Crawford TX Newspaper endorses...........KERRY!

[FORD]

Crawford, Texas, paper backs Kerry

September 29, 2004




CRAWFORD, Texas -- A weekly newspaper that bills itself as President Bush's hometown paper endorsed John Kerry for president, saying the Massachusetts senator will restore American dignity.

The Lone Star Iconoclast, which has a circulation of 425, said in an editorial dated Sept. 29 that Texans should rate the candidates not by hometown or political party, but by where they intend to take the country.

''Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq,'' the editorial said.

The Iconoclast, established in 2000, said it endorsed Bush that year. AP

[LoungeMachine]

What mistakes?


We're staying the cousre

We're turning the corner

We will not turn back

Mission Accomplished

-Iraq is doing great

The PDB never actually told us WHICH planes, or WHICH buildings, so what could we do?

Besides, I don't read newspapers, I rely on uncle Dickie and uncle Rummy to tell me what's going on in the world. And they say we're being greeted as liberators So, I say.....Bring 'em on!

-GWB

[FORD]

Here's the full editorial.....

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.
• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office. The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty? In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions. He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs. Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.

Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.

Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator. Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country. The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

And here's the link (http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm) , but don't bother clicking it. The page is either outrageously busy.... or the BCE got to them already.

[FORD]

I'd say this little newspaper named itself well.....

iconoclast

\I*con"o*clast\, n. 1. A breaker or destroyer of images or idols; a determined enemy of idol worship.

[Warham]

A circulation of 425????

Shit FORD, your posts at this site have more facetime than that paper has.

[Cathedral]

Media Spin, who cares what a newspaper thinks as long as they get off their ass and vote on election day.

Cause folks, that is what is important after all the nasty bullshit has settled.
Did you vote or not?

Like Bush or not, he is the best President we have had since Reagan.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Like Bush or not, he is the best President we have had since Reagan.


So much for any cred I've ever had of you.

[Cathedral]

Hey, if you wanna get personal and judge me on my political views, you support the right party.

I don't think less of you for being a Liberal, but i know the difference between backbone and appeasement which did not work for Clinton in Somalia.
Ask anyone here and they'll tell you that i have weighed the issues extensively.
Pulling out and running scared didn't work for Clinton, it only proved to those who hate us that if they do things that are vile enough, we'll change our policy, which is suicide to a super power.

I was wrong on a few things because i used to believe that war and politics should remain seperate. but in all reality, every war in world history went hand in hand with politics of some sort or another.

But letting a rogue nation like Iraq stand under Saddam, and being able to buy technology for building weapons of mass destruction that he can sell is a threat not only to your family and mine, it is a threat to the world.
Reagan took a stand against Lybia, Bush took one against Iraq in the name of Terrorism, which by the way is a serious threat.

Conventional thinking that we can just go on the defensive doesn't work in todays world. the stakes are much higher and if we don't go and stay on the offensive, we're all fucked, not just in my town, but in yours as well, my friend.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
but i know the difference between backbone and appeasement which did not work for Clinton in Somalia.
Ask anyone here and they'll tell you that i have weighed the issues extensively.
Pulling out and running scared didn't work for Clinton

But it worked for Reagan in Beiruit, right? And for Poppy in 1991? And Somalia was Bush Sr's doing. He left the mess for Clinton to clean up. Hell, I'm sure the PNAC'ers are already debating which mess they'll leave for Kerry (as if Iraq wasn't enough)

But letting a rogue nation like Iraq stand under Saddam, and being able to buy technology for building weapons of mass destruction that he can sell is a threat not only to your family and mine, it is a threat to the world.
Reagan took a stand against Lybia, Bush took one against Iraq in the name of Terrorism, which by the way is a serious threat.

Libya allegedly sent a hit squad to kill Reagan (though in reality it was probably a BCE hit attempt, as Hinckley was) and there was the Lockerbie jet incident, so Khadaffy Duck could have been legitimately viewed as a threat at the time. Saddam Hussein was NEVER a threat to America.

Conventional thinking that we can just go on the defensive doesn't work in todays world. the stakes are much higher and if we don't go and stay on the offensive, we're all fucked, not just in my town, but in yours as well, my friend.

Yeah, those guys are gonna swarm across the ocean on their goddamn magic carpets and kill us all! The horror the horror! :eek:

Get real. The key to securing this country is exactly THAT. Securing THIS country. Airports. Seaports. Borders. Not countries on the other end of the planet which just happen to have shitloads of oil and land that a bunch of deluded Zionfascists think should be theirs because they can't read their own Bible properly. Once we get these Neofascist clowns out of the White House and in prison where they belong, we can start concentrating on that.

[Cathedral]

Hey Ford, Clinton pulling out is a prime example of why you don't change course mid-war.
And it is why we won't change course in November.

