NationStates Jolt Archive

"He's a war hero, a war hero, and a war hero, but what he is not matters most of all... he's not George W. Bush."

I have watched much of the DNC (even recorded night one off of C-SPAN), and I have noticed something: most of the people on there are just parroting each other. They indirectly flame Bush, then talk about Kerry in Vietnam. Pfft! Get on with it!

I am yet to see what Kerry's credentials are to become the 44th president of the United States. But I think that the Daily Show came close. "He's a war hero, a war hero, and a war hero, but what he is not matters most of all. John Kerry: He's Not George W. Bush."

Voting for Kerry just to unseat Bush seems to be the plan for the democrats. You've heard me say it before, now you'll hear it again. You don't put someone in leadership just to get someone else out. That's what happened with Nixon and Hitler. Almost every speaker at the DNC boasts how Kerry will solve every problem in America by throwing money at it, while somehow reducing the deficit and not bogging down economic growth with new taxes. If Kerry counts on the end of pork-barrel spending to bolster his budget, he's an idiot. He's worked in Washington for 20 years. He should know better than anyone that you can't do that.

I say that the democrats should be careful what they believe, and that republicans planning to vote Kerry should seriously reconsider. The man was deemed the "most liberal person" in the senate (his veep came in fourth out of 100), and now he's trying to act like a centrist, riding the fence on every issue.

My take? He's saying and doing everything possible to get your vote, and if (God forbid) he gets in the oval office, he'll shuck off the promises and do whatever the hell he wants.

Here comes the whirlwind...

They are saying that he self inflicted his last purple heart wound. I can believe that.

Check out http://www.jibjab.com/ and click the "Click to play" picture of Bush and Kerry.

They are saying that he self inflicted his last purple heart wound. I can believe that.

I wouldn't believe it. If it was true we would of heard about it a lot and we haven't.

"I say that the democrats should be careful what they believe, and that republicans planning to vote Kerry should seriously reconsider. The man was deemed the "most liberal person" in the senate (his veep came in third out of 100), and now he's trying to act like a centrist, riding the fence on every issue."

Heh, well, you mis-read your Republican Talking Points E-mail, I think. Sen. Edwards is the fourth most liberal in the senate, according to the National Journal's fancy-shmancy calculations. But honestly, do you even know how that was calculated? You're not wrong, at all, but I think you should actually know about what you say, instead of reciting Right-Wing lines.

Speaking of the Daily Show, remember when Mr. Stewart explained how talking-points worked? He used that "most liberal and fourth-most liberal" quote to show how repeating a sentence on many different shows by many different people actual gets people to assume it's true. That was one of my favorite segments; it was on a few weeks ago.

But anywhoo, here's a spiffy article explaining how the NJ figured the stats out, and how, in fact, Sen. Edwards and Kerry really have a bit of a range on voting, and that their campaigning made them miss votes that would make them "un-liberal"-ish:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong, just sayin' there's a little more to it.

its good stratigery

every time he goes out on his own and proposes something his ratings drop

at least he knows who his target audience is

I don't think Bush has that much to worry bout...his running mate couldn't even carry one state, and he didn't even carry his own in the primaries, and hell....Edwards is more personable then Kerry...that's the scary thing. But reynes is right....I get it....Kerry has a fistful of medals from his time in Vietnam...oooo....a whole 4 months in-country.....a fistful of medals he felt perfectly capable of destroying when he said we were all baby-killers, but now he wants to portray himself as a warrior?...hypocrite.

"I say that the democrats should be careful what they believe, and that republicans planning to vote Kerry should seriously reconsider. The man was deemed the "most liberal person" in the senate (his veep came in third out of 100), and now he's trying to act like a centrist, riding the fence on every issue."

Heh, well, you mis-read your Republican Talking Points E-mail, I think. Sen. Edwards is the fourth most liberal in the senate, according to the National Journal's fancy-shmancy calculations. But honestly, do you even know how that was calculated? You're not wrong, at all, but I think you should actually know about what you say, instead of reciting Right-Wing lines.

Speaking of the Daily Show, remember when Mr. Stewart explained how talking-points worked? He used that "most liberal and fourth-most liberal" quote to show how repeating a sentence on many different shows by many different people actual gets people to assume it's true. That was one of my favorite segments; it was on a few weeks ago.

But anywhoo, here's a spiffy article explaining how the NJ figured the stats out, and how, in fact, Sen. Edwards and Kerry really have a bit of a range on voting, and that their campaigning made them miss votes that would make them "un-liberal"-ish:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong, just sayin' there's a little more to it.The stat has been corrected. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

How long was Kerry in Vietnam anyway? I keep hearing that he did two tours...but the records show he was only there for about 4 months.

Does it really matter what some one is labelled? Liberal, conservative what does it matter? What matters is who will do the best job.. and that man is not Bush. So, do the math.

oh yeah im gonna worry that kerrys LAST purple heart was self inflicted.

if a presidents military experience matters to you then how could you vote for george bush? dont kid yourself, that national guard thing was to get out of vietnam, after all, he wasnt going to oxford on a rhodes scholarship like clinton was. he was a party boy looking to make sure he didnt get a trip to the tropics courtesy of uncle sam.

and yes reynes you DO vote for the lesser of 2 evils. its just they way it is. all people with a real shot at winning the presidency have faults. no one is going to perfectly reflect your ideals. you go with the guy with the best chance who is good enough and who ISNT the man you hate.

thats john kerry, he has more than enough experience for the job. (after all of the last 4 presidents, only bush 1 had significant experience in the federal government). he is a good democrat. and he is NOT GEORGE BUSH

thats good enough for me.

What I hate about Kerry: He says he is pro-choice, then goes ahead and takes mass at a Catholic Church. His is a bleeding-heart liberal bent to erase guns from American society, yet he reminds us on his website that he is an avid hunter and sportsman. He rides around with veterans and reminds us of 3 purple hearts and that he is a 'Nam vet (making it seem like he will be tough on national defence), yet he plays to the anti-war people saying he hates wars, protested Vietnam, opposed the Iraq war, and will keep American out of war. He voted for the Iraq war, but voted against a bill to properly equip our soldiers with body armor and other gear once they got to Iraq. The man drives me insane. I think Bush will win, partly because of Kerry's flip-flops, partly because the American people do not want a Michael Dukakis type to be in office trying to handle a war, and partly because Teresa Heinz Kerry is a loose cannon, and she will explode and say something that will hurt Kerry's chances on the campaign trail.


Oh, and if you have heard Kerry yapping about how he will punish "Benedict Arnold" CEO's (ones who move their factories and operations overseas to cut costs), ponder this for a while: John Kerry got all his money from his wife, who has the wealth of the Heinz company. Heinz has 57 overseas production plants.

oh yeah im gonna worry that kerrys LAST purple heart was self inflicted.

if a presidents military experience matters to you then how could you vote for george bush? dont kid yourself, that national guard thing was to get out of vietnam, after all, he wasnt going to oxford on a rhodes scholarship like clinton was. he was a party boy looking to make sure he didnt get a trip to the tropics courtesy of uncle sam.

and yes reynes you DO vote for the lesser of 2 evils. its just they way it is. all people with a real shot at winning the presidency have faults. no one is going to perfectly reflect your ideals. you go with the guy with the best chance who is good enough and who ISNT the man you hate.

thats john kerry, he has more than enough experience for the job. (after all of the last 4 presidents, only bush 1 had significant experience in the federal government). he is a good democrat. and he is NOT GEORGE BUSH

thats good enough for me.even if his economic plan suggests he will stagnate growth and inflate the deficit, and he is too timid to defend this country, and votes to send in our troops but not supply them?

