A Rant Forum Assist For Liberals - Please Use It

[Walter]

To help us all save time and words, and because we all have seen these responses repeatedly posted by our liberal contingent, I'm taking the article written by Doug Giles (appearing in Town Hall) and making it a more efficient way to reply.

Please use the following REPLY CODES when defending Kerry on ChronWatch (KK means Kerry Koolaid)

The Cult of Kerry
Doug Giles

August 21, 2004

KK-0 Generalized Praise

Listening to the Democrats speak about John Kerry must be what it was like hearing Saint Peter describe Christ to his fishing buddies. Kerry can do no wrong. No matter what is written or said about the Senator, the Dems find no fault in the man. He’s perfect.

Just look at his website, JohnKerry.com. Why, he’s squeaky clean; he’s a truth telling war hero and good guy, with an impeccable public record who should replace that terrible rascal George W. Bush. Kerry, according to the Dems, is the savior of these United States.

End of discussion. Crown him with many crowns! Yeah, right.

KK-1 Flop Flop

According to the liberal-left, Kerry has never – no, NEVER - lied, prevaricated, exaggerated, or obfuscated. He has never flipped flopped.

If he has done a 180 on an issue it is because he is evolving … transforming like a little butterfly. And we all know development is a complicated process, don’t we? Therefore, one must be understanding with Kerry during his miraculous presidential metamorphosis. He’s flowering. Be gentle.

Given the vast secularization of the left it’s touching to see such faith. Yes, the Democrats’ willingness to completely, implicitly trust, back, defend, go out on a limb for and stake their careers on this man is simply -- religious.

My question is: what kind of goofy grape Jim Jones juice do the Democrats and the Liberal media’s Axis of Drivel, drink to make them utterly and completely believe everything this guy says and never seriously question him, his war claims or his vacillating voting records?

Kerry has worked some serious voodoo on his backers, and he’s now trying to do it on us voters.

We are told, you see, that
KK-2 20 Year Voting Record

Saint John Kerry is immaculate, that we should believe what he and a smattering of others say about him during his Nam days, and that we should blow off his 20 year voting history. Just drink the [poisonous] grape juice and let him run the country.

Kum Ba Ya, My Senator, Kum ba ya.

The liberals want the masses to believe Kerry, make a Hegelian leap of faith, blow off all the massive accusations and empirical evidence … and embrace him. We can do this!

KK-3 Swift Boat Stuff

First, by just moving on from all that Swift Boat stuff. Geez, guys, Kerry said he’s telling the truth. Let it be. The carefully scripted, evasive half-answers and the New York Times’ tilted take is good enough for the Democrats. So, what’s the problem? I mean, who cares if 60 eyewitnesses, and a total of 254 combat mates, think Kerry is a grade “A” bulls**t artist? No need to check the facts: they’ve gotta be wrong, and Kerry’s obviously right. Drink the juice.

KK-4 Cambodia

Now, repeat after me: it makes no difference that John-boy claimed until just last week that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia. It’s really just a bit of poor navigation that he was 55 miles away, deep in Vietnam, although he insisted on it every chance he got including on the Senate floor.

And it really, really doesn’t matter that he claimed Richard Nixon was the lying president at the time, although he still was waiting to be inaugurated. We all know that worse things have been said about Nixon, so you can’t blame the ever-so-honest, self-righteous John Forbes Kerry.

KK-5 527 Organizations

Anyway, those suspicious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were floated by rich Republicans – from Texas! friends of the Bush family!! - and we know how disreputable and discrediting that kind of activity is when a partisan guy with $200 thousand gives it to a 527 organization for smear ads. [Hey! Don’t anybody mention George Soros giving $10 million to MoveOn.org!] You know this grape juice is really pretty tasty.

K-6 Kerry's Self Promoting Home Movies

Secondly, we all could move on and embrace Kerry if Ann Coulter would just chill on making a big deal out of Kerry bringing a movie camera with him to re-enact his purportedly heroic acts. Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson often have people around them filming their actions, so … what’s weird about Kerry doing it? You and I both know that if Sony digi-cams were around in Christ’s day, he’d have Bartholomew rolling on him while he was doing His gallant deeds. And they’d do several different takes until Bart got it right. More funky juice, please.

