NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll give you a summary of what this speech has done for to the Republican party so far: PWNT! (and it isn't over yet..)

Kerry's speech is going to be a load of crap..

Kerry's speech is going to me a load of crap..
Huh? What is "going to me"?

Now the cheering masses all yell Heil Kerry, this is worse thatn 1930's Germany.

Yea, I changed it to the spanish channel, and his speech made more sense there.

Now the cheering masses all yell Heil Kerry, this is worse thatn 1930's Germany.
Is it really that bad or are you squeezing the truth just a tad?

Brilliant speech if you ask me.

Now the cheering masses all yell Heil Kerry, this is worse thatn 1930's Germany.

You say you have a lack of a sense of history? This convention has been quite sedate in the chanting department.

Most salient point of the speech... "I will appoint an Attorney General who does not undermine the Constitution...."

Brilliant speech if you ask me.

Kerry Fan Boi

Brilliant speech if you ask me.


I thought it was very well done.

Is it really that bad or are you squeezing the truth just a tad?Actually, I was sugar coating it, it was worse. Plus, If I dind't know she was an aged lunatic, I would think Tu-Ray-Zuhh was an 8 year old down syndrome baby.

I'll give you a summary of what this speech has done for to the Republican party so far: PWNT! (and it isn't over yet..)

What did Komrade Kerry say?

Kerry nailed it.. and what is better is the next time the republicans try to go negative, the democrats can go SEE! Brilliant. He has made it so that if the republicans try any games that aren't the issues, they will look bad. Talk about the issues.. cause that's what the Democrats are doing! A perfect 10 for John Kerry.. I knew he had it in him! Yay!

Any republican who bad mouths Kerry will now only prove Kerry's point! :cool:

What did Komrade Kerry say?
He said "Bush--You have been pwnt. That is all. Thank you."

Kerry Fan Boi
With an I. *nods*

Definitely a good speech. Kerry did a fantastic job and it was fun hearing him answer the falsehoods in the Bush ads. It will be so nice to have a decent person in the White House again.

Of course, all we really need to do is tell Bush that there are EVILDOERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE and he'll tuck tail and run to Crawford.

Much better delivery than I've come to expect from Kerry. I did enjoy his mispeaking though, "and double special force to peform terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations". Not as entertaining as Albright's "John Kerry is the man to lead America and her allies to defeat. And destroy the terrorists." Darn it, those long pauses do make a difference don't they?

He said "Bush--You have been pwnt. That is all. Thank you."

Sorry, but what does 'pwnt' mean? Probably a dumb question, so if it is, I apologize.

Most salient point of the speech... "I will appoint an Attorney General who does not undermine the Constitution...."

yeah, that whole bit was pretty nice. and i'm no democrat.

Of course, all we really need to do is tell Bush that there are EVILDOERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE and he'll tuck tail and run to Crawford.

Or worse...*gasp*...ATHIESTS!!!

Kerry Fan Boi

What does that mean?

Much better delivery than I've come to expect from Kerry. I did enjoy his mispeaking though, "and double special force to peform terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations". Not as entertaining as Albright's "John Kerry is the man to lead America and her allies to defeat. And destroy the terrorists." Darn it, those long pauses do make a difference don't they?

Heh, yeah, Madeline really made a name for herself with that one. :)

Much better delivery than I've come to expect from Kerry. I did enjoy his mispeaking though, "and double special force to peform terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations". Not as entertaining as Albright's "John Kerry is the man to lead America and her allies to defeat. And destroy the terrorists." Darn it, those long pauses do make a difference don't they?

Talking for an hour in front of that many people is hard. I'm used to acting on stage in front of hundreds, but I'd probably piss my pants up there....

@_@

You say you have a lack of a sense of history? This convention has been quite sedate in the chanting department.

Most salient point of the speech... "I will appoint an Attorney General who does not undermine the Constitution...."
lol...that's what I thought too

Kerry nailed it.. and what is better is the next time the republicans try to go negative, the democrats can go SEE!
Republicans going negative? It's the Democrats who are seething with rage about how Bush is supposedly Hitler etc etc.

Republicans point out Kerry's record and the Democrats claim it's negative politics. How pathetic.

Talking for an hour in front of that many people is hard. I'm used to acting on stage in front of hundreds, but I'd probably piss my pants up there....

