NationStates Jolt Archive

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Politicians do this whenever they need and hope the public forget about it.

they both suck ass, but Kerry is still better than Bush.

I find it hilarious that after Bush's resume, and the attrocious job he has so dfar done...that the best the Republicans can come up with is:

"Uh....well....Kerry flip-flops!"


Ohhhhhh jeeez....how awful.........say....was he in the White house when America experienced the slowest job growth since the Great Depression?

No..that would be Bush.

Was Kerry the President who took the most time off, of any other President ever?

No...that would be Bush again.....

You see the point......

Was Kerry the President who took the most time off, of any other President ever?

No...that would be Bush again.
I could have sworn that it was Kerry :? :P
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Was Kerry the President who took the most time off, of any other President ever?

No...that would be Bush again.
I could have sworn that it was Kerry :? :P
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

You see.....so unless Kerry ends up being the anti-christ..how could he do any worse?

I find it hilarious that after Bush's resume, and the attrocious job he has so dfar done...that the best the Republicans can come up with is:

"Uh....well....Kerry flip-flops!"I'd like to hear what you think Kerry would have done under similar circumstances.


Ohhhhhh jeeez....how awful.........say....was he in the White house when America experienced the slowest job growth since the Great Depression?

No..that would be Bush.You can only blame Bush if you disregard the dot com crash (late Clinton administration), NAFTA (blue-collar jobs flocked south), 9/11 (counterterrorism and intelligence decimated, DOW dropped 1000 points at the opening bell) and the two resulting wars, and the corporate scandals (began long before the Bush administration).

Was Kerry the President who took the most time off, of any other President ever?

No...that would be Bush again.....

You see the point......Bush is under what I believe to be the most pressure anyone has faced. Yes, WWII was worse, but FDR didn't face a shipload of protesters trying to tear him down, because we were at war. How times have changed. Plus, it's an election year and the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Occasionally? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Okey dokie!

But I LOVE your double standard.

The current administration can modify it's position in response to a changing environment. The opposition, however, must set it's position in stone regardless of the same changes.

Let's all spell together....

H
y
P
O
C
R
I


You know the rest...

-Z-

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Occasionally? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Okey dokie!

But I LOVE your double standard.

The current administration can modify it's position in response to a changing environment. The opposition, however, must set it's position in stone regardless of the same changes.

Let's all spell together....

H
y
P
O
C
R
I


You know the rest...

-Z-I find it interesting that Kerry's 180 degree turnaround immediately followed Bush's press conference. That's all.

oh, ha ha ha, Kerry "flip-flops" <gasp>!

while Bush WAGES WAR under FALSE PRETENSE, KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

WAKE UP!

You can only blame Bush if you disregard the dot com crash (late Clinton administration), NAFTA (blue-collar jobs flocked south), 9/11 (counterterrorism and intelligence decimated, DOW dropped 1000 points at the opening bell) and the two resulting wars, and the corporate scandals (began long before the Bush administration).

Dotcom crash ... early Bush admin. Spring/summer 2001 to be precise.

NAFTA ... Bush the elder!

911 ... on Bush's watch. Clinton had been obsessed with AQ.

Corporate scandals ... Going on long before Bush of course ... but Enron etc did have links with several members of Bush admin.

Bush is under what I believe to be the most pressure anyone has faced. Yes, WWII was worse, but FDR didn't face a shipload of protesters trying to tear him down, because we were at war. How times have changed. Plus, it's an election year and the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing

You MUST be kidding.

You actually believe that Bush is under more pressure than F.D.R, or Truman?
Or Kennedy.....Hello...Cuban Missle Crisis...

Or L.B.J? Veitnam?..... Nixon?

OR Reagan? Cold war....?

You cannot be serious.

the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

Oh..you mean like Bush wanting to ammend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, to please his Conservative brethren, becuase they arent too thrilled abiout his performance either?

Quit while your behind.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Occasionally? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... Okey dokie!

But I LOVE your double standard.

The current administration can modify it's position in response to a changing environment. The opposition, however, must set it's position in stone regardless of the same changes.

Let's all spell together....

H
y
P
O
C
R
I


You know the rest...

-Z-

True and fact Zep, he is a hypocrit. Just ignore him, he is not relevant or important :wink:

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Got a quote? Got a link? Got something to substantiate this flip-flop other than your word that it has happened? I'd sure be interested to see one and the context in which it was said, because I suspect there's more here than you're letting on.

I'd like to hear what you think Kerry would have done under similar circumstances.

I'd like to think Kerry would have been smart enough not to get involved in Iraq in the first place and relize that what we need most in this country is decent domestic policy and not a grandstanding vanity war that has turned popular sentiment against us.



You can only blame Bush if you disregard the dot com crash (late Clinton administration),

Nope, happened on Bush the Younger's watch, 2001-2002.


NAFTA (blue-collar jobs flocked south)

Actually, that didn't happen, (between 1993 and 2000, US manufacturing output grew by 44%, US Employment grew by 20 million plus, hourly wages grew by 14.7% and tax cuts from NAFTA for individual households of four totaled about $930 a year). Now, under Bush the Younger, we're seeing both blue collar and white collar jobs "Offshored" with companies receiving huge tax breaks to send jobs overseas.


9/11 (counterterrorism and intelligence decimated, DOW dropped 1000 points at the opening bell)

Hey, guess what, Clinton actually warned the incoming Bush administration that Osama was the biggest security threat we faced. The Bush people, however, we far to busy already plotting the war in Iraq to care.


and the two resulting wars,

Caused by Bush and Bush.


and the corporate scandals (began long before the Bush administration).


Um, yes, let's talk about that:

George W. Bush was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commision in 1990-91 when he was on the board of Harken Energy Corporation and took 34 weeks to give notice of a $848,560 stock trade which was made a week before bad company news was aired.


Bush is under what I believe to be the most pressure anyone has faced. Yes, WWII was worse, but FDR didn't face a shipload of protesters trying to tear him down, because we were at war. How times have changed.

