liberals. I guess, to many liberals it is preferrable to stay on a course of degeneracy than to change and be labeled a hypocrite.

If Bush dodged service, how can he effectively send peolpe to combat?


He didn't dodge service.
The military really likes him as commander, obviously he's very effective.

If he had a drug problem, how can he incarcerate people with drug problems?


If? Where is the evidence to support this claim?

Secondly, you just proved my point. Are you arguing that "if" he had a drug problem, he should've remained on drugs? Is that better than being labeld a hypocrite?

Would it not be wiser to change your ways and do something with your life?

If part of doing something with your life is enforcing the law, then its your job to enforcing the law.

So, because I drank on a few occaisions as a youth, under 21, should I therefore tell my kids that it's OK to drink underage?
Or should I tell them not to and aspire to a higher standard and run the risk of being labeled a hypocrite?


How does his past moral character not reflect on his current?

Because he set out on a course to change his ways, completely opposite of what they were.
That is noble, that is good. That takes strength and courage to do, and especially to stick with it.

Do you hold it against former alcoholics that they were once alcoholics and look down upon them?
I hope you aren't that kind of person.

You want a double standard

Not at all. I would not tolerate Bush screwing an intern now, or a year ago, then rushing her off to Africa, as I would not tolerate Kerry doing so.
In fact, if you go back and read the Arnold threads, I stated that his behaivior with women disqualified him from serving as Governener.
Im very consistant on the matter.

Whoa..what a geek.

Is that a personal attack?

As was Bush's desertion, the WMDs in Iraq (that no one can find), the existence of that mythical Libyan hit-squad...

Bush's desertion was NOT factual. The facts show he did his time.
The WMD's in Iraq were DOCUMENTED to exist.
Im afraid you'll have to fill me in on the Libyan hit squad.


Its all 'alledged' bill, does that mean its true?

I don't dispute that it is alleged at this time.

Look at the National Enquirer cover though....

http://web1.ami-admin.com/images/47266.jpg

I think that is the alleged broad that came to drop off some papers to his house at 11:30pm when his wife was out of town.


But, again, Im not sure I care.

Would it matter to you if your dad cheated on your mom?

Would you see it as a charachter flaw that he was unable to control his urges?

Why is it any different with the guy who wants to lead the most powerful nation on earth?

Didn't we learn anything from the most corrupt, scandal ridden, and dishonest administration in American history, Clinton, about character?

Why doesn't character matter?

This is what amazes me about a lot of the 'reachers' in the media/populace/this site. They will bitch/moan about the 'smear campaign' democrats are running against Bush when it comes to Bush's service record, as well as his WMD/Iraq war issue.

Yet, they are heralding this as a great thing, very news worthy, etc and so forth.

Which is more important? If Bush dodged his server and/or lied to us about intelligence in Iraq? Or, if John Kerry had sex with someone other than his wife?

I don't think anyone is heralding it as a great thing. I think it is just another glimpse, if true, into his character, which should be an issue.
Bush's service record is a non issue because it has been explored a thousand times now and he has been vindicated. People are attempting to make a non issue, an issue.

Regarding intelligence. If Bush was lying, then so was Clinton and all the world leaders. It is simply a bogus charge for political reasons. You should know this.

One is an issue of legality, the other is an issue pretaining to all of us as a whole. And Kerry's situation would be a private matter between him and his wife. Yes, it does matter to his character and peolpe should be free to make their decision based upon that, but shouldn't they be allowed to do the same about Bush's alledged drug use, his alledged service dodging, his secret energy meetings, his bungled intelligence?


Alleged, alleged. No, they've been explored. People want to rehash it all over again for political reasons.
Secret energy meetings. Did you complain when Hillary had her secret health care task force meetings? I know I didn't.
His bungled intelligence is every other nations bungled intelligence as well.

I can't believe you of all people are trying to peddle this.

This is sickening...:barf:

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger
This is sickening...:barf:

I agree. I'd prefer that allegations of such infidelity never arose. If one isn't interested in settling down, then one shouldn't marry.