KK-7 The Media Focus

Thirdly, we could move on and embrace Kerry if we would all back off the major television outlets for not carrying detailed coverage of the Swifties’ best-selling book, Unfit for Command, which is #1 on Amazon, in it’s fifth printing with Regnery, and yet very difficult to find at major bookstores in liberal cities. Look, Tailgunner Joe … TV news shows are busy with other things. The Olympics are being played. Hello! And in addition to the games we really must see the documentary about how the male Olympian overcame chronic jock itch, an overbearing mother with a mustache and a penchant for prancing around in stiletto heels, to become the great athlete he is. Yes, we need more of this stuff. Hours of it. Uh… excuse me… my goofy grape Nehi is running a little low.

KK-8 War on Terror

Fourthly, we could all move on and climb into Kerry’s boat by believing John, who from now on, is going to go medieval against those terrorists. Kerry has promised us that he can be a mean guy to bad people and that he will do whatever it takes to secure us at home and abroad. We need to believe him and not let little things bother us. Things like this wanna be JFK skipping out on 78% of 49 hearings while he served on the Senate intelligence committee.

We shouldn’t flinch over Kerry’s proposal just after the first [1993] attack on the World Trade Center to slash $7.5 billion from our intelligence budget. And who can fault Kerry for voting 12 times between 1990 and 2003 against higher pay for America's hardworking volunteer military?

Can it really be a sticking point with people if our two Johns, Kerry and Edwards, are two of only four US Senators who voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq and against the $87 billion funding bill for our troops there and in Afghanistan? What harm is there in voting against extra money for body armor for soldiers and against increased combat pay for troops? You can still be tough on terrorists, right?

KK-9 Kerry's Vague Record

We must not judge Kerry based on what he has done ... only on what he says he will do. Kerry, like Francis Dolarhyde, is becoming and it’s not fair to equate him with what he was. Come on, people. Do what the Dems do. Throw your hands up in the air and say, “Oh well … whatever”. Give me more goofy grape because I like-a da juice.

KK-10 Kerry's Promises

Fifthly, we can really embrace Kerry very easily: simply believe that he means it when he says he’ll cut the middle classes’ taxes. All we have to do is forget he’s voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion and voted at least 126 times against tax cuts totaling more than $5.3 trillion. Just believe Kerry even though he’s voted 73 times to reduce the size of a tax cut, 67 times for smaller tax cuts and 11 times against repealing tax hikes … and even when he voted for Bill Clinton’s largest tax increase in U.S. history! If Kerry says he’s not going to tax us, just be cool …close your eyes ... and keep the grape juice flowing.

KK-11 Abortion

And lastly, we can all join the Kerry cult, by buying into his take on abortion: life begins at conception but the woman has the right to snuff that life out. Maybe it’s not so nice, but it’s no big deal continuing the greatest holocaust to ever hit our planet -- murdering unborn children. On that one, altar boy, make wacky Welch's a double.

My ClashPoint is this: Kerry’s crowd is so blinded by anti-Bush frothing fervor they have completely lost their objectivity and have halo-ed this cat. No, no, no, John Kerry’s not a liar. His voting record doesn’t contradict his newfound convictions … and the king is not naked. It’s OK, cuz … O.J. is innocent, and Scott Peterson didn’t kill Laci and their baby. Oh, and Britney Spears can sing, and Andy Dick is a thespian.

Kerry’s cult may see a glow around their do-no-wrong golden boy’s head but I don’t think it’s a halo. It’s probably methane gas from the fetid fecal fumes that are steaming off his body.

No Jim Jones juice for me, thank you.

[Matter]

Let's see if anybody shows up.....

[Citizen]

Given the vast secularization of the left it’s touching to see such faith. Yes, the Democrats’ willingness to completely, implicitly trust, back, defend, go out on a limb for and stake their careers on this man is simply -- religious.

I found this statement kinda hypocritical. Looking through the many posts on this forum, from many conservatives, I've seen the same ideology from Conservatives about Bush.