I'm sorry..as a veteran...I can not have any respect for a man who would so vilify his brother-in-arms as murderous thugs committing atrocities left and right (oh and btw..he said he committed atrocities?...Where..I see no record of him ever being involved in one...nor was he court-martialed if he in fact had been invovled with one)..then have the audacity to toss medals earned in combat on the dirty ground..and yet..this man would have our troops call him Commander in Chief?

did you watch the daily show last night?
i dont remember when i last laughed so hard outloud.
in response to every speaker talking about how humble their beginnings were, senior political analist steven colbert told jon that his father had been a turd miner. when jon said "and they wanted you to do better?" colbert answered "no they thought it was a pretty good job, my grandfather was a goat-ball licker"

ohmygod how can they say that on tv even if it IS cable??

As a veteran myself, I could never vote for a man who did that. It is dishonorable to say the least. Kerry would be a disaster for the military just like Clinton was. Gore would have finished the military off for good had be been elected.

did you watch the daily show last night?
i dont remember when i last laughed so hard outloud.
in response to every speaker talking about how humble their beginnings were, senior political analist steven colbert told jon that his father had been a turd miner. when jon said "and they wanted you to do better?" colbert answered "no they thought it was a pretty good job, my grandfather was a goat-ball licker"

ohmygod how can they say that on tv even if it IS cable??
I saw that this morning. Hilarious. A goat ball licker, and a turd miner.

did you watch the daily show last night?
i dont remember when i last laughed so hard outloud.
in response to every speaker talking about how humble their beginnings were, senior political analist steven colbert told jon that his father had been a turd miner. when jon said "and they wanted you to do better?" colbert answered "no they thought it was a pretty good job, my grandfather was a goat-ball licker"

ohmygod how can they say that on tv even if it IS cable??"The sheild won't hold much longer!"
THe only other time I saw Stewart laugh so hard was in 2000.
"And living in a hobo's asscrack..."

Ah...

Okay, let's stick to the subject.

Bush isn't the best person, no. He wants to extend the neocons' plans of world domination through force, he's anti-choice, and wants to shove a particular set of religious beliefs on everyone. Then again, Kerry is no better. Kerry just wants to take all my money, give it away to bloated government programs, turn the country into a nanny state, and let the world tell me what I can and cannot do.

The two primary options for the next US president rather suck.

Voting the lesser of two evils is acting out of fear. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. If more people in the US actually voted the person that actually stood for what the individual constituent wanted, we might actually get somewhere, but alas, we are sticking with "At least it's not X"

Vote for who you actually want to represent you--don't waste your vote on a less than adequate second.

I'm sorry..as a veteran...I can not have any respect for a man who would so vilify his brother-in-arms as murderous thugs committing atrocities left and right (oh and btw..he said he committed atrocities?...Where..I see no record of him ever being involved in one...nor was he court-martialed if he in fact had been invovled with one)..then have the audacity to toss medals earned in combat on the dirty ground..and yet..this man would have our troops call him Commander in Chief?
well *i'm* sorry but there were atrocities committed in vietnam and they had to be talked about. i dont know what he said or did but you know as well as i do that atrocities happened.
i have respect for a man who will both volunteer to defend his country and call his country wrong for the war they were fighting in vietnam.

They are saying that he self inflicted his last purple heart wound. I can believe that.
I do not support Kerry, but I do not think any of his wounds were self inflicted. I do not think he had any motive for doing so, except maybe that he wanted to go home so he hurt himself. But I dont think he hurt himself, although Im sure he wanted to go home.

My take? He's saying and doing everything possible to get your vote, and if (God forbid) he gets in the oval office, he'll shuck off the promises and do whatever the hell he wants.


Sounds like every politician who ever wins. Sounds, in fact, a lot like Bush. Funny, huh? And, of course, if Bush gets a second term, he doesn't really have to answer to anybody - not like he could get reelected anyways.

Man thats a freaking great video from jib-jab; im VERY liberal, but I enjoy films/comedy that does it fair and balanced and makes fun of both sides, good find!

well *i'm* sorry but there were atrocities committed in vietnam and they had to be talked about. i dont know what he said or did but you know as well as i do that atrocities happened.
i have respect for a man who will both volunteer to defend his country and call his country wrong for the war they were fighting in vietnam.

You do not know what he said? But you support him. He said he was witness to and participated in various war crimes. He named 150 fellow soldiers that he said were witnesses. The Pentagon tried to find these men and get their story, but they did not exist. Kerry testified and gave this info under oath before congress. He lied.... Of course IF he was telling the truth then he is an admitted war criminal...is THAT the kind of man you want for President? :rolleyes:

well *i'm* sorry but there were atrocities committed in vietnam and they had to be talked about. i dont know what he said or did but you know as well as i do that atrocities happened.
i have respect for a man who will both volunteer to defend his country and call his country wrong for the war they were fighting in vietnam.

Bullshit..he painted such a friggin wide swath against everyone of us, oh hell, don't get me started on that episode...granted, there were atrocities, but not every hamlet was a My Lai, not every soldier/sailor/Marine/airman there to rape, pillage and cause harm to innocent Vietnamese..he was there for 4 friggin months...half of that time was orientation and nobody did anything their last 30 days in-country..so that makes his tour even shorter. and those medals..hell..he damn near wrote the citations....

What I hate about Kerry: He says he is pro-choice, then goes ahead and takes mass at a Catholic Church.

Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, so there's really nothing wrong here.

His is a bleeding-heart liberal bent to erase guns from American society, yet he reminds us on his website that he is an avid hunter and sportsman.

Yes, because regulation=erasure. Oh, wait.

He rides around with veterans and reminds us of 3 purple hearts and that he is a 'Nam vet (making it seem like he will be tough on national defence), yet he plays to the anti-war people saying he hates wars, protested Vietnam, opposed the Iraq war, and will keep American out of war.

I wouldn't want to vote for anyone who didn't hate wars. But hating wars doesn't mean you won't fight them when they are necessary. I hate wars, but if we were attacked tomorrow and I was called to serve in some way, I would.

He voted for the Iraq war, but voted against a bill to properly equip our soldiers with body armor and other gear once they got to Iraq.

I love the way people tout this one. Do you have even the slightest little clue how things work in Congress? This is what happened. Kerry voted for an ammendment to said bill that would actually provide a place for the money to come from. ((you know, I can't pull money out of my ass when I want to spend it on something - I have to make it somewhere. I don't see why my government shouldn't be the same.)) Because the ammendment did not pass, Kerry voted against that particular bill, in hopes that *that particular bill* would fail and then they could get one through that wasn't just a bunch of pork-barrel spending with no way to actually fund it.

The man drives me insane. I think Bush will win, partly because of Kerry's flip-flops,

Yes, because Bush has never, ever flip-flopped. LOL

I have a question....just WHAT does Kerry stand for? So far all he has said was the first thing he would do is create free healthcare for everyone. Imagine that, by doing so he would cause everyone who works in the health insurance industry to become instantly unemployed. I am sure that will be very popular. Afterall, if you now have free healthcare, why would you need health insurance?