:D

Originally posted by Shawn
In my idealogic university days, I was convinced that at least 85% of the world was dumber than me.

Before I got my current job, I thought that too. In the two weeks I've worked there, I have encountered horrible, horrible things that have lead me to reevaluate that estimate, which was obviously a product of my oh-so-sheltered upbringing.

My current estimate is 95%, although it's climbing by the day.

Everyone in this world is stupid, except for you, and me. And I'm not that sure about you...:)

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger
This is sickening...:barf:

then don't post it:stupid:

There was a great CNN special on this week about Monogamy. In the program they showed that other than modern man there are no creatures on the earth that operate in Monogamus relationships. Geneticly the need for those males in a group who are the most succesfull in mating with the greatest number of females who's genes perpetuate the species. We with our "moral" codes developed most probably out of religious/spiritual origins created a monogamus structure. They also said during the special that 75% of humans cheat and are not wholey monogamus. With greater than 50% of marriages ending within the first 5 years and according to the CNN special 75% of people in a relationship having affairs I really dont think that an individual who "cheated" should be held to public account. The issue is between those in the relationship.

Now with Clinton it was very different. The activity he was involved in was with a co-worker in a workplace setting and a co-worker that had far less power than he did. I really dont care whether it happened in a Wall Street Boardroom or the White house it speaks to an abuse of power that was inappropriate. For me it was not an issue of character but one of abuse of his position of power. Our company ( a farming operation) has specific Personal harrassment policy that even here would forbid that activity and would result in the firing of the individual. I was merely disappointed in the way the Republicans couched the issue in morality and did not deal with the issue as a workplace violation which in my mind it was and probably should have resulted in the same penalty as on my farm. Had it been two equal co-workers where the abuse of power did not enter into it it would not be an issue. Just not in my office nor with my cigars :)

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


Before I got my current job, I thought that too. In the two weeks I've worked there, I have encountered horrible, horrible things that have lead me to reevaluate that estimate, which was obviously a product of my oh-so-sheltered upbringing.

My current estimate is 95%, although it's climbing by the day.

Everyone in this world is stupid, except for you, and me. And I'm not that sure about you...:)

haha..yea.

And powerboss, don't even try to get another personal attack warning on me. That was hardly an attack. What's with you and feeling the need for big forum government to regulate everything that poses a threat to your ideological BS? It's a little contradictory considering you're trying to be conservative.

Oh, and Shawn, I pm'ed you..I don't wanna stray the topic even moreso.

Originally posted by Powerboss

We are talking PRESENT DAY Kerry.

All you can dredge up us allegations from 25-30 years ago.
He gave up his vices.

Lets stick to present day.

So Vietnam is a present day issue? If we were talking present day we'd be talking about the Iraq war and how Bush sent US soldiers to the death without evidence.

So comparing their past Kerry spoke out against a war that he didn't believe in. Last time I checked that was completely legal. Bush was a drug user that's illegal. So which says more about character practicing free speech or drug use?

How many reputable newspapers is this stuff in?

Volco has gall, that is for sure. I posted this thread to see where everyone stood on this issue. Did it matter after the ex-philanderer in Chief got away with it for his entire political career … even AFTER he finally admitted it … or is it a matter that shows Kerry’s lack of trustworthiness and character?

That is why I did not come back onto the thread I started because I am not really sure of its relevance to the current race. Clinton’s low born morals were a different matter entirely. He is well known to have attacked several women in the past, he became involved with a woman in the work place, and then he lied about it to everyone. Clinton put the entire country at risk.

So far, Kerry only lied to his family and did not involve the entire country in his dalliance. And that is if it even happened.

But, I have to say Volco takes the cake for finger pointing. He comes on this thread and claims I have "no class" and demeans my character and then, when it is pointed out he is reading things into a post that aren’t there, he starts attacking others! But his gall comes in where HE plays the victim. Typical leftist. It’s everyone else’s fault, eh?

