2008 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION SCHEDULE

************************************************

Schedule of Events

7:00pm ~ Opening flag burning

7:15pm ~ Pledge of Allegiance to the United Nations

7:20pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

7:25pm ~ Nonreligious prayer and worship with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

7:45pm ~ Ceremonial tree hugging

7:55pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

8:00pm ~ 'How I Invented the Internet' - Al Gore

8:15pm ~ Gay Wedding Planning - Barney Frank presiding

8:35pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

8:40pm ~ 'Our Troops are War Criminals' - John Kerry

9.00pm ~ Memorial service for Saddam and his sons - Cindy Sheehan and SusanSarandon

10:00pm ~ 'Answering Machine Etiquette' - Alec Baldwin

11:00pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

11:05pm ~ Collection for the Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund - BarbraStreisand

11:15pm ~ 'Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay' - Sean Penn

11:30pm ~ 'Oval Office Affairs' - William Jefferson Clinton

11:45pm ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

11:50pm ~ 'How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers' -HowardDean

12:15am ~ 'Truth in Broadcasting Award' - Presented to Dan Rather byMichael Moore

12:25am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

12:30am ~ Satellite address by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

12:45am ~ Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Nancy Pelosi

1:00am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

1:05am ~ Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton

1:30am ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast

1:35am ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

and now it is "Today the Nobel Prize, Tomorrow, ruling the universe!"

ROFLMAO- that is funny.  It needs to have an instruction to the attendees to book their providers early- not enough to go around for that crowd!

That would put the grand old party in the toilet------which about sums up their '08 election chances.

"1:35am ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home"

If saving the country was only so easy.

or I'll start telling you how

- You can make all the Bill Clinton, Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy jokes you want, but it doesn't change anything.

- John Kerry is braver and more patriotic than you will ever be.  He was right in 1971 and he's right now.

- Cindy Sheehan lost her son and how dare you criticize her for asking "Why?".

- Your fear of the UN, gays and free speech reveals you as somewhat less than bright.

- I'll toast with Ted Kennedy when the Republicans lose in 2008.


But you wouldn't like that.  And that's why the Politics and Religion forum exists.  If I'm not there in 20 min., start without me.



filmat11

-- Modified on 10/16/2007 8:11:29 PM

Kerry is a border-line traitor, who has always taken the side of our enemies and sucked up to brutal dictators (well documented history of this).  He is also a complete phony, never having accomplished anything of note, except to marry rich women and use their ex/late husbands' money to buy a political career.

Cindy Sheehan is a flake and a lifelong America hater who used her brave son's death for personal
fame and gain - I believe if you do some research you will find that she willingly gave up custody of Casey when he was a young boy.

The UN is an utterly corrupt boy's club for dictators, thugs, America and Israel haters.

Its the left who hates free speech - campus speech codes, McCain-Feingold, the horribly mis-named "fairness doctrine," the routine shouting down of conservative speakers on campus. All real-world examples and true - try and come up with a similar list for conservatives (stuff that actually happened, not the bizarre conspiracy stuff from the loony-left blogs in which you are so obviously mired).

I agree on one thing - take this thread to the politics forum, where sane people won't see it.

he went and got what, 2 personal decorations and 3 purple hearts while GW was what - oh, he doesn't remember what he was doing.  Probably under the influence.

Yeah, Kerry was definitely a traitor - he should have been getting high like GW.

edited for spelling

One of the purple hearts was for a self-inflicted wound (rice grains stuck in his ass after his boat blew up a sampan), another was for a finger-nail size piece of schrapnel, from his own weapon - the MD he saw picked it out with a tweezers and put a band-aid on it - Kerry demanded to be written up for a purple heart and the Doc told him to get lost - how he finagled the purple heart for that one is unknown, but it's a joke - the Doc himself is on record with that account.  Kerry got out of Nam after 4 months based on his 2 bogus purple hearts (and one legit one, for another very minor wound), but not, to his credit, because he requested it.  His command chain told him to put in for the early out because he was a grandstanding fool of an officer and they didn't want him getting his men killed.  How many other small boat commanders made their crew follow them around with a video camera (they were big, clumsy and heavy in those days) as they walked around in full infantry gear looking tough?  You won't find another.  Kerry is a total fraud as an Officer and a Gentleman.  He also slandered every Viet Nam vet in his "Winter Soldier" testimony.  Viet Nam service for him was simply a matter of punching his ticket on the way to becoming the next JFK.