Nothing from the man about the terrorist threat that I have heard, except that he will ask the UN before doing anything. ASK the UN? Now THAT alone should keep Bush in office....

even if his economic plan suggests he will stagnate growth and inflate the deficit, and he is too timid to defend this country, and votes to send in our troops but not supply them?
YES
as opposed to the man who got us into a war we dont belong in, who gave rich people an enormous tax cut, who is running the biggest deficit in history, who is spending money in buckets on republican programs (just like they accuse democrats of)
YES
in the past 20 years the best economy we've had has been under a democrat. the only balanced budget we've had has been under a democrat. geeez what do we need republicans for if they arent even gonna be fiscal conservatives?

Nothing from the man about the terrorist threat that I have heard, except that he will ask the UN before doing anything. ASK the UN? Now THAT alone should keep Bush in office....

Did he really say this? Do you have a quote, perhaps? 'Cuz I would agree Kerry's screwed if he did say that.

Did he really say this? Do you have a quote, perhaps? 'Cuz I would agree Kerry's screwed if he did say that.

Yes, he did say that he would take no action in another country without asking the UN first...so if Osama Bin laden showed up in Syria and we could get him, Kerry would ask the UN first. What if they said no...which is highly likely.

Bullshit..he painted such a friggin wide swath against everyone of us, oh hell, don't get me started on that episode...granted, there were atrocities, but not every hamlet was a My Lai, not every soldier/sailor/Marine/airman there to rape, pillage and cause harm to innocent Vietnamese..he was there for 4 friggin months...half of that time was orientation and nobody did anything their last 30 days in-country..so that makes his tour even shorter. and those medals..hell..he damn near wrote the citations....

Sorry but, again, do you have some sort of reference to Sen. Kerry actively trying to get the medals awarded to him, or any other evidence that his credentials are less than deserving?

Not saying you're wrong; I'm just skeptical until I actually see proof.

YES
as opposed to the man who got us into a war we dont belong in, who gave rich people an enormous tax cut, who is running the biggest deficit in history, who is spending money in buckets on republican programs (just like they accuse democrats of)
YES
in the past 20 years the best economy we've had has been under a democrat. the only balanced budget we've had has been under a democrat. geeez what do we need republicans for if they arent even gonna be fiscal conservatives?Oh, yeah, Reynes... that how Clinton actually inherited a good economy and it started going back down before he left office? Just ignore that.

How is Kerry going to do better? He says he will reduce the deficit, create jobs, etc. but those are effects. He has a laundry list of effects he says he will produce, but he has no causes to back them up. Example: continue economic growth and raise taxes on the rich. He plans to do these, but raising taxes takes money out of the economy, actually slowing growth. What's he plan to do about that?

The guy is pulling your chain. He'll say anything to get what he wants, which is power.

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

It's not too fair to blame the bad economy on Bush exactly. Sure, I'm scared to death of the guy and I really don't want to see him re-elected myself, but a lot of the economy's problems started with 9/11.

"He's a war hero, a war hero, and a war hero, but what he is not matters most of all... he's not George W. Bush."

Thank God. One George Bush is more than enough.

A war hero, who had to at least face his enemy, is certainly far better than a wannabe who likes photo ops by landing on a aircraft carrier to announce "mission accomplished". He even got that part wrong.

Did he really say this? Do you have a quote, perhaps? 'Cuz I would agree Kerry's screwed if he did say that.

Kerry lacks strong Iraq plan
By James Burnham

While the situation in Iraq is becoming more difficult, the American people understand what is necessary to prevail; a serious and tough-minded approach that will not crumble in the face of hostile militias and terror. There is little patience in our democracy for waffling or nuance in a time of war. Presidents or candidates who seem irresolute or inconsistent have been routinely demolished in past elections a la Carter, McGovern or Dukakis. Conversely, presidents who show strength and resolve have routinely won, despite costly foreign engagements a la Roosevelt or Nixon.

Thus we see why Kerry seems incapable of capitalizing on growing difficulties in Iraq. The public has seen his policy and realized it is nothing more than a complex, contradictory mess of Senate-speak. Ultimately, it devolves into little more than groveling before Kofi Annan and attempting to charm Chirac with the perfectly accented French he learned in prep school. Kerry promises to speak with the phantom foreign leaders who are secretly pulling for his victory and "internationalize" the coalition in Iraq, bringing the might of the United Nations (which really means the security council) to bear against our present foes. However, he fails to elaborate on what unprecedented measure of charm or tact he possesses that will bring the quasi-hostile China or the entirely preoccupied Russia around from their previous opposition to supplication and eagerness to assist. Seemingly, all it will take is a few minutes with the worldly, wise and sophisticated (read: European) Mr. Kerry before champagne shall pour from the heavens, and foreign heads of state will ignore their own international priorities to take responsibility for Iraq - a nation that, for many, is no longer within their sphere of priorities as it was and is within America's.

This answer, while appealing to those who simply wish the war never happened, is an entirely unserious response to an immensely serious problem. In its effort to navigate the treacherous political waters of opposing Bush while supporting the war, but still opposing it enough to marginalize Nader's cries for immediate withdrawal, Kerry's Iraq policy has become reams upon reams of monologue that can be summated in one sentence: "Ask the U.N. (again) for help." The public realizes the inadequacy and utter silliness of such a policy and will indicate, through polling now and voting in November, its desire for an approach not contingent on the shifting moods of French presidents.

Kerry finds himself politically entangled in the web of a voting record - having opposed the first Gulf War, supported this Gulf War and then (for fear of Dean) opposed funding for this war - he is left to vaguely discuss abstracts such as internationalization and reconciliation. Thus, as the situation in Iraq becomes more serious, the American public will continue to reject a solution that is entirely unserious, and President Bush's numbers will become increasingly secure.

Burnham is a government sophomore at UT.

Two questions: First, what do you make of a man who hides behind his father's political power to avoid having to fight in a war? Is that better or worse than someone who goes to fight then says he dislikes war? Seems to me that this country gets into wars because the people making the decisions know they can protect their children and don't give a damn about everyone else's kids being put into harm's way.

Second, even if Kerry and Edwards ARE among the most liberal politicians in Washington (and I'm not granting that they are based on Republican propaganda) what exactly is so horrible about being liberal? When did that become a bad thing? Conservative means you want things to stay the way they are right now. Liberal means you're open to trying new ideas. Is America so perfect that we should stop trying to better ourselves? The terms Liberal and Conservative are pretty terrible ways to describe any politician, as they've become all but meaningless. Republicans started using "liberal" as an insult, and suddenly everyone decided that if they're using it as an insult, it has to be a bad thing. So again, what's so bad about being a liberal?

Kerry lacks strong Iraq plan
By James Burnham

While the situation...

<snip>

Burnham is a government sophomore at UT.


While a good essay, I suppose, it doesn't really prove that Kerry wants to go through the U.N. for everything, just for Iraq, which is what most of the Dems are saying. They can't do a direct 180 about supporting the war. It's more of 90 degree turn; it's a Yes-we-supported-the-war-but-Bush-did-it-the-wrong-way thing, which is confusing the public and presenting Kerry as unsure.

Does that mean I get no quote from Kerry?

Voting for Kerry just to unseat Bush seems to be the plan for the democrats.
Sounds like a good plan, that makes a lot of sense.


You've heard me say it before, now you'll hear it again. You don't put someone in leadership just to get someone else out. That's what happened with Nixon and Hitler.
You are not trying to suggest that Kerry is like Hitler or Nixon are you?


Almost every speaker at the DNC boasts how Kerry will solve every problem in America by throwing money at it, while somehow reducing the deficit and not bogging down economic growth with new taxes. If Kerry counts on the end of pork-barrel spending to bolster his budget, he's an idiot. He's worked in Washington for 20 years. He should know better than anyone that you can't do that.
George W. has increased the US Debt by over $1.5 Trillion, I would imagine that Kerry has a good shot at reducing that absurd spending spree.