(I do think it’s funny to see his abandonment of that raving lunatic, Dean, though.)

So the questions remain:
1) Did Clinton lower the bar for every politician (as he lowered the bar for nearly everything) and now sexual misconduct won’t matter at all?
2) Is Kerry going to get a free pass even if this story is true?

Or…

3) Will it hit Kerry hard and make his run a nightmare?
4) Will people lean away from him because of this story?

Finally, the funniest thing is that this story is Dems attacking Dems. The story originated in the public sphere with Clark bringing it up at a press conference, though he claimed it was to be off the record. Then the story developed that other Dem staffers of several campaigns (Dean specifically) had been hoping the story would hit soon.

This whole story has the Clinton’s finger prints all over it.

Originally posted by Sinclair
How many reputable newspapers is this stuff in?

none.

Volco has gall, that is for sure. I posted this thread to see where everyone stood on this issue. Did it matter after the ex-philanderer in Chief got away with it for his entire political career … even AFTER he finally admitted it … or is it a matter that shows Kerry’s lack of trustworthiness and character?.

Even in your attempt to sound like you were asking a question, you feel the need to taint it with things like "philanderer in Chief"

That is why I did not come back onto the thread I started because I am not really sure of its relevance to the current race. Clinton’s low born morals were a different matter entirely. He is well known to have attacked several women in the past, he became involved with a woman in the work place, and then he lied about it to everyone. Clinton put the entire country at risk.

Hahahahaha...the entire was country at risk? Oh god, you've got to be kidding. He was a great president, and fantastic speaker..who lied about sex. At least we had a surplus instead of this mess.

But, I have to say Volco takes the cake for finger pointing. He comes on this thread and claims I have "no class" and demeans my character and then, when it is pointed out he is reading things into a post that aren’t there, he starts attacking others! But his gall comes in where HE plays the victim. Typical leftist. It’s everyone else’s fault, eh?

Oh god, stop looking for company-as you know, misery loves it. You just want people to back you, by saying I attacked other people. Where did I attack anyone? I was told I was fickle because I removed AN AVATAR, and that calling someone a geek for saying so is a PERSONAL ATTACK :rolleyes: Also, where did I say I was a victim? How is this being a typical leftist? I don't understand that correlation.

(I do think it’s funny to see his abandonment of that raving lunatic, Dean, though.)

I actually pm'd Shawn, telling him about my unwavering commitment to Dean. He gave energy to the party, was attacked by his opponents because he had an early lead, he lost the first caucus, and the media dug in as they always do with people they prop up. The average American, who may not pay attention to really know who he was only got to see the scream he did at a rally :rolleyes:

So Vietnam is a present day issue? If we were talking present day we'd be talking about the Iraq war and how Bush sent US soldiers to the death without evidence.

WHo is bringing up Vietnam?

The evidence on Iraq was overwhelming.

Please, lets deal with facts.

So comparing their past Kerry spoke out against a war that he didn't believe in. Last time I checked that was completely legal. Bush was a drug user that's illegal. So which says more about character practicing free speech or drug use?

Kerry didn't just speak out but Kerry is the one who is bringing the past up. It also goes to the issue that since his service, his voting record has been completely misguided and wrong regarding national defense issues.


Please provide your evidence on Bush's drug use.

(BTW, Kerry has admitted to drug use.)


How many reputable newspapers is this stuff in?

It is now in the National Enquirerer.

Originally posted by RyanEbelhar
apparently after Clark claimed this would ruin Kerrys campaign, he decided to endorse him

Excellent point.

I say that then with Democrats like Clark,we don't need Republicans.

I wonder if Madonna and Michael Moore are sorry for endorsing him now?

[i]Originally posted by JoeyNormal
That article had far too many exclamation marks to be taken seriously. Did no one else read the word &quot;alleged&quot;?
Some on the right seem to have a blind spot on that word.

It's like they want the alligations to be true.