Oh, boo-hoo. If he didn't want the job he shouldn't have run. I haven't had a vacation in four years now. And what pressure is this? He's shown his complete and utter contempt for whatever anyone else might think, so basically all he has to do is plow ahead with his own whims and keep ignoring everything and every body else. And please, don't compare Bush to FDR, it just makes you sound ignorant.


Plus, it's an election year and the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

Sort of like Bush?

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/campaignslogans.htm

Kerry is not without his flaws, one of which is indecision, but he's a far better choice for president that Bush. Bush's Imperialist tactics haven't won America many new friends. There is also the blood that is on Bush's hands. Thousands of innocent Iraquis and hundreds of American and Allied lives were lost in a war which was initiated under the false pretense of eliminating WMD's. In fact, a couple of days ago, my community had a candlelight vigil in memory of a local boy scarcely ninteen years old who died in Iraq.

The Neo-Cons don't care about the death of people. THey care about their bank book and making sure none of it goes to any kind of charity, unless that charity draws people into their organization.

Nope, happened on Bush the Younger's watch, 2001-2002.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729534/posts
Not the dotcom bubble (which hit its peak in the Summer of 2000, IIRC), however this is Robert Novak's article, on Free Republic. Is Novak a conservative? Yes, statistics aren't conservative though.

Actually, that didn't happen, (between 1993 and 2000, US manufacturing output grew by 44%, US Employment grew by 20 million plus, hourly wages grew by 14.7% and tax cuts from NAFTA for individual households of four totaled about $930 a year). Now, under Bush the Younger, we're seeing both blue collar and white collar jobs "Offshored" with companies receiving huge tax breaks to send jobs overseas. America's the net benificiary of outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs. Kerry's plan wouldn't exactly help it, he wants to tax companies that offshore even though America already has one of the most imperialistic tax codes in the world. (The economist)

Hey, guess what, Clinton actually warned the incoming Bush administration that Osama was the biggest security threat we faced. The Bush people, however, we far to busy already plotting the war in Iraq to care.
I guess thats why Clinton dropped the ball over OBL. If Clinton truely believed that, he would have had justification many times - USS Cole, the African Embassy Bombings, and the WTC Truck bombings - to go invade Afghanistan. He, instead, decided to lob cruise missiles while not the whole Osama-Sudan connection.

Caused by Bush and Bush.
Yep. You could make a case for the Iraq War being bad, however to say that having to invade Afghanistan is Bush's fault is pretty silly.

I wouldn't say Kerry flip-flops
I think he's seriously trying to hold both opinions at the same time
or at least for everyone to think he is

Bush is under what I believe to be the most pressure anyone has faced. Yes, WWII was worse, but FDR didn't face a shipload of protesters trying to tear him down, because we were at war. How times have changed. Plus, it's an election year and the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing

You MUST be kidding.

You actually believe that Bush is under more pressure than F.D.R, or Truman?
Or Kennedy.....Hello...Cuban Missle Crisis...

Or L.B.J? Veitnam?..... Nixon?

OR Reagan? Cold war....?

You cannot be serious.

the opposition is a cookie-cutter politician who says whatever the public feels like hearing.

Oh..you mean like Bush wanting to ammend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage, to please his Conservative brethren, becuase they arent too thrilled abiout his performance either?

Quit while your behind.Hey, i say prohibit it! Ban gay marriages. People aren't born gay, they choose to be. Just like they can choose to be straight. Besides, unless your a gay person yourself..... :lol: .........ummmm, wouldn't you think that seeing 2 men, or women( which i don't mind too much :twisted: ) that that is degrading America even more than it already is? And i don't think passerby's will want to watch to people of the same sex sucking face. So, yeah, i agreed with Bush there, and there alone.

911 ... on Bush's watch. Clinton had been obsessed with AQ.

I didn't know Monica L. and Kathleen W. were with AQ. You do learn something new everyday.

Corporate scandals ... Going on long before Bush of course ... but Enron etc did have links with several members of Bush admin.

And I bet they (Enron) had nothing to do with the Clinton/Gore folks, right?

Here is question posed by radio talk show host Sean Hannity, "What do you think would happen if three years from now if Saddam would have attacked the United States?

Not like Saddam would be stupid to hit our land but lets modify this and included an incident that could happen that would be like the U.S.S. Cole again)

The answer is the Democrats would be howling for the reincarnation of the 9/11 commision, members would still even need to try to cover Clinton's not so polite term for the posterior. I can see Uncle Teddy now, "This administration," notice he never says the, he still must be in denial, "Failed to recognize a clear threat that should have been dealed with earlier." This president's inactivity in protecting the American people has been quite frankly irresponsible." Then he could add a Howard Deanism shouting, "And for that reason alone he should be sent to Crawfor, Texas with a one-way ticket."

911 ... on Bush's watch. Clinton had been obsessed with AQ.

I didn't know Monica L. and Kathleen W. were with AQ. You do learn something new everyday.

Oh come on, Panny--the only people obsessed with Lewinsky, et al, were the right wingers in the Republican party and their shills in the media.

I don't think its fair to say that either Clinton or Bush pre-9/11 were obsessed with AQ, really.

Whoops, that was me.

Oh, I think it's fair to say that people inside both administrations were obsessed--Richard Clarke and George Tenet come to mind--but that the heads of both administrations were hamstrung. Clinton got accused of "wagging the dog" every time he tried to take any sort of military action (Thanks, Tom DeLay--hope you rot in hell), and Bush was hamstrung by a focus, whether his own or by his advisors, on states rather than terrorist groups.

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Links?

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Links?I asked for those on the last page and he has yet to provide them.

(Hey, i say prohibit it! Ban gay marriages. People aren't born gay, they choose to be. Just like they can choose to be straight. Besides, unless your a gay person yourself..... .........ummmm, wouldn't you think that seeing 2 men, or women( which i don't mind too much ) that that is degrading America even more than it already is? And i don't think passerby's will want to watch to people of the same sex sucking face.)i

Ha. People choose to be gay, do they? Do grow up. Of course they don't. It's not a choice.

Degrade America? America is already degenerate. America thinks it's the land of the free, but in reality it's a corrupt oligarchy where the richest man buys the election.