I say that the democrats should be careful what they believe, and that republicans planning to vote Kerry should seriously reconsider.
Since Republicans are turning towards Kerry, what does that say about your beloved Bush?

The man was deemed the "most liberal person" in the senate (his veep came in fourth out of 100), and now he's trying to act like a centrist, riding the fence on every issue.
And liberals are bad people?

My take? He's saying and doing everything possible to get your vote,
It is natural to do everything possible to succeed? Bush did the same thing and how many flip flops has he done as President?

and if (God forbid) he gets in the oval office, he'll shuck off the promises and do whatever the hell he wants.
You mean like George W. did?

I think Kerry will make a great President and put the US back into a favourable light around the globe.

Does that mean I get no quote from Kerry?

I'm still looking, I am not good at internet searches. Plus kerry is hard to nail down on anything definitive. ;)

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/kerryquotes.htm

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Harvard Crimson 10 months after returning home from Vietnam. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

"I commanded a naval gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta. Then when I came home after two tours of duty, I decided that the same sense of service demanded something more of me." - John Kerry, A Call to Service, page 3

TWO tours? He was there for 4 months!! NOT 2 years. He lied....again.

"For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans." (Senate floor statement by John Kerry, 3/18/86)

"(John Kerry) has never indicated to anyone that he was Irish and corrected people over the years who assumed he was." - Kerry spokeswoman Kelly Benander said in Feb, 2003

IS he Irish or not? LOL

How soon they forget...LOL

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." - John Kerry, 10/9/02

"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." - John Kerry 12/15/03

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. John F. Kerry

Sounds like a good plan, that makes a lot of sense.


You are not trying to suggest that Kerry is like Hitler or Nixon are you?


George W. has increased the US Debt by over $1.5 Trillion, I would imagine that Kerry has a good shot at reducing that absurd spending spree.

Since Republicans are turning towards Kerry, what does that say about your beloved Bush?

And liberals are bad people?

It is natural to do everything possible to succeed? Bush did the same thing and how many flip flops has he done as President?

You mean like George W. did?

I think Kerry will make a great President and put the US back into a favourable light around the globe.

And there is a reason why we need to have the US back into a favorable light?..Give me one good god damn reason we should have kowtow like some chinese coolie to the almighty UN, because that is what Kerry will have us doing. Fine you want to surrender your nation's sovereignity..then fine...you just put that UN flag above the Canadian one, for me...it'll stay below mine just fine..unless the rest of the world plans on boycotting us.which they won't..then I say we don't need to be seen in a favorable light...

Oh..and before you say anything..no.I'm not twisting your words or putting words into your mouth, but I'm giving you a synopsis on what it says to me.

And there is a reason why we need to have the US back into a favorable light?

Because you can't ultimately succeed in the world on your own. That's just a fact. The world is a very different place then it was back when the USA were isolationists. Sure, you could probably survive on some level, however you would lose super power status based solely on the fact that you would lose economic power.

His handlers issued a statement claiming, "There is no group more important to John Kerry's presidential campaign than veterans, and there is no issue more important to veterans than their access to health care."

In reality, the liberal Boston Globe revealed today that Kerry has missed at least three votes on veterans' issues so far this year.

And the Globe disclosed that Kerry's absenteeism rate this year is not the previously reported 87 percent. It's 89 percent. Yet Kerry insisted again Tuesday that he would not resign from the job that he has repeatedly refused to do.

As a veteran....Kerry is a jackass and should not get a single veterans vote.

Because you can't ultimately succeed in the world on your own. That's just a fact. The world is a very different place then it was back when the USA were isolationists. Sure, you could probably survive on some level, however you would lose super power status based solely on the fact that you would lose economic power.

Ya know...we Americans are getting very tired of being held to a different standard. Economics are what they are, military power is something else entirely. That we unilaterally do something should be of no concern to any other country that is not involved. Canada chose not to be involved. Fine, but then passing judgement and working against the US is just not right.

And there is a reason why we need to have the US back into a favorable light?..Give me one good god damn reason we should have kowtow like some chinese coolie to the almighty UN, because that is what Kerry will have us doing. Fine you want to surrender your nation's sovereignity..then fine...you just put that UN flag above the Canadian one, for me...it'll stay below mine just fine..unless the rest of the world plans on boycotting us.which they won't..then I say we don't need to be seen in a favorable light...

Oh..and before you say anything..no.I'm not twisting your words or putting words into your mouth, but I'm giving you a synopsis on what it says to me.

Well, I don't think there is any reason to 'kowtow' to the U.N., but wouldn't you prefer to have the United States looked at favorably? I think it's important... I mean, how many other governments do we want to turn on us?

You obviously know how hard the French president fights to impede America on basically every issue... we know how hard it is to do business with them... do we really want more governments like the French one? Do we want even more countries to make deals against us but between them?

I think we should work to make countries like us... it will make diplomacy and all that a lot easier. Whether Kerry has the guts do fix it, I don't know.

-----
Biff, I'm still waiting for my Kerry quote; I'm not a veteran!

Ya know...we Americans are getting very tired of being held to a different standard. Economics are what they are, military power is something else entirely. That we unilaterally do something should be of no concern to any other country that is not involved. Canada chose not to be involved. Fine, but then passing judgement and working against the US is just not right.

What you do in your own borders is your business.. Once you step outside of your borders it becomes every one's business. That's just the way it is. We don't live in Roman times any more.

TWO tours? He was there for 4 months!! NOT 2 years. He lied....again.


Technically, that was not a lie. But a cleverly crafted statement to be sure.

His trip to Vietnam was something he volunteered for as his second tour of duty, the first being a non-combat role served elsewhere (I forget where).

So he DID command a boat in the Mekong, and he did return home after his second tour.

So, it was a missleading statement that he should get rapped for - just as GW constantly bringing up 9-11 at the same time as he was discussing Iraq was done to give the impression that they were linked although he knew damn well that they weren't.


What a suprise - Polititians knowing how to speak technical truths while giving misleading impressions.....

Kerry rails against "the influence-peddlers and the special interests. We're coming, you're going!" However, an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington found that John Kerry, the French-speaking senator from Massachusetts, accepted the most campaign money from lobbyists over the past 15 years of anyone in the Senate - about $638,000.

This is a good one for those who think kerry does not support the Patriot Act...he helped write it. LOL

“So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.” But in 2001, Kerry in fact voted for the Patriot Act – parts of which he himself originally wrote. He said at the time that he was “pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation as a whole.” “It reflects,” he said on the Senate floor, “an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work.”

Ya know...we Americans are getting very tired of being held to a different standard. Economics are what they are, military power is something else entirely. That we unilaterally do something should be of no concern to any other country that is not involved. Canada chose not to be involved. Fine, but then passing judgement and working against the US is just not right.
when the united states invades a country that has done nothing to it, its the worlds business.
when the united states invades a country THEN asks for help managing the mess it made by asking for troops and money, the world has a right to pass judgement.
we need the support and respect of the rest of the world. we are not all powerful. we need friends.

What you do in your own borders is your business.. Once you step outside of your borders it becomes every one's business. That's just the way it is. We don't live in Roman times any more.

Canada invades Fiji. Is it the US's business? No. THATS the problem with the world, too many people want to get into others business. Just as NON-US citizens think their opinion about WHO we vote for as OUR president is somehow their business. :rolleyes:

His handlers issued a statement claiming, "There is no group more important to John Kerry's presidential campaign than veterans, and there is no issue more important to veterans than their access to health care."

