IRAQI INSURGENTS ENDORSE KERRY
Well allright....it's official. The Islamic bastards killing our men and women in Iraq are pulling for John Kerry. Most of us aren't surprised.
The Islamic murderers in Iraq ("insurgents," as the media calls them) have now removed all doubt as to their objective. Is it just to kill Americans? Prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq? Avenge the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? None of the above. They have now said their #1 objective is to elect John Kerry president of the United States next Tuesday. Surprised? You shouldn't be. A lot of people, including myself on The Loser Board, have been telling you this for months.
Listen to the words of Mohammad Amin Bashar of the Muslim Scholars Association, a pro-insurgency group: "If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," Another of Kerry's supporters among the Iraqi resistance is Abu Jalal. He had this to say: "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
Now you have to ask yourself just why would these America-hating Islamic terrorists be against George Bush?
Easy. Because they fear him, that's why. Because he has vowed to destroy them, and they believe him, that's why. Terrorists like to be appeased, not destroyed. They like to be given numerous chances to clean up their behavior, then slapped on the wrist when they keep chopping off innocent people's heads. They know that they will get their way, that America will waver and waffle, when John Kerry is elected president of the United States.
Complicit in all of this is the mainstream media, the Islamic jihadists' public relations arm. The media in this country plays right into their hands, supporting their agenda and blowing their accomplishments out of proportion whenever possible. The left shares the goal with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq: defeat Bush and elect Kerry. So the attacks get over-reported, Iraq is made to look like it is a disaster, videotapes showing hostage-taking and demands are show on TV, and so on.
So the burning question is this: will John Kerry accept their endorsement? Probably so, and then he'll blame Bush for forcing it on him.
Just remember, when you walk into that voting booth next Tuesday, Mohammad Amin Bashar and Abu Jalal, along with a bunch of their friends, want you to vote for John Kerry.
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Saturday, October 23 2004 | ||||||||||
 WHO'S THE HAS BEEN?well i see your treker ass has put willam shatner on your page, so much of a has been that he put out a album with the same name. that guy is such a godamn joke and cant act for shit. the only way he gets work is making fun of himself. when will you geeks learn that star wars is the best and star trek just like shitner is over! Well, well, well....a little Star Wars vs Star Trek friction. Normally, these debates are tough but this guy just stepped in it big time. William Shatner a has been? Can't act? Where does this come from? Shatner has not only been a part of some of television's most memorable shows, but has been an centrical component in all of them. First off, Star Trek. Without Shatner (and Nimoy) that show flops. TJ Hooker. Shatner carries it. Rescue 911, who would give a damn without Shatner building the suspense as only he can. Priceline.com commercials - would have been annoying as hell with anyone else...instead they became widely popular. And now Boston Legal, where he's kicking ass. You want to talk about a real has-been that can't act, and is a parody of himself now? Let's talk Mark Hammil. Where's his long and distinguished career? "Don't fuck with a Jedi master, son!" That's about all I've heard from the great Skywalker in the last 20 years.
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Friday, October 22 2004 | ||||||||
| AL GORE'S 2004 SOUR GRAPES TOUR Former Vice President Al Gore cannot let the 2000 election go. This is a bitter man...and apparently he is going to carry a chip on his shoulder for the rest of his life. That's too bad, but it's his choice. Gore's latest pursuit is to scream and yell in Florida for Kerry. Now you know exactly what Gore is going to do. He will go around telling anyone that will listen that the Republicans stole the election in 2000, and how he's not going to let them get away with it this time. He will continue to repeat the lie and advance the myth that every vote was not counted. He will give insane speeches in which his face turns 3 shades of red while he bangs on the podium. It's the standard Al Gore presentation these days. And yet, the media will let all of this go unchecked. The media also accepts the lies spoon-fed to them by the DNC, which include: George Bush was "selected," and not elected (despite the fact that he won the election and has won every recount) Voters were "disenfranchised." Nothing of the sort happened...they're talking about the famous butterfly ballot....designed by a Democrat. George Bush stole the election. Actually, it was the other way around. It was Gore who tried to steal the election by trying to selectively recount heavily Democratic counties in a vote-hunting scheme, and deny the military vote. The more the myths are repeated by the left, the more accepted they become by the media. At the end of the day, however, Al Gore remains a bitter man consumed by his close defeat 4 years ago. You know, all he had to do was win his home state. My state. We voted Bush. We will again. He has no one to blame but himself.
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Saturday, October 16 2004 | ||||||
Britney Spears has been interviewed. *limps off*
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Thursday, October 7 2004 | ||||
Be some pals and fuck with that AIM name, won't you??? STATEMENT ON THE ELECTIONS JOIN THE KEYBOARDCONSPIRACY FTP SERVER!! PORN, GAMES, SHATNER & MORE!!! server: 68.47.190.195 Login: newb pword: newb Email me for your own login name if you so desire.