We in Europe hate you. Let me tell you why. Your policy on the Middle East is a disgrace. At least you used to pretend to be even-handed, but now Bush has dropped that and come out in support of the Israeli monster Sharon. He's agreed to allow the illegal Jewish settlements on Arab land in the West Bank continue. Of course, that'll just make the situation in the Palestinian territories worse, but as long as it makes domestic political capital for Bush he doesn't care.

The occupation of Iraq is another disgrace.

The way the American state interferes in internal EU matters (such as the issue of Turkish membership of the EU) is offensive.

American environmental policy (re: the Kyoto Convention) is a disgrace.

And so on, and so on.

The soomer you retreat back into isolation the better.

I am ashamed of the British Prime Minister. He should have stood against the Israeli decision made by Bush; instead he raises no objection. Thank God for Chirac. Anyway, the Blairite regime in Britain is crumbling, and when it falls you'll see a long-overdue backlash against American policy, and Europe will be united in its opposition to you.

I don't think its fair to say that either Clinton or Bush pre-9/11 were obsessed with AQ, really.

Oh, so very true. At least one side will admit to it. The other side not only denies it, but even deny the way they made it impossible for the CIA and FBI to cooperate prior to 9/11.

(Hey, i say prohibit it! Ban gay marriages. People aren't born gay, they choose to be. Just like they can choose to be straight. Besides, unless your a gay person yourself..... .........ummmm, wouldn't you think that seeing 2 men, or women( which i don't mind too much ) that that is degrading America even more than it already is? And i don't think passerby's will want to watch to people of the same sex sucking face.)i

Ha. People choose to be gay, do they? Do grow up. Of course they don't. It's not a choice.

Degrade America? America is already degenerate. America thinks it's the land of the free, but in reality it's a corrupt oligarchy where the richest man buys the election.

We in Europe hate you. Let me tell you why. Your policy on the Middle East is a disgrace. At least you used to pretend to be even-handed, but now Bush has dropped that and come out in support of the Israeli monster Sharon. He's agreed to allow the illegal Jewish settlements on Arab land in the West Bank continue. Of course, that'll just make the situation in the Palestinian territories worse, but as long as it makes domestic political capital for Bush he doesn't care.

The occupation of Iraq is another disgrace.

The way the American state interferes in internal EU matters (such as the issue of Turkish membership of the EU) is offensive.

American environmental policy (re: the Kyoto Convention) is a disgrace.

And so on, and so on.

The soomer you retreat back into isolation the better.

I am ashamed of the British Prime Minister. He should have stood against the Israeli decision made by Bush; instead he raises no objection. Thank God for Chirac. Anyway, the Blairite regime in Britain is crumbling, and when it falls you'll see a long-overdue backlash against American policy, and Europe will be united in its opposition to you.

Awww whats the matter pookie!

Need a hug?

So much anger.

Europe united against the US? Riggggghhhhtttttttttt.

Never gonna happen.

For all our pissing matches, we will remain friends. Especially when the shrub is gone.

Now take a few slow breaths and relaaaxxxxxx

-------

For the original quesiton.

Anybody but Bush......

Oh, I think it's fair to say that people inside both administrations were obsessed--Richard Clarke and George Tenet come to mind--but that the heads of both administrations were hamstrung. Clinton got accused of "wagging the dog" every time he tried to take any sort of military action (Thanks, Tom DeLay--hope you rot in hell), and Bush was hamstrung by a focus, whether his own or by his advisors, on states rather than terrorist groups.

Not to mention that the people who were obsessed with AQ were written off by their superiors. *cough*Louis Freeh*cough*

To all: learn up on John O'Neill (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/). Unassailable proof that we live in a sick universe.

I don't think its fair to say that either Clinton or Bush pre-9/11 were obsessed with AQ, really.

Oh, so very true. At least one side will admit to it. The other side not only denies it, but even deny the way they made it impossible for the CIA and FBI to cooperate prior to 9/11.Funny--the CIA and the FBI seemed to have no problem working together to foil the Millenium plots after the arrest of Ressam. And I have yet to hear a single Bush administration official admit that they weren't obsessed with al-Qaeda prior to the 9-11 attacks.

Of course--I'm assuming you're trying to defend the Bush administration just like you always do--your post is sufficiently vague that you could be defending the Clinton administration, but given your track record, I sort of doubt that's what you're up to.

Oh, I think it's fair to say that people inside both administrations were obsessed--Richard Clarke and George Tenet come to mind--but that the heads of both administrations were hamstrung. Clinton got accused of "wagging the dog" every time he tried to take any sort of military action (Thanks, Tom DeLay--hope you rot in hell), and Bush was hamstrung by a focus, whether his own or by his advisors, on states rather than terrorist groups.

Not to mention that the people who were obsessed with AQ were written off by their superiors. *cough*Louis Freeh*cough*

To all: learn up on John O'Neill (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/). Unassailable proof that we live in a sick universe.Well, I have issues with the job Louis Freeh did as well, but you are exactly right on John O'Neill. I caught the end of the Frontline report you're linking there and I remember reading a lot of that same information in other places. The Frontline report brought a lot of it together, though.

Funny--the CIA and the FBI seemed to have no problem working together to foil the Millenium plots after the arrest of Ressam. And I have yet to hear a single Bush administration official admit that they weren't obsessed with al-Qaeda prior to the 9-11 attacks.


Funny, the Millenium plot to blow up LAX (that's the Los Angeles International Airport, for those of you who are not in the USA,) was unraveled, not by great cooperation between the FBI and CIA, but by a Customs agent in Vancouver who happened to think something about Ressam didn't quite look right ("oh no! racial profiling!!!")

However, we do know that the CIA and FBI were not allowed to work together after the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui. Namely, the FBI was forbidden from giving the CIA access to the Moussaoui's computer, courtesy of the Jamie Gorelick-established "wall of separation" between counter-intelligence (shouldn't it be counter-terror?) and criminal investigations.

Oh, I think it's fair to say that people inside both administrations were obsessed--Richard Clarke and George Tenet come to mind--but that the heads of both administrations were hamstrung. Clinton got accused of "wagging the dog" every time he tried to take any sort of military action (Thanks, Tom DeLay--hope you rot in hell), and Bush was hamstrung by a focus, whether his own or by his advisors, on states rather than terrorist groups.