@_@

Nah, acting on stage is harder. At a Convention, you know everyone in the audience is going to cheer no matter what you say. When you're on stage, you may be standing on a sofa with fake blood dripping down your leg while the lights fade out and some old lady in the audience blurts out into the falling darkness, "Well, they're all just fucking looneys."

Republicans going negative? It's the Democrats who are seething with rage about how Bush is supposedly Hitler etc etc.

Republicans point out Kerry's record and the Democrats claim it's negative politics. How pathetic.
Did you even listen to Edward's or Kerry's speech?

What did Komrade Kerry say?
"I will do everything Bush would do, but I'll ask the UN for permission."

Did you even listen to Edward's or Kerry's speech?
I'm not talking about their speeches.

Republicans going negative? It's the Democrats who are seething with rage about how Bush is supposedly Hitler etc etc.

Republicans point out Kerry's record and the Democrats claim it's negative politics. How pathetic.

Hi. Nice name, by the way.

So far, the only person on this thread who has compared anyone to Hitler was Friends Of Bill and that was in reference to Kerry.

Nah, acting on stage is harder. At a Convention, you know everyone in the audience is going to cheer no matter what you say. When you're on stage, you may be standing on a sofa with fake blood dripping down your leg while the lights fade out and some old lady in the audience blurts out into the falling darkness, "Well, they're all just fucking looneys."


LOL, I'll have to give public speaking a try then. :)

I'm not talking about their speeches.
Did you listen to the speeches?

Did you listen to the speeches?
Yes.

Hi. Nice name, by the way.

So far, the only person on this thread who has compared anyone to Hitler was Friends Of Bill and that was in reference to Kerry.Never said a word about Hitler.

Yes.
Were the Kerry/Edward's speeches negative?

I wouldn't believe a word Kerry says. Every politician makes big promises, but once they're elected, there are no major changes.

Example #1: Franklin Roosevelt denounced the massive spending of the Hoover Administration. FDR then proceeded to spend THREE TIMES as much money as the previous 31 Presidents COMBINED.

Example #2: He also said: "I've said this before but I shall say it again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent to fight any foreign wars." (Or, something to that effect)

Example #3: Lyndon Johnson said: "We are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away to do what Southeast Asian boys ought to be doing to protect themselves."

Example #4: Reagan promised to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education. Once he was elected, he never even tried.

Example #5: George H.W. Bush: "Read my lips: No new taxes."

Example #6: "A Clinton Administration will be the most ethical Administration in the history of the Republic."

Don't forget:

George W. Bush - "I'm a compassionate Conservative."

Nah, acting on stage is harder. At a Convention, you know everyone in the audience is going to cheer no matter what you say.
Yeah. Kerry could have said that he wants to have gay sex with George Bush and Dick Cheney and everyone would still cheer him.

Were the Kerry/Edward's speeches negative?
As I said, I'm not talking about their speeches.

Yeah. Kerry could have said that he wants to have gay sex with George Bush and Dick Cheney and everyone would still cheer him.
Nah, they were holding the radical cheerleaders outside the hall.

Don't forget:

George W. Bush - "I'm a compassionate Conservative."

(Slaps forehead) How could I have forgotten that one?

Yeah uh, people saying "oh the democrats are comparing bush to hitler" can stop speaking now, bush's name has only even been MENTIONED in Kerry and Edward's speeches maybe a dozen times at the most. And as for the people who say that "the republicans are just pulling out his record" yeah they are pulling out his record, they're also pulling it out of context. Politics is not black and white and politics is not a place for people with small minds.

Nah, they were holding the radical cheerleaders outside the hall.
They were on the stage and in the presidential box.

As I said, I'm not talking about their speeches.
Well that's what Kerry is talking about. Kerry can't control his party. Kerry knows both parties are going to go about their negativity. He wants Kerry/Edwards to be optimistic and wants Bush/Cheney to be optimistic. He doesn't want the top guys resorting to negativity.

They were on the stage and in the presidential box.

Was Clinton with them? ;)

Yeah uh, people saying "oh the democrats are comparing bush to hitler" can stop speaking now, bush's name has only even been MENTIONED in Kerry and Edward's speeches maybe a dozen times at the most. And as for the people who say that "the republicans are just pulling out his record" yeah they are pulling out his record, they're also pulling it out of context. Politics is not black and white and politics is not a place for people with small minds.
Yea...the stuff about Kerry's record at www.gop.com isn't in context...so, let's not talking about the Repubs just innocently pulling it up...