In reality, the liberal Boston Globe revealed today that Kerry has missed at least three votes on veterans' issues so far this year.

And the Globe disclosed that Kerry's absenteeism rate this year is not the previously reported 87 percent. It's 89 percent. Yet Kerry insisted again Tuesday that he would not resign from the job that he has repeatedly refused to do.

As a veteran....Kerry is a jackass and should not get a single veterans vote.
ya know
the republicans have the white house AND congress
and yet our gulf war veterans are still waiting for acknowlegement of gulf war syndrome and the medical benefits they should be receiving for it.

so much for being pro veteran

Canada invades Fiji. Is it the US's business? No. THATS the problem with the world, too many people want to get into others business. Just as NON-US citizens think their opinion about WHO we vote for as OUR president is somehow their business. :rolleyes:

Well, in the case of Canada it is most certainly our business.. because it directly affects us. The US and Canada are the world's largest trading partners, we have rather liberal trade agreements, what the US does is Canada's business and visa-versa..

when the united states invades a country that has done nothing to it, its the worlds business.
when the united states invades a country THEN asks for help managing the mess it made by asking for troops and money, the world has a right to pass judgement.
we need the support and respect of the rest of the world. we are not all powerful. we need friends.

Another bullshit statement...when the Serbs were killing Bosnians muslims wholesale..the world stood by and did nothing...until NATO, led by the US stepped in....when Rwanda was another Cambodian killing ground..the world did nothing..when Saddam was murdering thousands of his people, the world did nothing...please dont tell me what is and isn't the world's business.

Canada invades Fiji. Is it the US's business? No. THATS the problem with the world, too many people want to get into others business. Just as NON-US citizens think their opinion about WHO we vote for as OUR president is somehow their business. :rolleyes:
the canadians invaded fiji??
what? they want their sunshine and warm breezes??

you really think that who is president of the US doesnt affect other countries?
ask saddam hussein

when the united states invades a country that has done nothing to it, its the worlds business.
when the united states invades a country THEN asks for help managing the mess it made by asking for troops and money, the world has a right to pass judgement.
we need the support and respect of the rest of the world. we are not all powerful. we need friends.

1. Iraq attacked US interests in the Middle East. (Kuwait)

2. The UN authorized use of force to enforce the resolutions by ANY member. The US chose to take them up on it.

3. We need friends, but it is times like these when you learn who your friends really are. Respect? No, we have never had the respect of other countries. We have had fair weather friends and that is now very much apparent. You might not see that, but it is there. We are ALWAYS there for others, maybe it is time to change that and we become less enthusiastic in helping others.

ya know
the republicans have the white house AND congress
and yet our gulf war veterans are still waiting for acknowlegement of gulf war syndrome and the medical benefits they should be receiving for it.

so much for being pro veteran

And another bullshit statement...it is not the White House nor Congress that acknowledges anything...in fact, the Veteran's Adminstration has long ago classified it...but the point is in Disability payments..that is the same problem we had over 30 yrs ago with Agent Orange, it wasn't so much a problem identifying the cause as labeling blame and according benefits....the Vietnam vets waited over 25 yrs...the Gulf War vets little over 10...

the canadians invaded fiji??
what? they want their sunshine and warm breezes??

you really think that who is president of the US doesnt affect other countries?
ask saddam hussein

IF Canada was to invade Fiji, would it be any business of the US? ONLY if we had some interests there...otherwise no. Did we react to Rwanda? No. Should we have? Why?

As a Canadian do you think it is any of my business who Canadians elect as their president? Don't go on about influence...it is a simple question.

Another bullshit statement...when the Serbs were killing Bosnians muslims wholesale..the world stood by and did nothing...until NATO, led by the US stepped in....when Rwanda was another Cambodian killing ground..the world did nothing..when Saddam was murdering thousands of his people, the world did nothing...please dont tell me what is and isn't the world's business.
the the world doesnt take care of its business doesnt make it any less their business.
it was shameful of europe to not step into the balkans. many many people died needlessly
it WAS their business, they just didnt take care of it.

the canadians invaded fiji??
what? they want their sunshine and warm breezes??

you really think that who is president of the US doesnt affect other countries?
ask saddam hussein

Haha, no, Canada has never invaded any one..lol

Well, in the case of Canada it is most certainly our business.. because it directly affects us. The US and Canada are the world's largest trading partners, we have rather liberal trade agreements, what the US does is Canada's business and visa-versa..

Therefore by that reasoning, I should have some interest in who is elected in Canada. Yet that person has no influence over my life. He cannot cut my taxes, he cannot do ANYTHING for me. So why should I care? The same is true of the US president to Canadians. Trade is one thing that will always continue...but who we elect is only the business of those who can vote in that election.

the the world doesnt take care of its business doesnt make it any less their business.
it was shameful of europe to not step into the balkans. many many people died needlessly
it WAS their business, they just didnt take care of it.

Ok, so the Europeans will not take care of things in their back yard. So why should we? Really? Why SHOULD we? If we don't we are chastized...by the same countries that would not anyway.

IF Canada was to invade Fiji, would it be any business of the US? ONLY if we had some interests there...otherwise no. Did we react to Rwanda? No. Should we have? Why?

As a Canadian do you think it is any of my business who Canadians elect as their president? Don't go on about influence...it is a simple question.
of COURSE it would be our business if our closest neighbor and ally went crazy and invaded an island in the south pacific. everything they do is our business. not to RUN but to be concerned with. if they picked a fight with denmark over the control of greenland for example, we would be right there.

yes we shoudl have done soemthing abuot rwanda. too bad it takes too much time to react to that kind of thing. look how many years of genocide it took before we got into bosnia.

of COURSE it would be our business if our closest neighbor and ally went crazy and invaded an island in the south pacific. everything they do is our business. not to RUN but to be concerned with. if they picked a fight with denmark over the control of greenland for example, we would be right there.

yes we shoudl have done soemthing abuot rwanda. too bad it takes too much time to react to that kind of thing. look how many years of genocide it took before we got into bosnia.

Thats funny...we did NOTHING in the Falklands war. Should we have? Did Bosnia threaten the US?

My point is that the US has become some defacto policeman to the world and other countries have USED us to clean up things they refuse to do. Of course the US taxpayer has to foot the bill and THEN they have the audacity to try and tell us who we should elect as our president.

Another bullshit statement...when the Serbs were killing Bosnians muslims wholesale..the world stood by and did nothing...until NATO, led by the US stepped in....


Given.

when Rwanda was another Cambodian killing ground..the world did nothing..

You mean - when the UN mission in Rwanda (led by a Canadian) were screaming for help, the members of the security council sat on their hands. The US government at the time specifically told their embassador NOt to use the word "genocide" as it would trigger a forced automatic response under international agreements.

when Saddam was murdering thousands of his people, the world did nothing...

And the US blocked every damn attempt to curtail it in the UN.

please dont tell me what is and isn't the world's business.

Historically, it is only "the world's business" when it dovetails with US interests. Up until then you seem more than happy to use your might to block the world's attempts to help the same things you now denigrate them for not helping at the time.

Ok, so the Europeans will not take care of things in their back yard. So why should we? Really? Why SHOULD we? If we don't we are chastized...by the same countries that would not anyway.

because we dont like genocide? because we thought it would be easier than it was?

Historically, it is only "the world's business" when it dovetails with US interests. Up until then you seem more than happy to use your might to block the world's attempts to help the same things you now denigrate them for not helping at the time.