Not to mention that the people who were obsessed with AQ were written off by their superiors. *cough*Louis Freeh*cough*

To all: learn up on John O'Neill (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/). Unassailable proof that we live in a sick universe.Well, I have issues with the job Louis Freeh did as well, but you are exactly right on John O'Neill. I caught the end of the Frontline report you're linking there and I remember reading a lot of that same information in other places. The Frontline report brought a lot of it together, though.

I actually meant that Louis Freeh and his cronies wrote off John O'Neill.

(Hey, i say prohibit it! Ban gay marriages. People aren't born gay, they choose to be. Just like they can choose to be straight. Besides, unless your a gay person yourself..... .........ummmm, wouldn't you think that seeing 2 men, or women( which i don't mind too much ) that that is degrading America even more than it already is? And i don't think passerby's will want to watch to people of the same sex sucking face.)i

Ha. People choose to be gay, do they? Do grow up. Of course they don't. It's not a choice.

Degrade America? America is already degenerate. America thinks it's the land of the free, but in reality it's a corrupt oligarchy where the richest man buys the election.

We in Europe hate you. Let me tell you why. Your policy on the Middle East is a disgrace. At least you used to pretend to be even-handed, but now Bush has dropped that and come out in support of the Israeli monster Sharon. He's agreed to allow the illegal Jewish settlements on Arab land in the West Bank continue. Of course, that'll just make the situation in the Palestinian territories worse, but as long as it makes domestic political capital for Bush he doesn't care.

The occupation of Iraq is another disgrace.

The way the American state interferes in internal EU matters (such as the issue of Turkish membership of the EU) is offensive.

American environmental policy (re: the Kyoto Convention) is a disgrace.

And so on, and so on.

The soomer you retreat back into isolation the better.

I am ashamed of the British Prime Minister. He should have stood against the Israeli decision made by Bush; instead he raises no objection. Thank God for Chirac. Anyway, the Blairite regime in Britain is crumbling, and when it falls you'll see a long-overdue backlash against American policy, and Europe will be united in its opposition to you. A comendable post.. Everything you said is true.. But you can' win with these people, Why? Look around... You tell this in here, and you get people who agree with EVERYTHING, and then tell you:
"And... So? Whats wrong with all that? Its a GOOD Thing!"

Yes...

I am ashamed of the British Prime Minister. He should have stood against the Israeli decision made by Bush; instead he raises no objection. Thank God for Chirac. Anyway, the Blairite regime in Britain is crumbling, and when it falls you'll see a long-overdue backlash against American policy, and Europe will be united in its opposition to you.
I doubt it, not only are Eastern Europeans loyal to America because during the Reagan years we stood up to Communism while the W. Europeans had large parts of their public that wanted to pull out of the Cold War, but also because the party most likely to be elected besides Labor in Britain are the Tories, which are if anything more Pro-USA, or at least on the same level as Tony Blair. Schroeder and his Social Democrats would lose the election to the Conservatives, a more Pro-USA party, and the CDU (Christian Democratic Union, although it might be the CSU - Christian Social Union, I forget which one is the father party) would have an absolute majority. There will be no united opposition to the USA for a while, buddy.

Funny--the CIA and the FBI seemed to have no problem working together to foil the Millenium plots after the arrest of Ressam. And I have yet to hear a single Bush administration official admit that they weren't obsessed with al-Qaeda prior to the 9-11 attacks.


Funny, the Millenium plot to blow up LAX (that's the Los Angeles International Airport, for those of you who are not in the USA,) was unraveled, not by great cooperation between the FBI and CIA, but by a Customs agent in Vancouver who happened to think something about Ressam didn't quite look right ("oh no! racial profiling!!!")

However, we do know that the CIA and FBI were not allowed to work together after the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui. Namely, the FBI was forbidden from giving the CIA access to the Moussaoui's computer, courtesy of the Jamie Gorelick-established "wall of separation" between counter-intelligence (shouldn't it be counter-terror?) and criminal investigations.You poor simple thing--the arrest of Ressam was indeed the work of a Customs agent that did a hell of a job. The rollup of the networks Ressam was connected to was a result of the ensuing work done by both the CIA and FBI. You see, you poor simple thing, there was far more to the Millenium plots than just the plot to bomb LAX, and those plots were uncovered because of interagency cooperation.

And by the way, the Gorelick accusation is a red herring. That so-called wall didn't stop cooperation in the past and Ashcroft is just trying to pull it out now to cover his ass for paying more attention to porn than to terrorism.

Kerry only hasn't had a chance to make some of the mistakes Bush has because we've been smart enough not to make him President of the country thusfar. If he's elected, give him time. He'll screw up very well.

Can I marry my cow? I was born loving this cow. I can't help it. Wow.. I really hope this is sarcasm.. I mean, I KNOW its sarcastic, but im not sure if its:
"Im saying this sarcasticly because if gays use the argument 'I was born this way' any perverted deviant can use that to justfy anything"

Or if its

"Im saying this to show the overly simplafied 'logic' of the Religious Far-Right"

oh, ha ha ha, Kerry "flip-flops" <gasp>!

while Bush WAGES WAR under FALSE PRETENSE, KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

WAKE UP!

Civilians die in every war, and it was Clinton who first declared that Iraq had "Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological facilities."

If you're honestly that blind as to think that WMD or not we would have still went to Iraq and toppled Saddam? Who gives a shit how we did it? If we were allowed by our constitution to assassinate political leaders we wouldn't have this problem.

Kerry doesn't have a point of view...he just spouts of cliches that make him sound good.

So why don't you "WAKE UP" and "GRADUATE JUNIOR HIGH"... :roll: Imagine what our country would be like if Al Gore was president: "Oh it's ok terrorists...I'd attack you but I'm cutting down the military. Oh, and by the way, R rated movies and M rated video games are outlawed now...whoopee!"

Can I marry my cow? I was born loving this cow. I can't help it.

I don't know if you're left or right, but either way that statement is exactly why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It opens the door for everything else.