W was a very good pilot in a very hard-to-fly plane. He volunteered to join a unit going to Viet Nam and couldn't because he didn't have enough hours.  There are no credible witnesses or documents to back up the liberal myths about him getting favored treatment, or about being missing from required guard duties.  There was no "waiting list" for guard pilots at his unit.

Of course, since none of this fits the liberal narrative of Kerry as hero and Bush as AWOL, it doesn't get reported, but it is fact.


-- Modified on 10/17/2007 10:09:45 AM

If you're not a liberal democrat, you will be mercilessly bashed on the TER Politics board.  Just as in real life, the left-wing crowd resorts to insults and name-calling instead of discussing anything.  BTW, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize as well....it is so fitting that Al (and his liberal cheerleaders) is grouped into the same category as Arafat the terrorist and America-hater.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see a liberal response here that Arafat was not a terrorist. ha ha!

although I'm sure you didn't convince anybody.  That's why these discussions are ultimately futile.  It's much better to discuss who is a good fuck.  That we can probably agree on.



filmat11







-- Modified on 10/17/2007 10:35:33 AM

who are properly skeptical of the establishment line - its very nearly always wrong.  And I don't like or watch O'Reilly.  

I would much rather discuss a good fuck.  

Although the original post was funny and truly satirical, it doesn't belong here.  I never start these things, under my many alias' or my real fake name.  

But you had to hijack the thread, with which the board was having good, innocent fun, in order to enlighten us poor, ignorant unwashed who don't share your deep understanding and revealed knowledge that shall not be questioned.  Do you understand the concept of satire?  Please don't answer - I'm sure by now you and I are the only ones reading this anyway.

Excellent idea,  I'm not a republican, but I hate her.

are da baby's widdle feewings hurt?

and who knows what the AF thinks, because GW won't release his records.  Must be hiding something, don't you think?

You could go to P&R, if you weren't afraid of the liberals beating you up over there.

that is, I didn't start discussing things that were off topic and take it in a different direction.  Since you and I are the only ones reading this, I'll say a bit more.  

The thread had no rational direction and never should have been started.  I was merely showing why.  There were only two directions for the thread.

- "Ha ha that's really funny, now take it somewhere else." That I would have had no problem with. I do understand satire and I can take all the Ted Kennedy drinking jokes, Bill Clinton blowjob jokes, Barney Frank gay jokes and Nancy Pelosi San Francisco jokes you want.  However, when you start questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with you and criticizing women who have lost their children in a disastrous misadventure, that's not satire.  

- "Yes, that's really true and I'll expand on it a bit."  That's what was happening and it was disgusting, not good innocent fun, in my opinion.

Now back to our regular programming...



filmat11








-- Modified on 10/17/2007 6:40:22 PM

Kerry's entire chain of command is mystified about where that narrative originated - none of them had anything to do with it.  To a man they agree with the narrative I presented.  If you like, I can fill in a great more detail for you.

Not aware that there are Air Guard (not AF) records that may indicate problems with W's service.  If you can point me to a credible source on this, I'll check it out.  We do however, know that Kerry never released his original DD213 in unredacted form, and there are very real questions about his original discharge.

My spiritual advisor, Father Majeski, insists that I refrain from arguing with idiots.  He says that verbally beating up on the hopelessly ignorant does nothing to improve my soul.

My medical consultant, DrFindemFeelemFuckem, tells me it is much better for my stress levels and blood pressure to flirt with the ladies, rather than to engage the REVEALERS OF ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE WHICH SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED, who dismiss apostates with a snort and an ad hominem attack, and never attempt rational argument.