Just what IS the "Worlds" interest? Is it the worlds interest that two tribes go to war and kill each other in a small country in Africa? I say it is, while tragic, not the worlds interest. No more than the civil war in Sierra Leone or other despotic African nations.

I will bet my last dollar that if the US ever needs some serious help...we won't get it from our "friends."

Given.



You mean - when the UN mission in Rwanda (led by a Canadian) were screaming for help, the members of the security council sat on their hands. The US government at the time specifically told their embassador NOt to use the word "genocide" as it would trigger a forced automatic response under international agreements.



And the US blocked every damn attempt to curtail it in the UN.



Historically, it is only "the world's business" when it dovetails with US interests. Up until then you seem more than happy to use your might to block the world's attempts to help the same things you now denigrate them for not helping at the time.

Irregardless...the world did nothing....I'm saying nations could have done something...the fact that they played politician is irrevelent..why did not that Canadian implore his own government to send troops...or any of the UN's, or for that damn matter, the African Union...or was it the Organization of African States then....hell..they could have, under their own charter sent in troops..but they did nothing.

because we dont like genocide? because we thought it would be easier than it was?

But is is any of our business? It was a European problem...NOT a US problem. We go in there...stop the killing...and are called "imperialists" for doing so.

Why bother?

Thats funny...we did NOTHING in the Falklands war. Should we have? Did Bosnia threaten the US?

My point is that the US has become some defacto policeman to the world and other countries have USED us to clean up things they refuse to do. Of course the US taxpayer has to foot the bill and THEN they have the audacity to try and tell us who we should elect as our president.
oohhhh i expect we did lots in the falklands war. we just didnt intervene militarily. not that im gonna look it up to be sure but since we have a relationship with both the UK and argentina it would be odd for us to not have made a few calls here and there.

now i dont know how i got painted into this corner but i dont necessarily disagree with you that we dont need to be the worlds policeman.
this is why we need friends in the world, so THEY can take care of some of this stuff.
really, it was only our great friendship with spain, the UK and australia that got them to sign on to our invasion of iraq.

they cant TELL Us anything about who to elect president. but they can have opinions. they can have preferences. what we do affects them and they have a right to prefer one man over another.

But is is any of our business? It was a European problem...NOT a US problem. We go in there...stop the killing...and are called "imperialists" for doing so.

Why bother?
*blinks*
we finally go in and end up preventing the deaths of thousands of innocents and we shouldnt have bothered because someone called us a bad name?

*looks at the screen*

you didnt mean that

They are saying that he self inflicted his last purple heart wound. I can believe that.

me2, they were all sissy wounds too, like pieces of shrapnel stuck in his toe
:eek:

oohhhh i expect we did lots in the falklands war. we just didnt intervene militarily. not that im gonna look it up to be sure but since we have a relationship with both the UK and argentina it would be odd for us to not have made a few calls here and there.

now i dont know how i got painted into this corner but i dont necessarily disagree with you that we dont need to be the worlds policeman.
this is why we need friends in the world, so THEY can take care of some of this stuff.
really, it was only our great friendship with spain, the UK and australia that got them to sign on to our invasion of iraq.

they cant TELL Us anything about who to elect president. but they can have opinions. they can have preferences. what we do affects them and they have a right to prefer one man over another.

I know we did some diplomatic things during the Falklands war, but nothing militarily.

I hate getting painted into corners myself. My point of all this was to show that the US is always EXPECTED to do things and that is just not right. Canada has relied on the US forever for protection. To the point that they effectivly have no credible military force at home (the bulk of their forces in Germany) so they depend on us. Europe is the same way, they woefully spend too little on their own defense because they depend on the US to be the great equalizer and policeman to the world. I say it is time for us to stop that. As a veteran I deployed to 31 different countries in support of various operations and flareups. It is time for the rest of the world to take care of itself and stop looking to the US taxpayer to keep setting things right...then chastize us for whatever we do.

As for our election....it is OUR election. Others may not like our president, and enough of us may not either, but he is OUR president...noone elses.

*blinks*
we finally go in and end up preventing the deaths of thousands of innocents and we shouldnt have bothered because someone called us a bad name?

*looks at the screen*

you didnt mean that

No, I was merely pointing out the inequity of the situation...the French would do NOTHING to stop it...so we have to. Then the French call us imperialists for getting involved.

Just what IS the "Worlds" interest? Is it the worlds interest that two tribes go to war and kill each other in a small country in Africa? I say it is, while tragic, not the worlds interest. No more than the civil war in Sierra Leone or other despotic African nations.

I will bet my last dollar that if the US ever needs some serious help...we won't get it from our "friends."

if we ever seriously need help
our friends will be there.
our friends joined us in iraq even when it turned out to be stupid
our friends are with us now, reminding us that we are capable of making the wrong decisions.
a friend lets a friend know when they are wrong. we need that now as much as ever.

hmmm Kerry or Bush. I don't like Bush but i don't think Kerry either. They were both in skull and bones. I think they are probably just the same =(.

I know we did some diplomatic things during the Falklands war, but nothing militarily.

I hate getting painted into corners myself. My point of all this was to show that the US is always EXPECTED to do things and that is just not right. Canada has relied on the US forever for protection. To the point that they effectivly have no credible military force at home (the bulk of their forces in Germany) so they depend on us. Europe is the same way, they woefully spend too little on their own defense because they depend on the US to be the great equalizer and policeman to the world. I say it is time for us to stop that. As a veteran I deployed to 31 different countries in support of various operations and flareups. It is time for the rest of the world to take care of itself and stop looking to the US taxpayer to keep setting things right...then chastize us for whatever we do.

As for our election....it is OUR election. Others may not like our president, and enough of us may not either, but he is OUR president...noone elses.
now there is something we can agree on. why are we still defending europe against the invasion of the soviet union? it IS time for the rest of the world to start footing the bill. if we are our brother's keeper, the US shouldnt be the only brother doing it.

if we ever seriously need help
our friends will be there.
our friends joined us in iraq even when it turned out to be stupid
our friends are with us now, reminding us that we are capable of making the wrong decisions.
a friend lets a friend know when they are wrong. we need that now as much as ever.

Look at the numbers...yes our friends are helping us. Spain pulled their 79 troops home. The Phillippines just evacuated their 52 soldiers.

If THAT is the kind of help the world offers....we are sunk.

ONLY the UK has sent a credible force in.

Do I think we should have gone into Iraq? Well, thats more complicated than just the WMD thing. I know more than I really need to about that part of the world, but something HAD to be done there. Too bad the rest of the world did not see it that way we did.

now there is something we can agree on. why are we still defending europe against the invasion of the soviet union? it IS time for the rest of the world to start footing the bill. if we are our brother's keeper, the US shouldnt be the only brother doing it.

Now he is coming around....WHY should we be the only one to go in and clean things up? Why SHOULD we do these things when those who are there will do nothing?

hmmm Kerry or Bush. I don't like Bush but i don't think Kerry either. They were both in skull and bones. I think they are probably just the same =(.
ohmygod i didnt know that kerry is a skull and bones man. now thats just creepy eh?

ohmygod i didnt know that kerry is a skull and bones man. now thats just creepy eh?

Kerry is not the man people think he is, yet most people, especially those who cannot vote in the election anyway favor him because he is not Bush. THAT is a reayy stupid reason for picking a president. Hell, I am not Bush, so I could get elected by that reasoning and so could Charles Manson.