"This child and I are in love"

"This sheep and I are in love"

"This toaster and I are in love"

"These four women and three men and I are in love"

"This child and I are in love"

"This sheep and I are in love"

"This toaster and I are in love"

"These four women and three men and I are in love"

As for the first three, you seem to have had a massive hemmorhage in the part of your brain that stored information about a) the concept of consent and b) the legal aspects of marriage. For the fourth one, I can't really come up with any well-defined reasons why that is wrong, so someone else can handle that.

I don't know if you're left or right, but either way that statement is exactly why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. It opens the door for everything else.

"This child and I are in love"

"This sheep and I are in love"

"This toaster and I are in love"

"These four women and three men and I are in love" Wow.. that you actually believe that line of logical just makes me feel sorry for you...
First off, a Marriage can only happen between two 'CONSENTING ADULTS'

A child Cannot give true consent, nor is it an Adult and of leagle age. Nor can a Sheep, Nor a Toaster, and I'd be Dmaned hard to find four women who would all give consent... I hope you know that most Polygamists today live in very abusive relationships, typically with an Older male treating much younger 'wives' as just sex slaves.

:wink: ...and here I thought my exaggeration was obvious...

Marriage should be between a man and a woman...not because the bible says so, but because that's how civilized cultures work. Granted men went both ways a good bit in history, but they never married. Now is no different.

:wink: ...and here I thought my exaggeration was obvious...

Marriage should be between a man and a woman...not because the bible says so, but because that's how civilized cultures work. Granted men went both ways a good bit in history, but they never married. Now is no different.Never heard of progress? Or do you think that society has stayed stagnant throughout history?

Hell, the idea of marriage has changed markedly in the last hundred years in the US--you ought to read up on it. It might inform your opinions a little better.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

:wink: ...and here I thought my exaggeration was obvious... Ahhhh.. Ok.. Your forgiven... Though sarcasm needs to be stated because.. As im sure it is obvious.. In THIS forum there actually ARE People who will believe such nonsense.. so nothing can be taken for granted...

As for the second part "That’s just the way its always been in civilization" That argument fails because, civilization changes.. Marriage, despite what many think, was not born from religion; it was born as a Business deal, pure and simple... Back before Christianity, it was an Arrangement for families to share the goods of family and marry into wealth and power.

There was never a need for marriage "Back Then" because if a Two guys wanted to get together for love.. No big deal.. Because 'NOT' getting married was never a problem, two Men in love don't need to get married 'back then' because there would never be the same accepted transaction of wealth...

Today Marriage IS Needed... Being married shows you exist in today’s world, being married allows dozens of benefits, tax breaks, leagle deals, all to be worked out. Simply put, for TODAYS Civilization, Same-Sex Marriage is simply good Business

Bah...I could get into it more...but it's not worth it. I always end up looking like a nazi.

...and people say conservatives are close minded. The general forum is such a liberal cess pool....ah well...my visits here are few and far in between.

Wow.. that you actually believe that line of logical just makes me feel sorry for you...
First off, a Marriage can only happen between two 'CONSENTING ADULTS'Why? That is highly offensive, as my computer table and I are meant to be together. Some scientist found a gene in me that told me I was born to love a computer desk. Riiiight.

Why does it just have to be between two consenting adults? Pretty soon some poor guy will come along wanting to marry a [place non-human object here], and the left will be so scared to offend anybody that they will want to make it legal. Can't be offensive!

Dick


There, the left can be offensive.

Why does it have to be between two concenting adults?

Well marriage is a serious commitment, and it requires maturity to enter into ( :shock: I'm starting to sound like my Dad). It would also be cruel to force someone to marry you if they don't want to, it is essentialy the same as slavery.

"There will be no united opposition to the USA for a while, buddy."

The three countries which really matter in EU terms are the UK, France and Germany.

France and Germany are already sensible, with Chirac particularly vocal against the Sharon deal which Bush has made. In Britain, Blair won't be replaced by the Tories, but by the left of his own party, probably in the person of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.

The Labour left are anti-war and anti-Bush. So I think that when Blair does fall, it will be from within, and then you will see a resurgence of the left wing of the Labour party which will not adopt the same pro-American policies at all.

Of the second tier of EU countries, Spain has already made the right decision under the new PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and will leave the coalition at the end of June.

Italy under Berlusconi won't stand alone. With Spain and the UK gone it'll cool towards the US. Besides, the Berlusconi regime is in serious trouble, with Berlusconi being tried for corruption, and if he falls a more left wing government would probably adopt a totally different line.

So the Big Five are moving towards a unity against the Bush regime, slowly, and I think you'll find that countries such as Poland and Lithuania won't be much use to you without the Big Five.

Besides which Poland is shortly to have a change of government as PM Leszek Miller has resigned and an election is looming, so the attitude of the Polish government may change too.

And the new EU Member States won't hesitate to abandon the US if they can buy concessions on things like Qualified Majority Voting from the big EU members by doing so.

You just watch them all desert the sinking ship.

(Hey, i say prohibit it! Ban gay marriages. People aren't born gay, they choose to be. Just like they can choose to be straight. Besides, unless your a gay person yourself..... .........ummmm, wouldn't you think that seeing 2 men, or women( which i don't mind too much ) that that is degrading America even more than it already is? And i don't think passerby's will want to watch to people of the same sex sucking face.)i

Ha. People choose to be gay, do they? Do grow up. Of course they don't. It's not a choice.

Degrade America? America is already degenerate. America thinks it's the land of the free, but in reality it's a corrupt oligarchy where the richest man buys the election.

We in Europe hate you. Let me tell you why. Your policy on the Middle East is a disgrace. At least you used to pretend to be even-handed, but now Bush has dropped that and come out in support of the Israeli monster Sharon. He's agreed to allow the illegal Jewish settlements on Arab land in the West Bank continue. Of course, that'll just make the situation in the Palestinian territories worse, but as long as it makes domestic political capital for Bush he doesn't care.

The occupation of Iraq is another disgrace.

The way the American state interferes in internal EU matters (such as the issue of Turkish membership of the EU) is offensive.

American environmental policy (re: the Kyoto Convention) is a disgrace.

And so on, and so on.

The soomer you retreat back into isolation the better.