The "guys swarming across the ocean" statement cannot be used after 9-11. Did you think it were possible for us to be hit like that prior to Sept. 11th?

Hell, lets even go back to Pearl Harbor where plans that couldn't make that trip did, but with no plans of returning home.

The problem with you liberal minded people is that you are notrious for underestimating the enemy.

How much innocent blood must be spilled before you figure out that our world is not like it was just a few years ago?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Hey Ford, Clinton pulling out is a prime example of why you don't change course mid-war.
And it is why we won't change course in November.

The "guys swarming across the ocean" statement cannot be used after 9-11. Did you think it were possible for us to be hit like that prior to Sept. 11th?

Hell, lets even go back to Pearl Harbor where plans that couldn't make that trip did, but with no plans of returning home.

The problem with you liberal minded people is that you are notrious for underestimating the enemy.

How much innocent blood must be spilled before you figure out that our world is not like it was just a few years ago?

As I said, the key is securing THIS country. If the Republican congress had not blocked the Clinton-Gore anti terrorism measures of 1996, the airports would have been far more secured by September of 2001, and no jackasses with box cutters would have made it through.

That is, if you actually believe that bullshit, which I don't.

Fact is that if it is the BCE that is staging attacks for their own benefit, then NOTHING we do will ever make us safe enough. And if we actually did secure this country, and shit still happenned, it would become very obvious who was responsible.

Which is exactly why they aren't doing that.

[Ally_Kat]

okay...and how would you secure the country?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
okay...and how would you secure the country?

Reasonable security at airports and seaports would be a good start. And obviously, this also relies to some extent on the countries on the other end doing the same. Given the damage Junior has done to international relations, he's not likely to be able to get other nations' cooperation on this.

Beyond that, we have north and south borders which are mostly land based. Canada is the north end of the continent (excepting Alaska) so if they follow the similar airport and seaport measures, then the US-Canada border should be fairly secure.

Mexico is a bigger challenge with the widespread corruption and the BCE-CIA controlling everything south of there. I'm not opposed to a razor wire fence going the entire length of the southern border. Hell, add a couple solar generators and electrify the thing too. And if some terra-ist wants to fuck with a giant "razor tazer" then let em try. Or fry as the case may be.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
So much for any cred I've ever had of you.

Yeah, Cat sure is disturbed by that statement I'll bet. :rolleyes:

[Warham]

FORD, what if Iraq or some other country that had nukes wanted to use them on us? No intensified border presence is going to stop them.

[ODShowtime]

I think it should be obvious that all this security mumbo-jumbo is America's Maginot Line. We're trying to spend all this money and energy securing the borders and airports, yet journalists can constantly sneak stuff through. As someone mentioned here, a nuke could be smuggled into a harbor in a crate of Nikes.

If someone wants to hit us again, they WILL be able to. So all this swatting the beehive over there is VERY dangerous. Anybody out there that thinks otherwise is underestimating the enemy.

We need to change our policy and stop treating the world like it's our bitch. I mean France is our bitch, Mexico is our bitch, but not the whole freakin' World. It's foolish.

Can't we at least endeavor to trick the Middle East into thinking it's free? That's what we used to do and it worked pretty good.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
FORD, what if Iraq or some other country that had nukes wanted to use them on us? No intensified border presence is going to stop them.

Last time I checked, only Russia had that capability. Now I trust Pooty Poot about as much as I trust Junior, but I can't see any reason for the Russians to be turning nukes on us again any time soon.

There are rumors that North Korea's trying to get to that point. Thanks to Rummy, for selling them the nuclear reactors in the first place (and after he signed the PNAC documents too, specifying that country as a supposed threat. Wouldn't that make Rummy a traitor?)

[ELVIS]

FORD, you're obsessed with George Bush...

[fanofdave]

actually, its the editor who endorses Kerry. The other 425 folks
in the town are still for Bush. Newspaper endorsements aren't worth
the paper they're written on. I work for a union outfit and they
endorse Kerry, but that doesn't stop over 60% of us working here
from voting for Bush. Enjoy whatever little fantasy you get from
that article, Ford. Come election day, you're ours for another 4
years.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
FORD, you're obsessed with George Bush...

Are Jews obsessed with the Third Reich?

Are African Americans obsessed with the KKK?

If the sincere conviction to bring down a criminal cabal of oppressive fascist bastards qualifies as an "obsession", then call me guilty as charged.

[JCOOK]

I will agree with Ford on securing our borders. I live in Southern California, It is estimated that 3 million ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS come here every year most of them through the southwest and it costs California 5 billion dollars per year in health care, education and other revenues that are lost.I am for putting troops on the border for those reasons and the fact that John Q. Terrorist could easily sneak in the way it is now.