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Tuesday, October 5 2004 | ||
| THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND THE TRIAL LAWYER Tonight it's time for round two of the debates, and this time it's the only Vice-Presidential one. North Carolina Senator John Edwards will square off against Vice President Dick Cheney. The debate will begin at 9pm Eastern time, and will last 90 minutes. It is going to be held at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. This could be more exciting than the presidential debate was, or maybe not. Edwards will no doubt try and go after Dick Cheney's previous job running Halliburton...but that may well backfire. All Cheney has to do in return is go after Edwards' personal-injury lawyer past...winning millions of dollars in fees chasing ambulances yadda yadda. Which do people dislike more: a personal injury lawyer or the head of a company with workers deployed in a war zone? Cheney should handle Edwards handily. The Vice President has been in national politics for three decades, while the Senator has only been on the Washington stage for barely six years. Cheney won the debate with Joe Liebermann in 2000, he should have no problem doing the same with Edwards. But then I thought that Bush wouldn't have any trouble with Kerry... RULE OF LAW? OR RULE OF THE MOB? The next president of the United States will probably appoint three Supreme Court Justices. If you don't know how much of an affect this will have on the future of our republic, you don't have any business voting. Other than the war against terrorism, this is really the most important issue of the campaign. Here's an example. The Supreme Court has now accepted a case on eminent domain. The court will decide whether or not local governments can seize private property for no other purpose than to turn that property over to some other private owner who will build something on it that will generate more tax revenue. If the Supreme Court puts its stamp of approval on this plunder then the concept of private property rights in America will be forever altered, perhaps destroyed. Those who love government (liberals) love this idea. How about you? Our founding fathers gave us a government ruled by law, not by the whims and wishes of the mob. The next president has the power to destroy that structure with just three appointments to the Supreme Court. JUST FOR THE RECORD In spite of what John Kerry said yesterday .. and what was parroted by Michael J. Fox ... President Bush has NOT banned stem cell research, nor has he banned government funding of stem cell research. Now I happen to be on the side of people who want wide-open stem cell research, including research conducted with stem cells obtained from aborted human embryos. In short, I think that Bush's position is wrong on this. That being said, it is only fair to point out that he has not banned this type of research and that Democrats are lying. HELLO MCFLY!! SAD Shiba Pillai-Diaz is a teacher at the Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. In her classroom was a bulletin board with pictures of past presidents. Pillai-Diaz put a picture of President Bush on that board. Then along comes back-to-school night. Three parents confront Pillai-Diaz about the picture of George Bush. They demand a picture of John Kerry be placed on the board or Bush's picture be removed. Pillai-Diaz points out that the pictures are of presidents and former presidents, and John Kerry doesn't yet qualify. The three parents then complain to the school. The vice-principal threatens Pillai-Diaz with her job if the picture isn't removed. Pillai-Diaz grows tired of the harassment and removes the entire bulletin board. Then Jim Warfel, the school principal, tells Pillai-Diaz that she has disrupted the school with her "inflammatory politics." Warfel told Pillai-Diaz to hand over her keys to her classroom and leave the building. Let's see if we get this straight. There was no political content on the bulletin board. An American Flag, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, and pictures of presidents. That's it. This the principal of this school describes as "inflammatory politics?" Seems to me that it was the parents who were inflaming the situation. They're the ones with the partisan political cause.
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Friday, October 1 2004 |
| DEBATE STUFF Exhibiting the fairness for which I've become known (sarcasm intended), I'd have to say that Kerry gained the most from last night's 'confrontation.' That's not to say he "won," so to speak; only to say that he did better. It looked like Bush was a bit slow getting started. The hesitations in his language stand out in contrast to the determined rhetoric of John Kerry. It's probably wiser to listen to the actual words being said rather than the hesitations. There's enough "ahs" and "uhs" during one of Bush's diatribes to drive anyone nuts. Kerry failed to make any convincing case that his "plan" for Iraq was any different than what George Bush is doing over there now. He keeps using vague terms like "better" and "my plan." The debates were basically boring and a bit stifled. Could this possibly be because that's exactly what the candidates wanted? They don't want an open confrontation with their opponents. We should demand it. Wouldn't it have been great to see these two men sit on opposite sides of a table for ninety minutes and just go after each other? That way the voters really would have learned something. Strong moment for Bush? There was one Kerry line that Bush used to good effect; Kerry's line that this was the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place." How, Bush asked, would Kerry ask European allies to send their troops to a battlefield for the "wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place?" And what kind of message are you sending our troops when you tell them you are fighting the wrong war, you're fighting it at the wrong place, and you're fighting it at the wrong time? This, more than anything else from last night's debate, is the most revealing admission from Kerry. He was asked by Lehrer about his position on the concept of preemptive war. What he let slip should give everybody a very good reason to not vote him into office. Here is what he said: "But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Oh really? So basically what he is saying...is that the United States is not allowed to defend itself unless and until: -We pass the "global test." That means that if attacked, we shouldn't defend ourselves unless France thinks it's okay. -We prove to the world that we did it for "legitimate reasons." Really...so who decides whether or not our reasons were "legitimate?" Our leaders, or world leaders? What meets the standard of that legitimacy? Does the U.N. have final say? In all candor I have to say that John Kerry did an excellent job of avoiding disaster at last night's confrontation. He didn't win on policy, but he did win on smoothness. Sadly for Bush and Kerry, it's not what they said, but how they said it. I just hope we have an electorate that can figure out why this is irrelavent. Time to sit back and wait for the polls. OH...AND THERE WERE FLIP-FLOPS Despite a decent performance, you don't think Kerry made it all the way through a public debate without a few whoppers, do you? Of course not. There were some big ones...I'll hit the high spots. Jim Lehrer asked Kerry about the times he has accused the president of lying about Iraq. Kerry replied that "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." In other words, Kerry says he never directly accused President Bush of lying. Let's go to the tape. In December 2003, Kerry told a New Hampshire editorial board that Bush had lied about his reasons for going to Iraq. In September of that same year, Kerry did the same thing saying "this administration has lied to us." So if he thinks Bush is lying about Iraq, then he is lying about not accusing the president of being a liar, which he clearly has done. John Kerry has a problem with the truth. He just makes it up as he goes along. Another example was when Kerry was talking about Bush protecting the homeland. Kerry said "That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there." The only problem with this? The New York City subway did not close at all during the convention. Only Penn Station, and only for a little while. Why Bush did not pound this home, I have no idea. And since when is the upkeep of New York City's subway a concern of the Federal Government, anyway? BOTHE TERESA AND LAURA WORE WHITE AFTER LABOR DAY?!???!?!?! ALERT SERIAL MOM!!
|