KerryOnIraq.com Documentary Video
This John Kerry video chronicles Senator Kerry’s remarks supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and his support for the war in Iraq beginning in the late 1990′s until recently when his position changed. This is required viewing for all LaughAtLiberals visitors, liberal and conservative. Thanks to KerryOnIraq.com for their efforts in tracking down these statements of Kerry flip floppery.
“Every American Should See This.” — Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor Of New York City
Posted by admin on August 16th, 2004 in Pictures | 9 Comments »
Karen van Hoek Says: October 10th, 2004 at 9:44 pm
The video is a pathetic hoax. Check out the truth at KerryOnIraqWar. It’s clear the GOP can’t argue against Kerry’s actual position on Iraq, so they resort to lying about it.
Karen van Hoek Says: October 10th, 2004 at 9:45 pm
This video is a pathetic hoax. Since I can’t leave a URL in my post, let me say instead — click on the link to my name and check out the Video Page on the site there. We thoroughly debunk the Flipper video. It’s clear the GOP can’t argue against Kerry’s actual position on Iraq, so they resort to lying about it.
Vast Right Wing Conspirator Says: October 11th, 2004 at 12:36 am
Karen, why do you keep trying? Why don’t you stop talking and trying to cover up Kerry’s senate record? Didn’t you see him get irritated and go on the defense the other night when the subject was brought up? You know, the other night when Bush pretty much pimpslapped him so hard that he couldn’t even keep that botox loving face of his from grimacing. I don’t think he would have gone on the defensive if his record of being, using a better term, two-faced in his senate voting which shows clearly that he is not able to take one position and stick to it. Instead he likes to appease everyone. If it means that he will tell the catholics that he is for faith-based initiatives and then turning around and appeasing the separation of church and state to get as many votes as possible; if it means that he will mock the interim goverment leader of Iraq and then turn around and say that we’re dedicated to helping the Iraqis train their soldiers and make sure the vote happens, but then also says that this is the “wrong war, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place” he is definitely not C-in-C material. He could not even hold GW’s jock strap. Kerry will downsize the military, increase taxes, erode our national security and try to appease the UN, the French and the Germans. Who cares about them. I believe in a C-in-C who has a grasp of the issues and the bigger picture, a C-in-C who actually created a coalition of allies to battle the war on terror (We’re not talking about the French and German’s here where talking about our true allies who stick with us through thick and thin), I want a C-in-C who doesn’t send his sister down to Australia to influence the voters to get Howard out of office so that a liberal leader can pull Australia out of Iraq and then use this as a campaign ploy to make it seem like the coalition is folding. I want a C-in-C who doesn’t talk in circles and doesn’t make sense. I want a C-in-C who has laid out a plan in advance for all of the issues that a president is required to address follow that plan (by the way, what the hell is Kerry’s plan, I went to his campaign website and read his plan and when I was finished I still could not figure out what his plan was). I want a C-in-C who stays the course and is not swayed by the liberal media machine and the liberal minority (who by the way are the minority in this nation) who does not back down from his work and does not put our national security to the hands of the UN and our “allies” the French and Germans. Karen, please, from American to American, please take the DNC and all of your liberal cronies, including the UN, and move to Paris. I just know you would be much happier there with those who agree with you and won’t disagree with the propaganda, rhetoric and lies that you have been feeding on that are poisoning society today causing so much hatred and animosity among Americans. If you would all leave, America would be a much safer, happier and better place to live. In other words, please do not speak unless you have something of value to talk about, because I’m tired of you and all of the left and the 09/10/2001 mentality that you live by every day. Stop this insanity, it is dividing America and most importantly it makes you look like a fool. Trust me, there are more conservatives in America than you think, we just don’t open our mouths and make damn fools of ourselves. We leave that to you and the left to make our point. Now you do have the freedom to speak what you want, but I would advise against it because you are hurting yourself and the party that you belong to. By the way, when you’re ready to move to France, let me know, I was telling one of your other friends here the other day that I will personally purchase your canoe and paddle. Cheer up my friend, you are all much safer now that Bush is president and will continue to remain so for the next four years than we ever were when Clinton was president and if Kerry and his whipping boy Edwards were in office. I’m glad we had this discussion, please do try to have a nice day.
Diogenes Says: October 12th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
Karen is correct, of course. And I find it interesting that Karen seems to be interested in having an actual discussion, while the last commentor is more interested in name-calling and insulting people.
In any case, I have also responded to the KerryOnIraq video. Anyone who values facts over juvenile pranks can see that the RNC video is simply a smear. Check out all the good facts available at my site:
Bush Campaign Lies
Other links deleted by webmaster, see this post.
Anonymous Says: October 21st, 2004 at 12:26 am
Save America DROWN a Liberal Kenndy did.