I wonder why John Kerry didn't talk about how he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis or his liberal Senate record but felt the need to remind us, yet again, how he served 4 short months in Vietnam.

Yeah. Kerry could have said that he wants to have gay sex with George Bush and Dick Cheney and everyone would still cheer him.

Ah, but you see, he didn't. He didn't do anything negative. And, since George W. Bush has now officially claimed the honor of "Most Negative Political Campaign," it'll be interesting to see how he counters this.

and if you're not talking about the speeches your mindless chatter doesn't belong here notice the name of the topic: "Kerry Speech".

oh and slutbag I have a couple questions for you. Did you serve in vietnam? Did george bush serve in vietnam?

I wonder why John Kerry didn't talk about how he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis or his liberal Senate record but felt the need to remind us, yet again, how he served 4 short months in Vietnam.

Why should he waste time, there are always conservatives to bring up both?

Um, it was Al Gore who compared the republicans to nazis with the "brown shirts" comment.

John Kerry is a socialist. He believes the successful should support the poor, he believes that health care is a right (LOL!). He will give up our sovereignty to the UN.

He will penalize people for their success, because he wants the middle class to STAY in the middle class, because the lack of movement on the social ladder keeps him and the libs in power.

"I will do everything Bush would do, but I'll ask the UN for permission."

God forbid we actually get cooperation in hunting down terrorists, who, incidentally call no nation home, but are free to meet and conspire anywhere in the world. Gee. I guess Bush is right, we should go it alone and attack a country that houses fewer terrorists than any other middle-east country (before we attacked.) I think it's oh-so-clever an idea to rile up the world, alienate our allies, and then tell the terrorists to "bring it on." I, personally, feel MUCh safer.

Republican right-wingnuts, can you tell I'm being sarcastic, or would you rather quote me out of context, boil what I'm saying down to black-and-white platitudes and condemn me as being unpatriotic?

I'm so tired of rampant idealistic myopia. Anyone who believes the simplistic claptrap the right-wing propagandists are spewing, please go back to watching "Nick and Jessica", "The O'Reilly Factor" and the new show on Fox News, "How to Spew Biased Conservative Drivel Without Even Trying."

I wonder why John Kerry didn't talk about how he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis or his liberal Senate record but felt the need to remind us, yet again, how he served 4 short months in Vietnam.

:rolleyes:

Ok. Follow me!

There was a standing policy that if you are wounded three times, you go home!

Guess what? He was wounded three times?

Did you follow that?

Shall we talk about the shrubs military record?

I wonder why John Kerry didn't talk about how he was Lt. Governor under Dukakis or his liberal Senate record but felt the need to remind us, yet again, how he served 4 short months in Vietnam.


So? You don't have to be in war for years to see the horrors of war.

So? You don't have to be in war for years to see the horrors of war.

especially if you were in nam, there it took about a week.

God forbid we actually get cooperation in hunting down terrorists, who, incidentally call no nation home, but are free to meet and conspire anywhere in the world. Gee. I guess Bush is right, we should go it alone and attack a country that houses fewer terrorists than any other middle-east country (before we attacked.) I think it's oh-so-clever an idea to rile up the world, alienate our allies, and then tell the terrorists to "bring it on." I, personally, feel MUCh safer.

Republican right-wingnuts, can you tell I'm being sarcastic, or would you rather quote me out of context, boil what I'm saying down to black-and-white platitudes and condemn me as being unpatriotic?

I'm so tired of rampant idealistic myopia. Anyone who believes the simplistic claptrap the right-wing propagandists are spewing, please go back to watching "Nick and Jessica", "The O'Reilly Factor" and the new show on Fox News, "How to Spew Biased Conservative Drivel Without Even Trying."

I would remind you that many of the most ardently anti-American, anti-Western, and pro-terrorist nations are in the UN, as are many terrorist nations. And if you look at the UN's history, they're not exactly the kind of people you'd want to turn to for friendship.

God forbid we actually get cooperation in hunting down terrorists, who, incidentally call no nation home, but are free to meet and conspire anywhere in the world.
The latest efforts to go multilateral with Iran have proven to be a failure. We don't need permission from other countries to defend our national interests.