Originally posted by RightWingZealot


You presume that any of them have character.


Well,what is "character" can be open to debate ,but otherwise you have an excellent point.

I don't expect ANY politican to be a saint and I'm amazed by the people [who seem to always be on the right] who say they should.

I don't vote on so-called "character" or anything remotely like that.

I vote for the person with the political philosophy [that has the best chance of winning] that will serve my values,nothing more,nothing less.

Anyone [left or right] who casts their vote for reasons other than political idelology is a damn fool in my humble opinion.

At least I'm honest about it.

[i]Originally posted by Vespasian

Witness the popularity of The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News Channel, the World Wrestling Federation of broadcast journalism.
LOL.

Originally posted by Volconvo

When it comes to character, Kerry has far more than Bush.



That's a no-brainer,but even then,that's not why I will work for and vote for Kerry [assuming everything stays the way it is].


I mean at least I can look at Kerry and know that he's actually got some neurons going back and forth.



LOL. :nice:


I have no respect for republicans..they dig for anything...and then say they hate diggers.
Excellent point.


Originally posted by Shawn



I have no respect for bandwagon fanatics who abandon their candidate the instant things start to look bad.


I know you did not address that question to me Shawn,but I still would like to respond.

I am a registered Democrat who has not come out for anyone this year .

I still haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the primary [right now,it looks like Kucinich ,but that is not set in stone],all I said is I'll vote for and will work for whomever gets the Democratic nomination .


[i]Originally posted by SimoneAsLily
I find it more than a little strange that this is not being reported by anybody else. JUst Drudge


If you remember,this is the same Matt Drudge who said a kid named Danny Williams was Bill Clinton's out of wedlock son,blood tets disproved that claim of Mr. Sludge.

The same Matt Drudge who admits to having stalked Maureeen Dowd at her house [though it's rumored Drudge is "in the closet" so to speak].

All Drudge has really been good for lately is showing us Janet Jackson's breast [which was nice].

Also ,Drudge doesn't say Kerry had the affair,he says there are rumors that Kerry had the affair.

Originally posted by Shawn


So Dean's fall is directly attributable to the media??


I think the media played a small part,but only a small part.

I think the Dean phenomena woke the Democratic Party leadership up and made them FINALLY get their act together.

Originally posted by Powerboss


It is now in the National Enquirerer.


So , you're saying the National Enquirerer is a credible newspaper?

Good,they broke the story about all of Rush Limbaugh's illegal activities.

Originally posted by Truth Teller

So , you're saying the National Enquirerer is a credible newspaper?

Good,they broke the story about all of Rush Limbaugh's illegal activities.


Don't forget they broke the story of Ben Affleck's cheating on JLo with the strippers :|

It's interesting,it seems like liberals can get laid and conservatives can't. :D

I don't think this sex-alligation will stick :D like Clinton's did.

Kerry is lots of things,stupid is not one of them.

Even if [for the sake of argument] these rumors are true,Kerry knows what [to quote Ross Peroit] "the Republican dirty tricks" people are about in the this post-Monica world,so he's smart enough not to leave any evidence.

This alligation is not what the right said about Clinton.

The right said "Clinton was not about sex,it was about perjury",there's no prejury here.

The right said "Clinton was about employer/employee",John Kerry has never worked for Associated Press.

The right said "Clinton was about Paula Jones's alligations and her day in court",there's no Paula Jones with any such alligations in this case.

Of course,some of these very same people here at DA who said "Clinton was not about sex",are saying "This is awful" when the alligation is about sex between two consenting adults.

Hypocrisy?I'd say so.

I've said it before,I'll say it again:

In my experience,the only people who care about the sex lives of others are those who have no sex life of their own.

Now,let's look into this alligation deeper.

It's alledged this affair happened from early 2001 to early 2003.

During this time Kerry was being operated on [and recovering from] prostate cancer,I'm not sure being able to have sex [or even caring about being able to have sex] was necessarily high on his list of priorites.