Craig Says: October 21st, 2004 at 12:50 am
Right Wing conspirator, well said. These dumb ass liberals on this website like karen and Diogenes really should get a fuc#### clue. I would like to invite anyone to tell me why on earth they feel John Kerry would do a better job at C-in-C that George W. Bush, and back it up with actual facts. Then I will tell you that if John Kerry is elected, we will be in grave danger.
diogenes Says: November 12th, 2004 at 5:27 am
Ooh, Craig and Anonymous, you’ve run circles around my logic. I provide a thoroughly documented web site with plenty of ‘actual facts’ like Craig requested, and in response I hear how liberals should be drowned and get a ‘fuc#### clue’.
Tell you what guys. How about YOU provide some ‘actual facts’ instead of threats and bluster? Is it because you’re incapable of engaging in a real discussion, or because you know the facts aren’t on your side? Just curious.
By the way, congratulations on Bush’s election. I think that America is much graver danger now than we would have been had we chosen competent leadership. I hope I’m wrong. I have a feeling we’ll know who’s right and who’s wrong fairly soon.
Sancho D'Marco Says: December 9th, 2004 at 9:31 am
This is pretty interesting…
First off, I really don’t feel its right for Americans to be pissed off at other Americans. The election is over and everyone must face that. I’m sick of everyone labeling there opponents as ‘extreme’ liberals/conservatives; because that isn’t the case.
To start off, I’m a twenty four year old caucasian who lives in a predominantly white area that has thrived in an overwhelming market which dates back to the end of carter and juiced up from ‘Reaganomics’.
Now to start with the facts; I am a republican, I disagree with many fundamentals of the Republican Party. Yet, I am a capitalistic as one could be. If you look at the origination of our beloved country, you will notice a strong appreciation for freedoms and civil liberties.
I do not believe the government has the authority to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the act of marriage. This is simple people. The word “marriage” is so commonly misused that people get mixed up in the concept. A wedding for, example is a celebration of the then established unity of a man and a woman. What then is a ‘civil union’ is a marriage is not a ‘wedding’. The current running understanding of marriage is when the opposite of sex recite vows and uphold them for the rest of the lives; to nurture love and devote every last living breath to there spouse.
Isn’t that the same as a civil union? No, not at all because a civil union is the legal expression of a marriage.
Now we’re dwelling on a much deeper and complex instrument of law where religion becomes a factor and people must be open minded; this is meant towards the ‘liberals’.
Christianity, our founding Anglo-Saxon religion states that ‘gay marriage’ is not permitted within its religion. In 1947 the Supreme Court created and utilized the all so famous “separation of church and state” which states that the first amendment “erected a wall between church and state”.
For all of you who have no idea as to what I’m talking about, unplug your computers please, and stop typing on forums.
The federal government has ‘no right’ to restrict or restrain an individual from exercising his or her religion. If I belong to a church that believes gay marriage is acceptable and even recognized, then under our first amendment right, I am entitled to that.
Along those same lines, the federal government should not be involved in the ‘concept’ of marriage. After all there is a current and still standing “erected a wall between church and state”. Therefore the origination of ‘marriage’ is through religion.
As stated earlier, a ‘civil union’ is the legal expression of marriage without the ‘I do’s’ and ‘kiss the bride’.
For all of you who believe everyone must say that or they should not be allowed ‘civil union’ status, you can all just do us a favor and moved to Nigeria, Iran, or even cold war Russia; because you obviously don’t believe in our civil rights.
Once again, ‘separation of church and state’ strictly allows us to not only practice whichever religion we choose, but it also prohibits other from enacting there beliefs on others.
Simply put, ‘homosexual marriage’ should not be associated with the federal government. ‘Heterosexual marriage’ should not be associated with the federal government. No marriage should be governed or observed by our federal government.
However, ‘civil unions’ are actually required by our government for tax benefits, health benefits and many other arrangements created under our capitalistic form of healthcare. The federal government, our federal government has no ability to interfere with ‘marriage’.
Let the gays get married; it’s there right!
I strongly disapprove of Bush’s ideals on this matter and I believe he was reaching for his ‘personal’ agenda verses what’s best for the nation.
Onto abortion; recently I was asked why I believe a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. Was it because I don’t believe the government has the ‘right’ to interfere with her choice or is it simply because it’s the ‘right’ of the woman to choose?
I feel that question answers itself. It’s one in the same. I do not believe whatsoever that our federal government can tell anybody, man, woman or any individual for the matter, what they can or cannot do within the guidelines that it does not interfere with third party.
This is the part that most women do not understand. The second party in this matter would be the male who impregnated the woman. Therefore, if the man ‘chooses’ to continue with the pregnancy and the woman disagrees, the woman must follow the guidelines and understand that the fetus in its embryonic stage is in fact one half of the male. If the woman chooses to keep the fetus and deliver the baby, the man must live with his actions and raise a child with the best of his ability.