Again, not picking sides, but both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans, are going to ignore (temporarily) the negatives of their 'glorious' leaders and emphasis the negatives of eachother's leaders.

That is what politics are all about, no?

[BOLO]

I found this statement kinda hypocritical. Looking through the many posts on this forum, from many conservatives, I've seen the same ideology from Conservatives about Bush.

Again, not picking sides, but both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans, are going to ignore (temporarily) the negatives of their 'glorious' leaders and emphasis the negatives of eachother's leaders.

That is what politics are all about, no?

I found this statement kinda hypocritical.

DID YOU NOW? Well I guess if you look long enough and have sufficient Liberal inclination you can find hyprocisy anywhere.
Your problem is obvious. You do not know how to sort the chaff from the wheat.

Looking through the many posts on this forum, from many conservatives, I've seen the same ideology from Conservatives about Bush

Here you missed it again. You see support for President Bush. He validates our believes, or ideology as you call it.
Kerry has no ideology. he is open to suggestion. Or did you not see or sense that in the post? kerry gives the word Waffle a bad name.

Again, not picking sides,

Yes you are. When you make all encompassing statements that attempt to place an umbrella of Doctrine over everyone then you have chosen a side. (Yours)
A clear attempt to set yourself apart from, and some what above, every one else.

but both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans, are going to ignore (temporarily) the negatives of their 'glorious' leaders and emphasis the negatives of eachother's leaders.

This is really retarted. Telling a truth is not a negative nor an empahsis. Kerry created the posistion he is in. No one else. A truth is a truth. When you try snide remarks like this you leave it clear there is no point counter point in your world. Your welcome to it, it is not the real world.

That is what politics are all about, no?

No!
Politics is about winning. The right side needs to stay sharp to do that. We are.
Flush the Johns in 04. ;D

[scummybear]

Citizen said:

I found this statement kinda hypocritical. Looking through the many posts on this forum, from many conservatives, I've seen the same ideology from Conservatives about Bush.

Again, not picking sides, but both conservatives and liberals, democrats and republicans, are going to ignore (temporarily) the negatives of their 'glorious' leaders and emphasis the negatives of eachother's leaders.

That is what politics are all about, no?

I would have to disagree with your observations. You don't really see the same desparation from followers of Bush as you do with Kerry. Bush knows what he stands for and is comfortable with that; even if it's unpopular. Kerry is constantly re-inventing himself via public opinion. It's not a very attractive attribute to have in a presidential election.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the negatives of Bush. You can still hear disagreement from conservatives about some of his policies . The question is, how many negatives does each candidate have? Kerry's are too numerous to count.

I think the point you're missing, is that the left would rather have anyone in office but George Bush. He is so hated and villified by liberals, that a stump could run on the democratic ticket and be idolized and "glorious" in their eyes.
Just so happens, a stump is running on the democratic ticket.

[UncleVinny]

Please DO NOT read any further if you are easily offended or prone to violence.
This is for mature audiences only.
If you cannot engage in reasonable debate, then just relegate Uncle Vinny to the loony bin, and move on to another discussion.

I watched with eager anticipation what the Republicans had to offer by way of defense for their policies. Part of me was hoping there might be some high moral ground for their stance, especially with regard to Iraq. It became painfully obvious, as the speeches began, that their defense of the war is:

- Intellectually stunted
- Morally bankrupt, and
- Devoid of honesty.

Intellectually stunted, because the motivation for the war is being based on the emotional angst growing out of the World Trade Center bombing. Iraq had nothing to do with that. Al Queda and the Taliban were responsible for that. Here is a classic bait and switch routine, where the emotions of the public are being channeled into an inappropriate response. Now Saddam becomes the target, apparently because he’s a visible target in a shadowy world of terrorism. Now Bush and Cheney have got their followers waving flags and singing, in support of a war labeled as patriotic, labeled as the front in the fight against terrorism. Only a dim-witted fool would fall for that line of reasoning.

Morally bankrupt, because people know in their heart that killing is wrong. Torture is wrong. On very rare occasions, when a dictator is invading other countries, it may be appropriate to use force to stop him. But to go to war because an enemy MIGHT have weapons, and MIGHT use them, is deception on a grand scale, and does not justify an invasion. So, for the US, for the first time in history, to invade a sovereign country, to kill its citizens, and to then hint it’s God’s will, and in the name of democracy, is a crime of the first order.