I guess Bush is right, we should go it alone
We didn't go at it alone. Amazing the lies the left believes.

He will penalize people for their success, because he wants the middle class to STAY in the middle class, because the lack of movement on the social ladder keeps him and the libs in power.

Yes, because the middle class is just ZOOMING up the social ladder under Bush.

:rolleyes:

Ok. Follow me!

There was a standing policy that if you are wounded three times, you go home!

Guess what? He was wounded three times?

Did you follow that?

Shall we talk about the shrubs military record?
Democrats didn't seem to care much about military service when Dole the World War II vet ran against Clinton the draft dodger.

Yes, because the middle class is just ZOOMING up the social ladder under Bush.
The economy is currently growing fastest it has in 20 years no thanks to a massive terrorist attack on one of the centers of economic America.

We didn't go at it alone. Amazing the lies the left believes.

pffffft yeah, right. so we have a bunch of little nations that have populations smaller than some cities in the US. And britian doesn't count because blare is nothing but a puppet and under his leadership britian has become the 51st state.

Democrats didn't seem to care much about military service when Dole the World War II vet ran against Clinton the draft dodger.

Screw you, I voted for Dole.

:rolleyes:

Ok. Follow me!

There was a standing policy that if you are wounded three times, you go home!

Guess what? He was wounded three times?

Did you follow that?

Shall we talk about the shrubs military record?

As odious as Bush and his military record are (and everything else about him), at least he didn't give moral aid to the enemy like Kerry did.

Yea we didnt go it alone, we had :
US
UK
Australia
Poland
Japan
South Korea

and some other nations that are our ACCTUAL allies.

The economy is currently growing fastest it has in 20 years no thanks to a massive terrorist attack on one of the centers of economic America.

Boy, I'd sure like to live in that country, because it certainly isn't America at the moment. If you haven't bothered to look around, our economy is in the friggin toilet right now.

The economy is currently growing fastest it has in 20 years no thanks to a massive terrorist attack on one of the centers of economic America.

O_o are you off your rocker? It grew more than it has in the past year or so in a few weeks under Clinton. Amazing the lies the right believes.

Yea we didnt go it alone, we had :
US
UK
Australia
Poland
Japan
South Korea

and some other nations that are our ACCTUAL allies.

Help is not a few hundred troops when we have over 150,000 over there.

pffffft yeah, right. so we have a bunch of little nations that have populations smaller than some cities in the US. And britian doesn't count because blare is nothing but a puppet and under his leadership britian has become the 51st state.
Oh I see. A coalition only counts if France and Germany are on board. I see how it works now.

:rolleyes:

O_o are you off your rocker? It grew more than it has in the past year or so in a few weeks under Clinton. Amazing the lies the right believes.

3.9%?

Boy, I'd sure like to live in that country, because it certainly isn't America at the moment. If you haven't bothered to look around, our economy is in the friggin toilet right now.
Um, the fact don't agree with you.

Help is not a few hundred troops when we have over 150,000 over there.

Well, technically it is help. Not very much help, not nearly as much as we should have, but still, help.

Kerry is a big dummy. All he does is say what Bush is doing wrong and not what he's going to do to correct it. Let's go bush!!!

3.9%?
That's better than it ever was under Clinton

Um, the fact don't agree with you.

Then by all means, provide some evidence. Clinton managed to balance the budget, and Bush has managed to destroy Social Security and put us in a large deficit.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your statement please.

Kerry is a big dummy. All he does is say what Bush is doing wrong and not what he's going to do to correct it. Let's go bush!!!


Erm...he never came out and directly bashed Bush, or didn't you bother to watch the speech? He was busy doing what presidential candidates SHOULD be doing, and that's focusing on their policies.

It amazes me how fast such a simple topic has turned into a political bash fest because of a bunch of people who didn't even watch the speech and don't have any intention of discussing it in a sustantive manner.

It amazes me how fast such a simple topic has turned into a political bash fest because of a bunch of people who didn't even watch the speech and don't have any intention of discussing it in a sustantive manner.

HERE HERE.

That's better than it ever was under Clinton

You... you seriously have got to be kidding me.... are you even looking at the crap you are spewing before you hit the submit button? you know that your claims are completely false and unfounded right?