Even if it was [and for the sake of argument,let's say he was impotent from the surgery,you don't need an errect penis in order to have sex ,if you get my drift] and if for whatever reason he couldn't get any comfort from his wife,who is anyone to deny comfort and companionship to someone in such an awful situation?


Who would have such hubris to do so?

I personally think that anyone whose body and psyche are ravged by illness is entitled to anything they can get,especially in the form of tenderness and affection.

Now, let's get even deeper [and shake it up even more].

People talk about "Breaking their vows" we weren't at their wedding,we don't know exactly what vows they took ,do we?

The fact is two people can love each other,marry to stay together for life ,but can have an open realtionship where they engage with others sexually ,that is not cheating.

I mean life is for the learning and sex as valid a learning tool as any other.

None of us wear only one pair of shoes,reads only one book , sees only one movie etc. ,it's logical to assume that none of us was meant to have sex with only one person,and if one [or two] have sex with someone other than ther spouse,it does not necessarily mean they love their spouse any less.

This is the 21st Century,not the 17th.

Just something to think about.

Originally posted by beatlebabe1972



Don't forget they broke the story of Ben Affleck's cheating on JLo with the strippers :|

:D

Originally posted by beatlebabe1972



Don't forget they broke the story of Ben Affleck's cheating on JLo with the strippers :|

I was their source.:eek:

Originally posted by Truth Teller


I was their source.:eek:



:eek: TT you naughty boy :D

Originally posted by ColWTH
Here we go again!

Does it matter?

What do YOU think?

Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm)
If you cant trust a man to take care of his own family, you cannot trust a man to take care of strangers.

Originally posted by Truth Teller
It's interesting,it seems like liberals can get laid and conservatives can't. :D

I don't think this sex-alligation will stick :D like Clinton's did.

Kerry is lots of things,stupid is not one of them.

Even if [for the sake of argument] these rumors are true,Kerry knows what [to quote Ross Peroit] "the Republican dirty tricks" people are about in the this post-Monica world,so he's smart enough not to leave any evidence.

This alligation is not what the right said about Clinton.

The right said "Clinton was not about sex,it was about perjury",there's no prejury here.
You forget a few things.

The FIRST things about Clinton that were brought up were his sex scandals, his rape charges against him, THEN was the Draft Dodging.

The Perjury charges came later, which was a legitimate reason to impeach the lying scum.

Originally posted by Banky

You forget a few things.


his rape charges against him, THEN was the Draft Dodging.

The Perjury charges came later, which was a legitimate reason to impeach the lying scum.

What does any of this have to do with Kerry?

Originally posted by Banky

If you cant trust a man to take care of his own family, you cannot trust a man to take care of strangers.

I don't see his family walking around in poverty.

Originally posted by Truth Teller


What does any of this have to do with Kerry?
Since you brought it up first, ask yourself!:scratch: :slap:

Originally posted by Truth Teller


I don't see his family walking around in poverty.
So, knowing that you cant trust someone is ok as long as you're fed?

That is sick.

Originally posted by Banky

So, knowing that you cant trust someone is ok as long as you're fed?



If John and Teresa have an open realtionship,then no trust is being violated.

Originally posted by Banky

Since you brought it up first, ask yourself!:scratch: :slap:

I didn't bring up Clinton's draft-dodging etc.,you did.

I just said why these Kerry alligations are not Monicagate.

Originally posted by beatlebabe1972




:eek: TT you naughty boy :D

Yeah,I also told J Lo.

She was upset and I comforted her. ;)

Is there any ACTUAL proof of the affair? Any semen stains? Recordings?

Or is it just some mud-slinging?

who cares about this when the man is also a communist war criminal?

Originally posted by contra
who cares about this when the man is also a communist war criminal?


And your boy Bush is a fascist war criminal, at least we have proof of that..

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger

And your boy Bush is a fascist war criminal, at least we have proof of that..

He is neither.

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING KERRY IS A COMMUNIST?