[Warham]

That's one thing I disagree with Bush on, or at least he hasn't made his point on this issue. Illegal immigration has to be curtained to a minimum. We should have a 10' concrete wall running the full length of the border from Texas to California, AND the National Guard patrolling back and forth.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I think it should be obvious that all this security mumbo-jumbo is America's Maginot Line. We're trying to spend all this money and energy securing the borders and airports, yet journalists can constantly sneak stuff through. As someone mentioned here, a nuke could be smuggled into a harbor in a crate of Nikes.

If someone wants to hit us again, they WILL be able to. So all this swatting the beehive over there is VERY dangerous. Anybody out there that thinks otherwise is underestimating the enemy.

We need to change our policy and stop treating the world like it's our bitch. I mean France is our bitch, Mexico is our bitch, but not the whole freakin' World. It's foolish.

Can't we at least endeavor to trick the Middle East into thinking it's free? That's what we used to do and it worked pretty good.

You must never question the foreign policy of the President, he is the one who is always right. If you aren't American, you are the Americans bitch and potential slave. Anyone who questions the Right-Wing, White, Old Money, Big Money, Multinatinoal Corporatate Endorsed,Self Serving, Megalomaniacal, Fascist Agenda and God(the Judeo-Christian one, don't even think about bringing Allah into this even though he/she/it is the same one(go back to Abraham)) Sanctioned Leaders is an Enemy of of the Empire....


:alien:
:rolleyes: :alien:

[HELLVIS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FORD
[B]

Fact is that if it is the BCE that is staging attacks for their own benefit, then NOTHING we do will ever make us safe enough.


GODDAMN GODDAMN GODDAMN!!!!!
There is no BCE you silly rabbit.
Everytime I get on line you're here.
Does the boogie man cause you to lose that much sleep?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
You must never question the foreign policy of the President, he is the one who is always right. If you aren't American, you are the Americans bitch and potential slave. Anyone who questions the Right-Wing, White, Old Money, Big Money, Multinatinoal Corporatate Endorsed,Self Serving, Megalomaniacal, Fascist Agenda and God(the Judeo-Christian one, don't even think about bringing Allah into this even though he/she/it is the same one(go back to Abraham)) Sanctioned Leaders is an Enemy of of the Empire....


:alien:
:rolleyes: :alien:

I mean, ya'll say GW is steadfast in his course. Big fucking deal! He's steadfastly going in the wrong direction. This isn't some democratic rhetoric from some talking head that you don't respect, this is REAL.

In the REAL world that we live in. We are now knee deep in a guerilla war fighting factions that never posed a threat to our safety. Saddam kept the lid on these fuckers. Now we have to!!!

I wish we could go in and the wipe the SOBS out and be done with it. Oh well, maybe we can, but not until after November. Bullshit.

while I'm on the subject, anyone else agree that hellvis is even more unsavory that regular elvis?:cool:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
That's one thing I disagree with Bush on, or at least he hasn't made his point on this issue. Illegal immigration has to be curtained to a minimum. We should have a 10' concrete wall running the full length of the border from Texas to California, AND the National Guard patrolling back and forth.

I agree with this also. How come an Al Qeada cell doesn't just dress up like a bunch of Mexicans and sneak across? They don't look too much different really. With a dirty beard, and some jeans... seriously

[HELLVIS]

I sure as hell hope so. If we all agreed all the time this little dog and pony show would get pretty boring!

[HELLVIS]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I agree with this also. How come an Al Qeada cell doesn't just dress up like a bunch of Mexicans and sneak across? They don't look too much different really. With a dirty beard, and some jeans... seriously

Damn skippy! Well I guess I'm back to agreeing with you again.
Shit!

[ODShowtime]

Mexico is even pretty similar to much of their natural environment, except rich beyond compare.

And lots of dogs running around and pigs being eaten. haha carnitas is good.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral

The problem with you liberal minded people is that you are notrious for underestimating the enemy.




are you kidding me?

just WHICH party was this pre emptive strike planned by?

You guys have DICKRD this up from the start. AND you wont acknowledge or admit ANY mistakes.

sheesh

[Big Train]

Lounge,

My friend, we just won't admit to what you accuse us of. It's that simple, none of us agree. Not cause we are blind or dumb, we just don't agree.

As for Mexico, which is a sensitive subject for me as my wife is first-generation Mexican American, a ten foot wall ain't gonna do shit. While I agree with more stringent border protections, the real pressure of immigration won't be eased until the US REALLY starts leaning on the Mexican government to get it's shit in order. The crush of people are coming because they literally can't get anything going at home. Working at a car wash here is making them 10x the amount they would there. I live in between East LA and Pasadena (within short driving distance of the Diamond One's house) and most are here just to make a living.

The only way to make the borders secure is to lessen the amount of people crossing. By removing the incentive for people to risk their lives to come here, it makes the overall job of protecting the borders much more manageable.