Erm...he never came out and directly bashed Bush, or didn't you bother to watch the speech? He was busy doing what presidential candidates SHOULD be doing, and that's focusing on their policies.
I heard Kerry talk about much of a better president he is going to be but he hasn't said what he'll do.

I heard Kerry talk about much of a better president he is going to be but he hasn't said what he'll do.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. He talked for 50 minutes about what he was going to do!!!!!!!

Please exit this thread, you obviously didn't pay attention to Kerry'e speech.

You... you seriously have got to be kidding me.... are you even looking at the crap you are spewing before you hit the submit button? you know that your claims are completely false and unfounded right?
Do you libbies believe everything you hear from the DNC? The highest rate of annualized GDP growth was 3.3 percent. Who knew?

The only point that has been proven is that the democrats can be whiny girls, and it has been proven by the asinine remark that was made. Democrats really know how to tuck their talis in between their legs and run. We'll use the Clinton administration and how they handled Afghanistan. Great job.

Supporting the middle class makes sense, even for the rich. Why? For every child you prevent from slipping into poverty, you reduce the chances someone will break into your house and steal your precious stuff. For every child you give a great education to, you increase the chances of someone coming up with the next breakthrough that sends your business through the roof, not to mention improving the pool of employees from which to hire from. For every child you help to grow up healthy and well-educated, you improve the chances of our government in the future being represented by as diverse and strong a group as possible, and elected by as an informed and aware electorate as possible.
You life may one day depend on the doctor who lifted his/herself out of poverty. By the police officer who didn't get gunned down by gang-members. By the scientist who was the first in his/her family to go to college, won a scolarship and cured the disease your child contracted.

There is a world beyond your door, and to think the person on the bad side of town doesn't matter makes you less of a human.

That's why I support Democrats. That's why I prefer left to right. That why I have hope for better, rather than a fear of others.

Then by all means, provide some evidence. Clinton managed to balance the budget, and Bush has managed to destroy Social Security and put us in a large deficit.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your statement please.

You're going to be waiting a long time for that proof, because it doesn't exist.

Under Clinton, growth averaged 4.0% over his eight year stay and the economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the longest string of sustained economic growth in US history. His economy also created 22.5 million new jobs in less than 8 years, the most jobs ever created under a President and more than were created in the 12 years previous to his presidency combined.

Do you libbies believe everything you hear from the DNC? The highest rate of annualized GDP growth was 3.3 percent. Who knew?


Not all of us are liberals.

In fact, not all of us belong to a political party. I'm certainly not a Democrat, Republican, or Independant.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. He talked for 50 minutes about what he was going to do!!!!!!!

Please exit this thread, you obviously didn't pay attention to Kerry'e speech.
Anyone can say he's going to create jobs or fight terror better. He still hasn't said how he is going to do these things better than Bush.

That's better than it ever was under Clinton
Wrong! 5% growth rate in 2000.

I heard Kerry talk about much of a better president he is going to be but he hasn't said what he'll do.

here would you like me to spoon feed it to you?

1) decrease the deficit
2) cut taxes for the middle class
3) raise taxes for those who make over 200k per year
4) decrease health care burden
5) stop the back door draft of national guardsmen and reservists
6) increase funding for headstart programs and education
7) increase funding for veterans affairs
8) ask for help in Iraq from the UN so we can get some of our men and women home
do you really need me to continue?

You're going to be waiting a long time for that proof, because it doesn't exist.

Under Clinton, growth averaged 4.0% over his eight year stay and the economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the longest string of sustained economic growth in US history. His economy also created 22.5 million new jobs in less than 8 years, the most jobs ever created under a President and more than were created in the 12 years previous to his presidency combined.


OMFG NOES!!!1111 J00 R T3H L3TF!!!111

Anyone can say he's going to create jobs or fight terror better. He still hasn't said how he is going to do these things better than Bush.


YES HE DID!

1. Punish corporations that ship jobs oversees
2. Reward companies that keep jobs in America with tax breaks
3. Offer tax breaks to small businesses.


Want me to go on?

OMFG NOES!!!1111 J00 R T3H L3TF!!!111

that's prolly the only thing that they could say to such a fact based statement.

Anyone can say he's going to create jobs or fight terror better. He still hasn't said how he is going to do these things better than Bush.