Irregardless...the world did nothing....I'm saying nations could have done something...the fact that they played politician is irrevelent..why did not that Canadian implore his own government to send troops...or any of the UN's, or for that damn matter, the African Union...or was it the Organization of African States then....hell..they could have, under their own charter sent in troops..but they did nothing.


He did. And the fact that our goverment did not have the balls to go outside the UN chain of command that he was seconded to is not something that our population was terribly proud of.

But the fact remains that if any other country DID get involved in the "policing" business - they would assuredly run smack into US interests in a heartbeat and wind up being told to stop.

You denigrate the world for NOT stopping Saddam during his worst period?

Newsflash - he was Washington's Golden Boy bastion against the Evil Iran back then and if any other country had tried to remove him they would have found themselves facing off against the US. Same as if any other country had got involved in trying to stop some of the civil wars that the US was bankrolling in Central America during the 80s. Every time anyone DID try to get the ball rolling against him through proper channels (the UN), the US blocked them. yu really think somebody was going to incur your wrath by saying the hell with you and going in alone? That is rediculous and you damn well know it!

You can pick other valid examples where the whole world has let atrocities happen and I won't defend them - Canada included. But Saddam was always as off-limits as Israel still is right up until he invaded Kuwait. And at that moment the rest of the world DID join in.

You may not like your country's history with Saddam, but pretending it didn;t happen and passing the blame off to everyone else is pure, unadulterated Bullshit!

You denigrate the world for NOT stopping Saddam during his worst period?

Newsflash - he was Washington's Golden Boy bastion against the Evil Iran back then and if any other country had tried to remove him they would have found themselves facing off against the US. Same as if any other country had got involved in trying to stop some of the civil wars that the US was bankrolling in Central America during the 80s. Every time anyone DID try to get the ball rolling against him through proper channels (the UN), the US blocked them. yu really think somebody was going to incur your wrath by saying the hell with you and going in alone? That is rediculous and you damn well know it!

You can pick other valid examples where the whole world has let atrocities happen and I won't defend them - Canada included. But Saddam was always as off-limits as Israel still is right up until he invaded Kuwait. And at that moment the rest of the world DID join in.

You may not like your country's history with Saddam, but pretending it didn;t happen and passing the blame off to everyone else is pure, unadulterated Bullshit!

Thats very true. He was seen as the only bulwark against the spread of radical Islam from Iran.He had everything going for him and yet he let power and yes men ruin it for him. he was the goldenboy with the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. Where he went wrong was in attacking Kuwait and funding suicide bombers. Also was it not the French who were building him a nuclear power plant until the Israelis bombed it? Tell me THAT would not have been used as part of a nuclear weapons program.

Saddam had the world in his hands and he let it get away. He could have been a great leader, but brutality brings mistrust and that was his downfall. His personality prevented him from succeeding.

Sounds like a good plan, that makes a lot of sense.That's exactly what those poor Germans thought when they saw hitler's name on the ballot. Let me spell it out. You don't put someone in a leadership position just to get rid of somebody else.


You are not trying to suggest that Kerry is like Hitler or Nixon are you? Hitler, probably not. Nixon possibly. Kerry has used underhanded tactics before, like the time he accidently on purpose left his mike on and said that Bush was corrupt. If he is voted in just because his supporters wanted to oust his opponent, yes, he is like Nixon and Hitler.

George W. has increased the US Debt by over $1.5 Trillion, I would imagine that Kerry has a good shot at reducing that absurd spending spree.Not according to the calculations I have made. Look up the topic "The Kerry Deficit." His policy would put us at least half a trillion deeper in debt. Just because he says he will reduce the deficit doesn't mean he will.

Since Republicans are turning towards Kerry, what does that say about your beloved Bush?Democrats are turning towards Bush, too. In every election, there are voters that migrate to the other side.

And liberals are bad people? Not necessarily, but the president should represent everyone, not just the left wing. Bush is admittedly conservative. Kerry is a known liberal in a centrist mask.

It is natural to do everything possible to succeed? Bush did the same thing and how many flip flops has he done as President?For the sitting president, things tend to change when buildings start blowing up. Whilst on the other hand, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." If your troops are in combat, and they need body armor and ammunition, you vote yes.

I think Kerry will make a great President and put the US back into a favourable light around the globe.Those precious alliances didn't help to prevent 9/11. Despite lost alliances, there has not been a single terror attack on U.S. soil since Bush took action after 9/11.

Bush/Kerry Contrast
Kerry prepares on how to handle the next 9/11.
Bush prepares on how to prevent the next 9/11.

In this regard, Bush gets my vote.

there has not been a single terror attack on U.S. soil since Bush took action after 9/11.

A salesman walks up to a man on a city street and says, "I have a magic stone here that keeps away tigers! $500!"

The man looks at the rock and then at the salesman and says, "How do I know it works?"

The salesman says, "I don't see any tigers around here, do you?"

You're sort of right. "Sort of" meaning: there have been attacks on US property and interests since 9/11. I will concede, however, that there have been no attacks on US soil since Bush took action after 9/11 if you will concede that there is no proof that anyone has even tried.

A salesman walks up to a man on a city street and says, "I have a magic stone here that keeps away tigers! $500!"

The man looks at the rock and then at the salesman and says, "How do I know it works?"

The salesman says, "I don't see any tigers around here, do you?"

You're sort of right. "Sort of" meaning: there have been attacks on US property and interests since 9/11. I will concede, however, that there have been no attacks on US soil since Bush took action after 9/11 if you will concede that there is no proof that anyone has even tried.A man in Iowa was pulled over recently for a traffic violation. In his car they found a sniper rifle and night-vision goggles. While he and his wife were in the cruiser, the man plotted to kill the police and get away. It was recorded in the car. I'll get back to you with a source from the Omaha World-Herald. Right now, it's time to eat.

A man in Iowa was pulled over recently for a traffic violation. In his car they found a sniper rifle and night-vision goggles. While he and his wife were in the cruiser, the man plotted to kill the police and get away. It was recorded in the car. I'll get back to you with a source from the Omaha World-Herald. Right now, it's time to eat.

Things like that happen every day. Cop pulls over someone and find a gun in their car. Just watch any episode of "Cops" or "Wildest Police Videos" that came out pre-9/11.

People shoot at the cops and try to get away all the time, too.

It has nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist attacks on US soil. That is, unless you want a huge blanket of the term "terrorism". If you want to use the above scenario, then you also must conclude that a 10 year old kid who tells his buddy he's going to walk into a convenience store and steal a candy bar can be held on suspected terrorism.

I own a sniper rifle and some night vision goggles. Wanna call the FBI?

It has nothing to do with terrorism or terrorist attacks on US soil. That is, unless you want a huge blanket of the term "terrorism". If you want to use the above scenario, then you also must conclude that a 10 year old kid who tells his buddy he's going to walk into a convenience store and steal a candy bar can be held on suspected terrorism.

God Bless The PATRIOT Act because now, we can do just that!!!

And you thought prison overcrowding was bad before...

I guess the upside is, though, that since none of those detainees are "officially" there, the numbers themselves won't skew much.

The daily show also got it right when they were asking something to the effect of "Who exactly says that Kerry is the first most liberal Democrat and Edwards is the fourth?" - and who are these people to make that judgement? Did they forget about Kucinich? There are plenty more liberal people than Kerry out there. thats a bunch of B.S.