Devoid of honesty, because the leaders of this movement are using an emotional frenzy to whip up support for “non-winable” war. Even more outrageous is the cover-up of the real reasons – the takeover of Arab lands, the enrichment of the oil companies, the profiteering of the war machine and it’s contractors, like Halliburton, and the thinly veiled hatred of the Islamic faith.

I would have expected more from McCain and Guliani. What a farce that they should espouse any allegiance to him!

Here is a leader who eats his own children. He spread lies about John McCain; used a telephone campaign to advertise that McCain has a black baby (because McCain had adopted a child from Bengladesh), and hinted that his wife was fooling around, hinted that McCain had lost his marble being in the POW camp too long – then he distances himself from the smear campaign. Just like he distances himself from the people who trashed war hero McClelland, and war hero John Kerry. Is that the kind of person you want in the White House? What a sad commentary that so many good hearted Americans are falling victim to the Big Lie!

[scummybear]

Too lazy to post something different then what you've dumped on other threads?

Pathetic.

[Citizen]

You don't really see the same desparation from followers of Bush as you do with Kerry.

I would have to disagree with this statement. Just mention who was the mastermind behind 9/11 and then ask about why Iraq was attacked to any Bush supporter OR speak about Kerry's war record to any Kerry supporter (just to rile them up) and then talk about how Clinton dodged the draft.

Bush knows what he stands for and is comfortable with that; even if it's unpopular. Kerry is constantly re-inventing himself via public opinion. It's not a very attractive attribute to have in a presidential election.

There is a difference between standing up for an opinion and sticking to it and ignorance. What you see as instability in Kerry's behaviour, others may see as the ability to change and yet stay grounded to one's morals (this is possible afterall). You probably think I'm some lefty hippy from that statement but I am just making a point. YOU see Bush as "Bush knows what he stands for and is comfortable with that; even if it's unpopular." while another may see him as ignorant and idiotic. Likewise, you see Kerry as wishy-washy, while others see him anything from "a great leader" or "eh, he's better then dubya". I hope you see the point I'm trying to make

I don't think anyone is ignoring the negatives of Bush. You can still hear disagreement from conservatives about some of his policies . The question is, how many negatives does each candidate have? Kerry's are too numerous to count.

This all really depends on which side of the bench you sit at, no?

I think the point you're missing, is that the left would rather have anyone in office but George Bush. He is so hated and villified by liberals, that a stump could run on the democratic ticket and be idolized and "glorious" in their eyes.
Just so happens, a stump is running on the democratic ticket.

But that EXACT same arguement could be applied to conservatives, wouldnt you agree? Say Gore won (didnt he, technically, hehe, jk). After 4 years, he's up for re-election - he would obviously be hated and villifed by all conservatives and a stump could be put up to run against him. This isnt politics, it's borderline human nature.

One hates something one does not like (obviously) and will love something you think you know. Again not a slam against YOU or your political beliefs; this applies to the right, the left, the up and the down...do the hokie pokie and turnself around...sorry, I got side tracked ;D

[scummybear]

I would have to disagree with this statement. Just mention who was the mastermind behind 9/11 and then ask about why Iraq was attacked to any Bush supporter OR speak about Kerry's war record to any Kerry supporter (just to rile them up) and then talk about how Clinton dodged the draft.

What does this have to do with anything?

What you see as instability in Kerry's behaviour, others may see as the ability to change and yet stay grounded to one's morals (this is possible afterall).

Then "others" would be sadly mistaken about "human nature". Can you tell me what exactly it is that he believes in, since you brought up morals?

One hates something one does not like (obviously) and will love something you think you know. Again not a slam against YOU or your political beliefs; this applies to the right, the left, the up and the down...do the hokie pokie and turnself around...sorry, I got side tracked ;D

[

Side tracked is an understatement. I'm have no idea what you're talking about here.

Anyone?

[BOLO]

Ahhh. Scummybear...citizen is obviously talking about........................................................................................................................?
Got it? ;D