Therefore I avoid the P & R board.

edit for typo

-- Modified on 10/17/2007 8:01:01 PM

You could have pretty easily come up with some funny satirical jabs at Republicans, but you choose to try to make serious points, all of which, by the way, are nothing but liberal talking points with no basis in reality.  

You use the tried and true liberal tactic of accusing me of something I didn't do in order to avoid rational argument.  You link me to a leftist hate object like Bill O'Reilly, and you can dismiss anything I have to say.  Its how your side "argues."

I correctly state that Kerry has a long history of siding with our enemies, which is undeniably true, and you say I question his patriotism for disagreeing with me.  I question his patriotism because he has consistenly taken the side of our enemies throughout his career, starting with his propaganda work for the North Vietnamese.

I don't criticize "women who have lost their children."  I tell the truth about a manifestly weird, life-long America-hating flake, who even Nancy Pelosi is sick and tired of.  That she happened to spawn a courageous and patriotic son
who willingly gave his life attempting to save some buddies would be beside the point, if she hadn't shamelessly used his death to push her  Hate America agenda.  Her own family rejected and disowned her after her shameful performance.
She was what is known as a Democrat Human Shield, who can't be examined for substance or veracity without engendering rightous outrage from folks like you.  You followed the script exactly.

And by the way, satire is caricature based on truth, and the original post is a fine example of it.

edited for spelling

-- Modified on 10/17/2007 7:57:06 PM

(1) Kerry holds a silver star, bronze star and 3 PHs; (2) Bush doesn't know where he was and won't release his service records, but he was DUI at least once when the cops found him; (3) cheney "had other priorities"; (4) they funded one of the sleaziest and most hypocritical attacks of American history with their Swift Boat BS; and (5) you're determined to maintain your delusions.

I served at the same time, and I don't like draft-dodgers running down honest men and trying to pretend they can fit in their shoes.

and why would it be that you're too, um, sensitive, to deal with any sort of idea on the internet?  

Like the idea that sticks & stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you?

Just asking.

-- Modified on 10/18/2007 8:16:28 AM

Tough Guy.  A REAL He-Man.

Did I guess right?

-- Modified on 10/18/2007 8:19:17 AM

and who choose to believe as you do.  This is not personal to me.  I still drink and carouse with these guys, although we don't talk politics much for obvious reasons. BTW, I am a Navy Viet Nam vet and know the thrill of being shot at and missed.

Sorry but you cannot dismiss Kerry's fellow Swiftboaters like that.  All are honorable men who have led exemplary lives and none of whom had any previous political activism.  Every single officer in his chain of command backs my version of events. How can you explain that?

Were they all put under Karl Rove's mind-control machine?  Bought off by Halliburton?  The liberal media/Democrat meme is that the Swifty's are/were "discredited," but there is never any detail of just how they were discredited.  Would you please explain how they were discredited.

I won't waste my time on your other points, other than to defy you to back them up with rational argument.  If you care to try, I will deal with them then.  If you don't care to try, you have just provided another excellent example of the liberal's penchant to call names and substitute ad hominem attack for reasoned argument.

any man in any unit will have people who like him, and don't.  But if you were to discount Kerry's record by half, it's still way more than average.

None of that is really the point.  The point is that the Navy's records were challenged, not in the proper way, by going thru the Navy Dept, but in the media, long after Kerry had been in political life, and SUDDENLY it just came up!!  Never discovered before, eh?

But what really buggers me is that it's on behalf of a fellow with a really dubious record.  You've heard it all except one thing, and that is, if he wasn't hiding something, why doesn't he just release his record and shut people up?

If you think this wasn't a political hachet job, I've got a bridge for you.   But what really frosts me is that it is an attack on a man's service on behalf of a non-server, at a time and place that is WAY below the belt.

It's lower than politics.  It's absolute filth to talk about "supporting troops" when what they actually DO is stuff like this.   To paraphrase (and correct) Coulter, fragging was invented for leaders who supported their troops like that.