I am ashamed of the British Prime Minister. He should have stood against the Israeli decision made by Bush; instead he raises no objection. Thank God for Chirac. Anyway, the Blairite regime in Britain is crumbling, and when it falls you'll see a long-overdue backlash against American policy, and Europe will be united in its opposition to you.Oh good job Iracia, how long did it take you to think that up? And you want me to grow up? Look at yourself, islamii( misspelled that on purpose, to get to ya. :wink: )your the one yelling your little brainless head off like a fool. You think the rest of the world is any better than america? Look at Russia, they are paranoid freaks, and still their country is one of the highest ratings for smugglers of god knows what. Look at basically any other country, it's basically the same thing. Oh sure, America has quite a few corrupt people in government, but didn't just about every other country also have someone corrupt in power? Germany, Hitler, Russia, Stalin, Italy Mussolini. It goes on and on. One way or another some other country has been or is as bad as america. But.....Gasp.....would ya look at this? We are one of the few Countries that have won about every war except vietnam( and possibly North Korea, haven't checked up on that yet) in which we won every battle, it's just that our general at the time wasn't as good as paton was in WWII. So, do shut up, and go worship the ground your fellow "people" walk on.

France and Germany are already sensible, with Chirac particularly vocal against the Sharon deal which Bush has made. In Britain, Blair won't be replaced by the Tories, but by the left of his own party, probably in the person of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
Germany's government won't last the next election. Their leader has, I think, the worst opinion polls of any leader in Europe. And someone to the left of Tony being elected would be a stretch. Not only is that vote already taken by the Lib Dems, it would alienate a large part of Labor support (Blairites). Although Blair dosen't look vulnerable for the time being, so chances are by the time he does leave office, the political shape of Europe will have changed.

Italy under Berlusconi won't stand alone. With Spain and the UK gone it'll cool towards the US. Besides, the Berlusconi regime is in serious trouble, with Berlusconi being tried for corruption, and if he falls a more left wing government would probably adopt a totally different line.
He won't have to stand alone though. He'll definately have Germany and Poland, 95% chance have the UK, and most likely lots of the Eastern European countries.

So the Big Five are moving towards a unity against the Bush regime, slowly, and I think you'll find that countries such as Poland and Lithuania won't be much use to you without the Big Five.
No they're not.

You just watch them all desert the sinking ship.
The big thing that Europe seems to be deserting right now is Social Democratism, witness both France and Germany trying to reform their systems, Poland's leftist leader having to resign because he had single-digit poll numbers, and then people like Marie Le Pen outscoring the socialists in France.

:wink: ...and here I thought my exaggeration was obvious...

Marriage should be between a man and a woman...not because the bible says so, but because that's how civilized cultures work. Granted men went both ways a good bit in history, but they never married. Now is no different.

Why shouldn't now be different?

[/quote]Oh good job Iracia, how long did it take you to think that up? And you want me to grow up? Look at yourself, islamii( misspelled that on purpose, to get to ya. :wink: )your the one yelling your little brainless head off like a fool. You think the rest of the world is any better than america? Look at Russia, they are paranoid freaks, and still their country is one of the highest ratings for smugglers of god knows what. Look at basically any other country, it's basically the same thing. Oh sure, America has quite a few corrupt people in government, but didn't just about every other country also have someone corrupt in power? Germany, Hitler, Russia, Stalin, Italy Mussolini. It goes on and on. One way or another some other country has been or is as bad as america. But.....Gasp.....would ya look at this? We are one of the few Countries that have won about every war except vietnam( and possibly North Korea, haven't checked up on that yet) in which we won every battle, it's just that our general at the time wasn't as good as paton was in WWII. So, do shut up, and go worship the ground your fellow "people" walk on.[/quote]

Typical American arrogance.

I'm no Muslim. I am in fact a Cambridge-educated English Roman Catholic Tory. And what I am vocalising is the way which most educated Europeans feel about America at the moment.

You may think what you like of me: but Americans need to realise why Europe regards their foreign policies with such distaste. It is important that you don't sit in your little bubble thinking the world loves you. We don't. But you ought to know WHY. Only then can you change. America is singularly bad at diplomacy, and for such a powerful country to use its power without any real understanding of the world around it is both dangerous and frightening.

Your comments about war are very revealing. America thinks that its military power is the solution to every problem. 4 American contractors die in Fallujah? Right, let's bomb the city and kill 800 Iraqis. That's a fair retaliation.

The fact is that American military power is not the answer. Diplomacy is the answer.

Going in with guns blazing will just worsen the situation.

You can't win a guerilla war with sheer military hardware. You're going to lose in Iraq. It's time to let the UN broker a settlement and for American forces to leave Iraq.

"And someone to the left of Tony being elected would be a stretch"

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ.

The core base of Labour support is not Blairite, and Blair has upset many people in his own party over Iraq.

He will probably resign after next year's General Election to make way for the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who is more left-wing than he is. A Brown Government would not be nearly so cosy with the Bush regime.

Hmmmm... well Iracia. First off, i must say that not all people in America are ignorant and actually know about all of this stuff. Secondly, i must just say that i am sorry for that comment. I was a bit hot headed with the comment you made first. You actually kinda insulted me, saying to grow up, when i was just teling the truth that gays do choose to be gay, and aren't born like it. Also, what would you have done if you were president of America and in your first year, the Twin Towers were terroristically bombed, and you had a lot of people upset and wanted you to do something about it? Would you just sit around and say, " YES, COME BOMB US, WE DO NOT CARE!" I really want to know( And i am not sticking up for Bush.)

"when i was just teling the truth that gays do choose to be gay, and aren't born like it"

Just simply not true. It just isn't. I don't know where you get this idea from.

And I know, because I'm gay, and I can assure you, I didn't choose to be.

And the Iraq issue and the Twin Towers attacks are unrelated.

Iraq had nothing to do with that attack.

Al Qaeda regarded Saddam Hussein as a secular socialist.

They're glad he's gone. Because now they can replace him with a fundamentalist Islamic regime...which is what I think will happen in Iraq.

Saddam's regime, whilst not nice, was at least secular, and probably preferable to what could replace it.

But America used the Twin Towers attack as a pretext to go into Iraq. A false pretext.