If either party maliciously extinguishes the life of the fetus against the other party’s wishes, they are in the wrong. This is plain and simple people. This is not the wrong of god, religion or current legal code, but it is against all understanding of logic and code of ethics.
The federal government has no right to demand anything to either party on the matter of abortion.
If you want to argue about ‘partial birth abortions’ then you must have a different outlook on life. Death to any ‘infant’ stage of a fetus in simply wrong and should not be tolerated. From the moment of consciousness within the fetus, no party has the right to make a choice that is being discussed. Our current laws do not apply to the man’s right to choose. We need to do something about this, and it must be done now! We must retake our rights.
Now, since this topic is based on my support for our current president I must give my justifications for casting my vote towards the Republican Party.
As I’ve mentioned, I’m a capitalist. I believe in our constitution, our bill of rights and all of the ‘extreme right wing’ opinions of our forefathers.
Maybe I should start off with the Second Amendment and why the parties have been viciously fighting over this for years.
If anyone knows and truly understands what it means and why it was second to most importance in our foundation of a ‘new’ country, you would understand why it must stay.
While discussing freedoms with a close philosophical discussion partner recently, I made the statement of “when we loose our ability to defend our rights, we loose our freedom”. This is truer than understood. All dictators, kings and governments in the history remove the ability to revolt before initiating mandates against its own civilians; Simply put, to remove there ability to regain there freedom.
Those of you who are bewildered by that statement based on personal or media bias from innocent death or injury fail to understand its importance. Those of who you who think you can run to your local gun shop and buy a weapon that fires ‘automatically’ (Thompson Machine Gun [Tommy Gun]/M16/AK47) are horribly mistaken. In 1934 our federal government enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934 stating that no civil may posses any ‘automatic’ weapon. This might be hard for most democrats to understand, so I’ll try to be descriptive.
A fully automatic gun is mechanically designed to fire multiple rounds by depressing the trigger on a single form of action. Simply put, if an automatic rifle has a thirty round magazine (a device that is either part of or attached to the weapon) and the individual firing the weapon pulls the trigger and retains pressure on the trigger, all thirty rounds will be fired.
A semi-automatic gun is mechanically designed to fire a ‘single’ round by depressing the trigger on a single form of action. Is a semi-automatic rifle has a thirty round magazine (definition stated above) and the individual firing the weapon pulls the trigger and retains pressure on the trigger, only a single round will be fired.
All weapons mentioned within our media likes to refer to the ‘Brady Bill’ as a ban on automatic weapons; such as the Thompson Machine Gun (Tommy Gun), M16 and AK47s. This is a lie and you are a victim for supporting it. All of the rifles stated above have been illegal to posses as a civilian since the date of there creation.
Our Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What do the democrats not understand about that? I have heard many arguments that state this exact quote “the necessity of security within our country is remove these weapons and take them out of circulation” or “A well regulated militia is in fact the localized State Guard”.
Why that is so far from the truth is that they fail to understand that the ‘security’ being mentioned is from the ‘then’ controlling government. To make the statement that a ‘well regulated militia’ is the state guard is ludicrous. The localized police aren’t even classified as a militia. A militia is an army composed of ‘ordinary citizens’ rather than a government sponsored military.
The hardcore facts are this; in 1997 alone there were 15,289 murders committed, while 10,369 of these cases used a handgun.
The fact is that in 1998 alone there were 80,000+ cases of death in hospitals across America caused from negligence.
Simply put, the odds of dieing in a hospital are greater than being killed from a handgun or a file. As I researched the data even further I discovered that the odds of you using any form of a gun in self defense is more likely to occur than even the total number of crimes committed with guns.
The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan actually stated that “Lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence”. Maybe she didn’t understand that between 1977 and 1992 out of the ten states that passed ‘right-to-carry’ laws there was a 5% decline in rapes; not to mention a 7%decline in aggravated assaults and an 8% decline in murders.
Since I have already discussed the facts, you must understand that what you’re hearing from the media isn’t true; it all boils down to our basic rights. Our Second Amendment must stay!
You’ll be hearing more from me in the near future.
Till then, support our troops, and spread the word that this is a war on ‘Islam Extremists; not a war on Islam.
JY Says: October 9th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Sancho D’Marco writes:
“The federal government has ?no right? to restrict or restrain an individual from exercising his or her religion. If I belong to a church that believes gay marriage is acceptable and even recognized, then under our first amendment right, I am entitled to that.”
This line of reasoning is beyond ridiculous.
If my religion believes that sacrificing the first female
in every family on an altar of fire once she reaches
the age of two, then am I entitled to that under my
1st ammendment right?
If my religion believes that all cops should be executed
on sight, then am I entitled to that under my 1st ammendment
right?
I think not…