You may be talking about the incident where he supposedly heroically rescued the SF guy who had been blown in the water by the mine.  

The story, according to every man on the other two boats, and one or two on Kerry's boat, who all had a perfect view of the action, differs markedly from the "official" Kerry story.

When the mine went off, Kerry ran for the hills.
His boat took off down the river at top speed.
The boat that was hit, the one the SF guy had been on, was disabled, and the third boat moved into postion to protect it from shore fire.  

Upon seeing that the other two boats remained behind, Kerry returned, and at this point someone on his boat pulled the soldier from the water.  During this time the other two boats had been hosing the tree line with everything they had.  Kerry claimed he himself pulled the guy out under a hail of bullets from, I believe, "300 meters of shore fire."

Among many problems with Kerry's story (and the stories of the tiny handful of participants who support his version) is that there was absoultely
no battle damage to any of the boats, except the damage to the one that hit the mine.

Its reasonable to assume that "300 meters of shore fire" would have included at least a squad-size unit of gomers, and that firing their AK's from resting positions in the trees at big targets less than 100 meters away, at least one bullet would have struck one of the boats.

Like I said, the official battle damage report showed no bullet holes at all, in any of the boats, except for one or two that had been taken previously and had been recorded.

The only logical conclusion is that there was no "shore fire" at all (any 10 year old kid with a 22 could hit those boats 10 out of 10 times), and that the fire the SF guy reported was the other boats laying down covering fire into the expected ambush.

The SF guy was the only senior guy on the scene who backs up Kerry's version, and its quite possible he remembers it that way, having just been hit with a concussion and knocked into the river with 50's, 30's and 16's blasting all around him.

The media/Democrat/Kerry myth that he put himself at great risk to rescue the guy under heavy fire is disputed by every other guy on the other boats, by one or two on Kerry's boat, and by all the physical evidence that was available.

The other boats were within yards of Kerry's, and their crews had perfect views of the action.
The story that they "weren't there" is fiction, but fiction that fits the liberal narrative, so it was the only version reported.

Again, no one knows who wrote the official Navy version, but is was not anyone in Kerry's chain of command, which is who would normally have done it.

You just have to choose who to believe - the entire crews of the other two boats and some of Kerry's crew, or Kerry himself, SF guy, and the remaider of Kerry's crew.

Kerry was an ambitions would-be politician even then, having bragged about being the next "JFK".
He made his crew video him walking on the beach in infantry combat gear.  He was told to take his early out for his 3 purple hearts by his seniors in the Swift Boat squadron.  These things are not in serious dispute, although they were never reported by the media.

The men who dispute his stories, and who formed the Swift Boat Veterans for truth, were, to a man, exemplary officers and sailors, and have led exemplary lives.  They came together to expose a grandstanding wanna-be President for what he was and is, a liar and a fraud.

You can't get around this.  You can call them all the names you want, repeat all the Democrat/media talking points you want, get as mad at me as you want for presenting the case against Kerry, but you can't assail the integrity of these men, many true heros and all stand-up guys for their entire lifetimes.

As to your other points, you are arguing with yourself over things I didn't say.

And, you pretty much ignore my points and questions from my previous posts and again launch ad hominem attacks with no evidence or reasoned argument.

Its apparent you get your news and views from left-wing blogs or policical sites that have no interest in actually examining the available evidence and testimony, and then try to make some order from it.  Its also evident you have no intent of trying to engage me in serious debate, prefering instead to repeat liberal mythology, dogma, and make personal attacks on Kerry's critics.

So, you may have the last word - I've put far too much time and effort into this already.  Again, this isn't personal - just an attempt to present the "other" side of the story to you and anyone else who may still be reading along.

Now, I'm going back to harassing the ladies under my real fake name.  Take care and good luck.

get over the "thank you for your service" shit, OK?

It's what men do - and we don't need any fucking therapy or excuses.  It's sure not like any of us knew WTF we were doing.

where people are willing to deal with derangements.