Also Kerry will not be alone in his decision makign processes as President. No presidents ever are. Everyone President has a whole host of people from their party supporting them and giving them information and suggestions on how to do this and that. This is why we can't blame just Bush for all of the horrible mistakes this current administration has made either.

oh yeah im gonna worry that kerrys LAST purple heart was self inflicted.

if a presidents military experience matters to you then how could you vote for george bush? dont kid yourself, that national guard thing was to get out of vietnam, after all, he wasnt going to oxford on a rhodes scholarship like clinton was. he was a party boy looking to make sure he didnt get a trip to the tropics courtesy of uncle sam.

and yes reynes you DO vote for the lesser of 2 evils. its just they way it is. all people with a real shot at winning the presidency have faults. no one is going to perfectly reflect your ideals. you go with the guy with the best chance who is good enough and who ISNT the man you hate.

thats john kerry, he has more than enough experience for the job. (after all of the last 4 presidents, only bush 1 had significant experience in the federal government). he is a good democrat. and he is NOT GEORGE BUSH

thats good enough for me.

The way you get any award is that a superior officer writes an award recommendation. It is then forwarded to an investigation committee who tries to determine if it is valid or not. If they determine it is valid (and a huge number of them are downgraded or found invalid) then they foward an award notice to the soldier's unit at which point it is pinned on their chest. Purple hearts are granted for wounds taken while in combat action, I've never heard of one being granted for a self inflicted wound. Normally that will get you a court martial for destruction of government property.

So its pretty hard to get a self-afflicted medal.

What I hate about Kerry: He says he is pro-choice, then goes ahead and takes mass at a Catholic Church. His is a bleeding-heart liberal bent to erase guns from American society, yet he reminds us on his website that he is an avid hunter and sportsman. He rides around with veterans and reminds us of 3 purple hearts and that he is a 'Nam vet (making it seem like he will be tough on national defence), yet he plays to the anti-war people saying he hates wars, protested Vietnam, opposed the Iraq war, and will keep American out of war. He voted for the Iraq war, but voted against a bill to properly equip our soldiers with body armor and other gear once they got to Iraq. The man drives me insane. I think Bush will win, partly because of Kerry's flip-flops, partly because the American people do not want a Michael Dukakis type to be in office trying to handle a war, and partly because Teresa Heinz Kerry is a loose cannon, and she will explode and say something that will hurt Kerry's chances on the campaign trail.
Why can't you take mass when you are pro-choice? Maybe God is on Kerry's side, ever asked him.
He wants guns gone for everything but hunting then, and I agree.
Well you can be tough on wars and still hate them.
He voted against the badly made bill that changed where the funding came from. THey said it would be funded from Iraqi oil wells and then changed it so he struck it down. I'd vote against lies too,.
Bush's Flip-flops notwithstanding : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

then have the audacity to toss medals earned in combat on the dirty ground..and yet..this man would have our troops call him Commander in Chief?
He threw others medals who were unable to do it, it wasn't his. Please read more about it, don't belive right-wing words.

Voting for Kerry just to unseat Bush seems to be the plan for the democrats. You've heard me say it before, now you'll hear it again. You don't put someone in leadership just to get someone else out.

Bullshit. My father's in his mid-50s, and he told me he's ALWAYS voted for the lesser of two evils. That's what most elections ARE, by the time you get past the primaries. You vote for who you want more by, in part, in comparing them to who you want LESS.

That's what happened with Nixon and Hitler.

And how many other politicians throughout history? :rolleyes:

I say that the democrats should be careful what they believe, and that republicans planning to vote Kerry should seriously reconsider. The man was deemed the "most liberal person" in the senate (his veep came in fourth out of 100)

What the hell does that even mean? How do you calculate something like that? What constitutes a "liberal vote"?

if (God forbid) he gets in the oval office, he'll shuck off the promises and do whatever the hell he wants.

As opposed to, say, Bush.

They are saying that he self inflicted his last purple heart wound. I can believe that.

Purple Hearts are awarded for injuries received in conflict zones. Getting a boil on your ass lanced is grounds for a Purple Heart. This policy is not Kerry's fault. Get with it. Also, in the military, you do not request your medals - you cannot nominate yourself.

Also note that the "group" that says this, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was founded by John O'Neill, a veteran who was appointed by Nixon in 1971 to discredit John Kerry's antiwar stance and, having failed to do so, has spent the last 33 years attempting to discredit Kerry. Since then, O'Neill has run a very lucrative lobbying and consulting firm with his wife out of Austin, Texas. The firm works exclusively for Republicans and O'Neill and his partners have been large donors to George W. Bush's elections. All three of them. Also note that O'Neill has been caught lying to CNN by Salon.com's Joe Conason.

More to the point, the only veteran to actually serve with Kerry who signed SBVfT's "memoranda", Lt. Cmdr. (ret.) George Elliott, has RECANTED his statement and said HE WAS WRONG to question Kerry's qualifications for his medals. And Elliott ought to know, since he was Kerry's commanding officer and nominated him for all of his medals!

Did you know that Kerry was the man who broke the Iran-Contra affair? THAT is why conservatives hate him so much. The current leadership of the GOP is a collection of Nixon and Reagan cohorts, both of whose administration viewed Kerry with antipathy and saw him as an enemy. All of these attacks are straw men, disengenous lies, or "fault-projection" (taking your candidate's flaws and projecting them onto his opponent before s/he can point them out; another form of lying). There is NOTHING of actual substance that can be used to attack Kerry without being soundly refuted.

Purple Hearts are awarded for injuries received in conflict zones. Getting a boil on your ass lanced is grounds for a Purple Heart. This policy is not Kerry's fault. Get with it. Also, in the military, you do not request your medals - you cannot nominate yourself.

Also note that the "group" that says this, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was founded by John O'Neill, a veteran who was appointed by Nixon in 1971 to discredit John Kerry's antiwar stance and, having failed to do so, has spent the last 33 years attempting to discredit Kerry. Since then, O'Neill has run a very lucrative lobbying and consulting firm with his wife out of Austin, Texas. The firm works exclusively for Republicans and O'Neill and his partners have been large donors to George W. Bush's elections. All three of them. Also note that O'Neill has been caught lying to CNN by Salon.com's Joe Conason.

More to the point, the only veteran to actually serve with Kerry who signed SBVfT's "memoranda", Lt. Cmdr. (ret.) George Elliott, has RECANTED his statement and said HE WAS WRONG to question Kerry's qualifications for his medals. And Elliott ought to know, since he was Kerry's commanding officer and nominated him for all of his medals!

Did you know that Kerry was the man who broke the Iran-Contra affair? THAT is why conservatives hate him so much. The current leadership of the GOP is a collection of Nixon and Reagan cohorts, both of whose administration viewed Kerry with antipathy and saw him as an enemy. All of these attacks are straw men, disengenous lies, or "fault-projection" (taking your candidate's flaws and projecting them onto his opponent before s/he can point them out; another form of lying). There is NOTHING of actual substance that can be used to attack Kerry without being soundly refuted.


I was wondering where I could find a source for the Kerry breakign the Iran-Contra affair. This is a great reason to elect Kerry for Presso. Now that is a platform to run on! Making govt honest!

Purple Hearts are awarded for injuries received in conflict zones. Getting a boil on your ass lanced is grounds for a Purple Heart.
only if that boil was somehow caused or lanced in and caused by a combat situation with the enemy
This policy is not Kerry's fault. Get with it. Also, in the military, you do not request your medals - you cannot nominate yourself.
you can nomniate yourself for a purple heart, but your CO has to approve, if the CO approved kerry for the purple heart, why are you attacking kerry? the liability lies with the CO, besides even if it WAS a scratch AND/OR self inflicted, if it happened during a combat and caused by it, it is purple heart worthy, read the rules people