There is also a case for saying that had American policy not been so heavily biased towards Israel in the first place, then the Twin Towers attack would never have happened.

You reap what you sow in this world.

1) the dotcom crash happend in 2000. it started in march and ended in july. i would be interested in how many Schedule D forms were submitted for the 2000 tax year.

the president has no control over the stock exchange. the only thing he can do is close it not dictate how and when people sell stocks.

2) it was a bad idea to invade Iraq? it was a very bad move to remove Saddam Hussain from power? i mean.. its not like he had ever invaded another country.

oops.. i guess he did. for all you idiots out there in the past 20 years iraq has invaded its neighbors 2 times. first one they fought him out, the second was when he invaded kuwait and we kicked him out. you want to blame either bush for Saddam's actions? are you stupid or something?

Hmmmm... ok, yet again i sense you being a bit hot headed and almost looking for a fight, but i shall let that go, even though( im just saying) that my nation could easily beat yours. Well, sorry that i didn't know you were gay. But it could be different for others. ANd i'm going to leave it at that. I cannot put up with anymore of your wise-ass comments( more like how you say it) So, good luck being accepted as a gay, and buh-bye.( and i don't care what else you say about me.

"I cannot put up with anymore of your wise-ass comments( more like how you say it) So, good luck being accepted as a gay,"

You mean that like a typical American you believe that you're Right and anyone who disagrees with you is Wrong. You can't bear having your point of view challenged: nay, systematically shown to be flawed.

And fortunately Britain, like most of Europe, is considerably more advanced on the subject of homosexuality than America.

In this country Fred Phelps would be prosecuted.

But America used the Twin Towers attack as a pretext to go into Iraq. A false pretext.
No, it wasn't. The main arguement was WMD, the secondary one Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but it was never said, or at least it was never a major part of the case of any period of time, that Saddam Hussein launched the 9/11 attacks.

"it was a bad idea to invade Iraq? it was a very bad move to remove Saddam Hussein from power? i mean.. its not like he had ever invaded another country"

It is not America's place to invade other countries and remove their regimes, contrary to international law and without UN approval. That is flagrantly illegal and an abuse of power.

It is also probable that the regime which will emerge in Iraq to replace Saddam's will be even worse than his was.

But America used the Twin Towers attack as a pretext to go into Iraq. A false pretext.
No, it wasn't. The main arguement was WMD, the secondary one Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but it was never said, or at least it was never a major part of the case of any period of time, that Saddam Hussein launched the 9/11 attacks.

It depends on what is meant by "America."

The administration certainly didn't use 9/11 as a pretext for war.

But many Americans, dangerous to tar a nation due to a vocal minority but, thought there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Also, as far as I remember, the administration wasn't exactly active in dismissing these claims.

"I cannot put up with anymore of your wise-ass comments( more like how you say it) So, good luck being accepted as a gay,"

You mean that like a typical American you believe that you're Right and anyone who disagrees with you is Wrong. You can't bear having your point of view challenged: nay, systematically shown to be flawed.

And fortunately Britain, like most of Europe, is considerably more advanced on the subject of homosexuality than America.

In this country Fred Phelps would be prosecuted.First off, you know nothing about me. I am POLISH/SLAVIC/IRISH/AND A BIT ITALIAN. I do not always think i am right, on the contrary, if you knew ANYTHING about me, you would know that i am quite open to others opinions. And i was actually hoping that you get accepted as a gay, but i see the stuck up Gay person doesn't want any help or anything. And you say I'M ignorant? your the one trying to prosecute me. I say that you shut the Hell up and go pray to whatever the hell you worship that you get accepted. Be paranoid, very paranoid. That's all i have to say.

"And i was actually hoping that you get accepted as a gay, but i see the stuck up Gay person doesn't want any help or anything."

Despite your earlier comment that gay people choose to be gay?

Help? In Europe we don't need help. We are accepted by society and protected by law throughout the EU.

It's America which is backwards on the issue.

"And i was actually hoping that you get accepted as a gay, but i see the stuck up Gay person doesn't want any help or anything."

Despite your earlier comment that gay people choose to be gay?

Help? In Europe we don't need help. We are accepted by society and protected by law throughout the EU.

It's America which is backwards on the issue.yeah, cause you kinda changed the way i saw gays, but only towards you. I still think gays are disgusting, but not all of them. You have horny gays( which i hate) and then you have some, some caring gays. Unlike You. So, this i my last comment to you before we all return to talking about kerry, be paranoid, very very paranoid.Ok, Back to Kerry..................

oh and also, if your going to quote me, learn how to first, just telling you what to do if you don't want to look dumb.

"Civilians die in every war, and it was Clinton who first declared that Iraq had "Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological facilities." "

try Ronald Regan.

"I hope you know that most Polygamists today live in very abusive relationships, typically with an Older male treating much younger 'wives' as just sex slaves."

based on what??? your opinion?

"Marriage should be between a man and a woman...not because the bible says so, but because that's how civilized cultures work. "

really? so all the cultures that do allow it arent civilized?

"So the Big Five are moving towards a unity against the Bush regime, slowly, and I think you'll find that countries such as Poland and Lithuania won't be much use to you without the Big Five. "

the main europe bloc wont abandon the US. they wont ever publicly denounce us and sever ties. they rely on the US too much. Poland and Lithuania both need the US too much to do anything.

"It is important that you don't sit in your little bubble thinking the world loves you."

ever notice how people hate you or at least say they hate you but the moment you need help people come crying to the US for help?

"America is singularly bad at diplomacy, and for such a powerful country to use its power without any real understanding of the world around it is both dangerous and frightening"

i think the problem is too often people think diplomacy and talking about it will solve it. thats the problem with lots of europe. they want to talk about it when action is called for. and then when action is required and they have to take it they cant take action. the most recent example of that? WW2.

"America thinks that its military power is the solution to every problem."

im so sure that diplomacy would have solved the 1991 iraq invasion of kuwait. im so sure diplomacy would have solved afghanistans problems. you know why iraq invaded kuwait? he was betting on US and the EN bloc not to take military action.