He's rich, his wife is rich, and his campaign is funded by the rich. He is not by any means a communist, unless your definition of communist is "anyone left of the Bush administration".

What can I say? This is why I hate democracy.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



And your boy Bush is a fascist war criminal, at least we have proof of that..
:nice:

Originally posted by Sinclair
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING KERRY IS A COMMUNIST?

He's rich, his wife is rich, and his campaign is funded by the rich. He is not by any means a communist, unless your definition of communist is &quot;anyone left of the Bush administration&quot;.

Sinclair,don't confuse a neocon with actual facts,that's cruel.

I hate to burst Banky and PB's bubble [actually ,I love doing so],but it looks like this all is :bs:.


As Ryan pointed out,why would Clark publicly [with Kerry by his side] endorse him, then say this?

No,it was a former aide of Clark's [angry that he lost his job because Clark dropped out] who told Rat Sludge this ,and since Rat Sludge is a bogus journalist,he can print anything he wants to about a public figure,even if he doesn't believe it.

As Tony Blankey [who never met any right-wing ass he doesn't kiss] admitted,Kerry does have a reputation as quite a ladies man when he was single,but not since he got married.


In favor of John Kerry :Two Veitnam war heores [John Kerry and Wesley Clark] against John Kerry :A Vieitnam War darft-dodger [Rush Limbaugh].

As well asdoidging the darft,Rush Limbaugh also dodged the draft.

Egads,another typo.

What can I say?hSit happens.

I hate to burst Banky and PB's bubble [actually ,I love doing so],but it looks like this all is .


Why is this all BS?

Why would Clark give the press this story?

As Ryan pointed out,why would Clark publicly [with Kerry by his side] endorse him, then say this?


I can think of a few reasons.

Clark is the Clintons candidate. The Clintons have to make sure that no Democrat wins this year so Hillary can run in 08.

No,it was a former aide of Clark's [angry that he lost his job because Clark dropped out]

No, it was Clark who told something like 12 reporters "off the record".

LOL. This is great. While the left here complains about how terrible this all is they sure didn't seem to have a problem with doing it a decade ago.

Isn't it strange how the press won't touch this story yet but were fully willing to do it a decade ago?

Media bias indeed.

FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.

CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.

"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."

Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":

"Have you ever had an affair?"

CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:

"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."

"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."

UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:

"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."

CUT TO 2004:

NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."

The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]

Conason lamented:

"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"

Consaon's reason #1:

"He cheats on his wife."

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

The evidence on Iraq was overwhelming.

Powerboss it appears someone ate the evidence cause there isnt any now.:eek:

Maybe the reason the press isn't reporting this, but did report the whole Lewinsky thing, was that by then Clinton had a big reputation as a guy who couldn't keep it in his pants. Flowers, Jones, etc.

Whereas this is totally out of left field.

Originally posted by Powerboss

Clark is the Clintons candidate. The Clintons have to make sure that no Democrat wins this year so Hillary can run in 08.


God,are you right-wingers really that delusional?


No, it was Clark who told something like 12 reporters &quot;off the record&quot;.
Sources?

Originally posted by Powerboss
LOL. This is great. While the left here complains about how terrible this all is they sure didn't seem to have a problem with doing it a decade ago.

Isn't it strange how the press won't touch this story yet but were fully willing to do it a decade ago?

Media bias indeed.


Ah,you conservatives,you aren't happy unless you believe you are being persecuted,aren't you?

Pathethic.

The alleged affair has turned out to have never happened. The girl that supposedly filed a complaint issued a statement saying as much today. CNN, MSNBC etc are reporting that the "source" was a "particularly nasty internet website discounted by jounalists" and is untrue. Their words. CNN had a peice on how falsehoods auch as this get distributed.

Matt Drudge is a despicable individual who has a long history of reporting lies. Mind you his audience is a few bricks short of a load.

Originally posted by Diverlady
The alleged affair has turned out to have never happened. The girl that supposedly filed a complaint issued a statement saying as much today. CNN, MSNBC etc are reporting that the "source" was a "particularly nasty internet website discounted by jounalists" and is untrue. Their words. CNN had a peice on how falsehoods auch as this get distributed.

Matt Drudge is a despicable individual who has a long history of reporting lies. Mind you his audience is a few bricks short of a load. LOL, well if she said it didn't happen, then it must be true, right? Why on earth would she lie?

Originally posted by Diverlady
The alleged affair has turned out to have never happened. The girl that supposedly filed a complaint issued a statement saying as much today. CNN, MSNBC etc are reporting that the "source" was a "particularly nasty internet website discounted by jounalists" and is untrue. Their words. CNN had a peice on how falsehoods auch as this get distributed.

Maybe you can explain why the girls father was calling him a disgusting man a couple of days ago and have all since changed their story.

Matt Drudge is a despicable individual who has a long history of reporting lies. Mind you his audience is a few bricks short of a load.


1) Please site this history.

2) He simply reported that MEDIA OUTLETS were investigating this. That is all. He did not level the charge. Try paying closer attention.

God,are you right-wingers really that delusional?

Hey, I received a warning for using that word. I wonder if you will too.

Sources?

All over the place. It has been confirmed. Furthermore, you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claims in your prior post. As soon as you do, I will then provide mine. Sound fair?

Ah,you conservatives,you aren't happy unless you believe you are being persecuted,aren't you?


I am just exposing the double standard of the liberal media.

Whats wrong, you no likey the fact that I do that?

How do you explain it?

Pathethic.

Yes, it is quite pathetic that the media is Terry McAwfulle's lap dog.

While the post above dosent mention it directly I beleive Drudge was the particularly nasty internet website discounted by jounalists.

The man is a worm.

Originally posted by Powerboss


All over the place. It has been confirmed. Furthermore, you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claims in your prior post. As soon as you do, I will then provide mine. Sound fair?


John Mc Laughlin [hardly a left-winger] said it on the Mc Laughlin Group [that's also where Tony Blankley,who is also hardly a left-winger, said the remark I attributed to him].

Now,name me your sources [besdies Drudge]?

Originally posted by Volconvo
Holy crap..you guys are so desparate. Powerboss <"we're talking about present day kerry"> you guys aren't even worth the argument as I've said before :rolleyes:

When it comes to character, Kerry has far more than Bush. I mean at least I can look at Kerry and know that he's actually got some neurons going back and forth. Bush honestly hasn't a clue, and has no shame in selling out everything America is.

ColWTH you're a real class act. I remember in that thread about Bush's military service you said it wasn't an issue, and yet you make threads like this....

I have no respect for republicans..they dig for anything...and then say they hate diggers.

An awful lot of noise from someone who refuses to tell the truth over small things. :rolleyes:

;) :nice: :nice:

Originally posted by Powerboss





All over the place. It has been confirmed. Furthermore, you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claims in your prior post. As soon as you do, I will then provide mine. Sound fair?



Hey PB,I gave you my source,why aren't you holding up on your end of the deal?

John Mc Laughlin [hardly a left-winger] said it on the Mc Laughlin Group [that's also where Tony Blankley,who is also hardly a left-winger, said the remark I attributed to him].

OK so he said it. Great.

Now,name me your sources [besdies Drudge]?

It was also confirmed by Hannity who has sources and some left winger columist from some left wing publication who regularily appears on the Hugh Hewitt radio show who confirmed the entire thing and that it was being investigated. I will have to find his name if it is such a big deal to you although it wouldn't change your biased, partisan mind anyways.

Funny thing is that no media outlet wants to explore why the girls parents did a complete 180 over the weekend a couple of weeks ago. I wonder why?
The reporter from the English tabliod filed a credible article in where the father calls Kerry a scumbag or dirtbag or something.
He has it on tape. LOL.

PB I am beginning to understand why you are a right winger ;)

Why? Because I fact check?

Thank You.