"4 American contractors die in Fallujah? Right, let's bomb the city and kill 800 Iraqis"

where are those 800 iraqis? you ever notice that terrorits main goal is to kill high volume of people usually civillians and most military goals are to remove military targets? how many targets were removed from being strike targets because of their civillian contents? statements like yours sound nice to people who want to belive it but are horribly ignorant and idiotic to anyone who knows anything.

"The fact is that American military power is not the answer. Diplomacy is the answer. "

riiight. next time a hitler invades other european nation we will try to talk to him while he kills your friends and family. next time a saddam invades and kills people and such we will try and talk to him.

"You can't win a guerilla war with sheer military hardware. "

thank you for proving how little you know.

"when i was just teling the truth that gays do choose to be gay, and aren't born like it. "

how would you know? are you gay?

"And the Iraq issue and the Twin Towers attacks are unrelated. "

thank you for proving again how little you know about it.

"Iraq had nothing to do with that attack. "

iraq and afghanistan both provided monetary support. they both provided area to do training grounds for members of terrorist organizations to learn how to do stuff like that. how is that having nothing to do with the attack? you know that one of the countries Bin Ladin sought refuge in when the US invaded Afghanistan was iraq right?

"Al Qaeda regarded Saddam Hussein as a secular socialist. "

AQ regards hussein as someone who could help but wouldnt go to extremes. IE: they will support but not do it for ya.

"There is also a case for saying that had American policy not been so heavily biased towards Israel in the first place, then the Twin Towers attack would never have happened. "

very, very true. the US support of israel and stopping other countries from invading and absorbing israel is pissing off a lot of its neighbors. most of the countries in that region are anti-christian islamics. at least the population of those countries are.

"Dotcom crash ... early Bush admin. Spring/summer 2001 to be precise. "

wha?? its Bushes fault the dotcom crash??

the president doesnt control the NYSE or NASDAQ. the only power he has is the ability to close it for 1 business day.

its the american and foreign people/businesses with stocks that have to buy/sell to change the values. you cannot blame any president for the action of the people/businesses who buy/sell stocks.

any attempt to blame any president just proves what an idiot you are and how little you know.

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Links?I asked for those on the last page and he has yet to provide them.Because it's not the kind of thing CNN would want to smear across America. If you watch the news and keep track of what Kerry says, you would see this.

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Links?I asked for those on the last page and he has yet to provide them.Because it's not the kind of thing CNN would want to smear across America. If you watch the news and keep track of what Kerry says, you would see this.

I know what he has said about Iraq and Vietnam, but what did he say after the president's news conference?

On "Today," one of the first things they talked about yesterday was that Kerry now says "Iraq is not a new Vietnam."

First, we need evidence of Kerry saying that Iraq is turning into a "modern Vietnam." Then we need evidence of Kerry saying the opposite after the press conference. Even if your evidence is weak like the word of Rush Limbaugh, it won't convince me of anything but at least we'd know you aren't making this stuff up

To everyone who says Kerry doesn't flip-flop, pay attention to what he has said over the last week. At the beginning of the week, according to Kerry, Bush had failed at Iraq and Iraq was turning into "a modern Vietnam." Now, Kerry is saying the exact opposite right after the president's news conference :lol:

Ah, the irony.

NOTE: I am aware Bush has occasionally flipped on issues, but it's a bit different with an active administration. For an active administration, the course changes with changing events.

Links?I asked for those on the last page and he has yet to provide them.Because it's not the kind of thing CNN would want to smear across America. If you watch the news and keep track of what Kerry says, you would see this.Aaaaaaaah! The stupidity! It burns us! It burns us!

For your information, I not only watch the news; I read the news, I follow the news from numerous and varied sources, a significant portion of every day of my freaking life is taken up with an indepth examination of the news. And let me let you in on a little secret--CNN ain't the news. It's a very small part of the media as a whole, and reaches a smaller US audience than most people realize.

But even if, as you suggest, CNN has a vested interest in keeping it off the air, certainly some media group that favors another candidate for the presidency would be willing to report on it (Fox News, I'm looking at you here). In short, if Kerry actually did flip on this issue, you should be able to, without much difficulty, be able to find multiple sources that discuss it.

Aaaaaaaah! The stupidity! It burns us! It burns us!

For your information, I not only watch the news; I read the news, I follow the news from numerous and varied sources, a significant portion of every day of my freaking life is taken up with an indepth examination of the news. And let me let you in on a little secret--CNN ain't the news. It's a very small part of the media as a whole, and reaches a smaller US audience than most people realize.

But even if, as you suggest, CNN has a vested interest in keeping it off the air, certainly some media group that favors another candidate for the presidency would be willing to report on it (Fox News, I'm looking at you here). In short, if Kerry actually did flip on this issue, you should be able to, without much difficulty, be able to find multiple sources that discuss it.Reynes reminds me of George W Bush. He makes wild accusations about John Kerry and then can't back them up with any evidence

Aaaaaaaah! The stupidity! It burns us! It burns us!

For your information, I not only watch the news; I read the news, I follow the news from numerous and varied sources, a significant portion of every day of my freaking life is taken up with an indepth examination of the news. And let me let you in on a little secret--CNN ain't the news. It's a very small part of the media as a whole, and reaches a smaller US audience than most people realize.

But even if, as you suggest, CNN has a vested interest in keeping it off the air, certainly some media group that favors another candidate for the presidency would be willing to report on it (Fox News, I'm looking at you here). In short, if Kerry actually did flip on this issue, you should be able to, without much difficulty, be able to find multiple sources that discuss it.Reynes reminds me of George W Bush. He makes wild accusations about John Kerry and then can't back them up with any evidenceReminds me more of the typical right-wing commentators--the Jonah Goldbergs or the Ann Coulters or the Bill O'Reillys. You know--the accuracy-challenged.

You mean like this guy?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

You mean like this guy?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/yes, but Michael Moore and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf aren't the president of the United States so I don't really care about their outrageous lies

they both suck ass, but Kerry is still better than Bush.

i agree with him...they both suck but what other choice do we have? we have to pick the lesser of two evils

:lol: Was that a trick question or did I just double thunk?

:wink: If prostituion is the second oldest profession whats the first?