And Bush has had four years to do this and still hasn't done it.

ADDITION: That's four years in office with a Republican-dominated Congress and a country that was willing to rally around him after 9/11.

here would you like me to spoon feed it to you?

1) decrease the deficit
2) cut taxes for the middle class
3) raise taxes for those who make over 200k per year
4) decrease health care burden
5) stop the back door draft of national guardsmen and reservists
6) increase funding for headstart programs and education
7) increase funding for veterans affairs
8) ask for help in Iraq from the UN so we can get some of our men and women home
do you really need me to continue?
In other words, he's pretending to be George Bush.

In other words, he's pretending to be George Bush.
Yeah, he is isn't he? Raise the debt, soak the poor, feed the rick, etc...

OMFG NOES!!!1111 J00 R T3H L3TF!!!111

Translation, please?

And Bush has had four years to do this and still hasn't done it.

Indeed, job creation has slowed, and the 9-11 report seems to believe that we aren't much safer than we were 4 years ago. What will kerry do? I dunno and I don't really care cause bush hasn't done much of anything either other than making a puppet branch of the executive branch known as homeland security run by a gimp named tom ridge.

As odious as Bush and his military record are (and everything else about him), at least he didn't give moral aid to the enemy like Kerry did.

Well that one is rather tough.

That war was very F'd up. As my buddy once said "I don't know why we didn't move into the North. At least there, we wouldn't have to hesitate to shoot. If we were up there, then the NVA would have to come home to defend their homes."

Speaking out against it. I can see why. It was a politicians war and not a generals war. Body count? WTF was up with that?

Any how.

Now giving moral aid to the enemy? I would not argue with you about Hanoi Jane. I read a story from a POW vet who helped get her booted from the 100 women of the century.

She was at their POW camp doing the propaganda stuff. He said they palmed her paper with their names and id numbers on them. She went down the line and took them all. Then she marched over to the comidant and handed them over.

He said that a couple guys were beaten to death that night.

As to the claims of atrocities? Well there is some truth to that. Some of our soldiers did some rather nasty things. Again stories from my buddy that would make you go :eek:

I have mixed feelings on that.

Hmmm did people call Ron Kovic a traitor for speaking against the war?

I have seen what the shrub can do. I don't like it so I am willing to see what Kerry can do.

That post by Thunderland sums it up pretty good!

In other words, he's pretending to be George Bush.

Seriously, has Bush accomplished ANY of that? No. My health care costs way too much, I had to stop going to college because it was too damn expensive, and when I was in high school I could barely take any arts classes becasue they were all being cut.

Yes, Bush has done a bangup job.

Translation, please?

Oh my god you are the left

Translation, please?
Oh my dear lord in heaven, you are the *what the hell is he trying to say there* exclamitory point.

You know I would actually give bush a look see if someone could give me a straight answer when I say why should I vote for him.

YES HE DID!

1. Punish corporations that ship jobs oversees
2. Reward companies that keep jobs in America with tax breaks
3. Offer tax breaks to small businesses.


Want me to go on?

Ok now I didn't watch the speech (my personal boycott) but I have an opinion on #1.
Heinz has many many companies oversea's, so he's going to punish his wife's company? Yeah... :headbang:

Originally Posted by Microevil
here would you like me to spoon feed it to you?

1) decrease the deficit
2) cut taxes for the middle class
3) raise taxes for those who make over 200k per year
4) decrease health care burden
5) stop the back door draft of national guardsmen and reservists
6) increase funding for headstart programs and education
7) increase funding for veterans affairs
8) ask for help in Iraq from the UN so we can get some of our men and women home
do you really need me to continue?In other words, he's pretending to be George Bush.Wow--what alternate universe do you live in where George Bush is even suggesting that he's going to do any of what was listed there?

Oh my god you are the left

Is that the translation, or an observation?

On some of these issues that Kerry talked about, it doesn't really matter what he says he's going to do. We all know that it must go to a vote, and it has to be approved by Congress. So it doesn't really matter what he says because if the majority doesn't vote in favor of his plans, his plans will never see the light of day.

You know I would actually give bush a look see if someone could give me a straight answer when I say why should I vote for him.


You and I are alot alike. I vote for the man who I think is best suited for the job, regardless of what party he is in.

To me Bush has dropped the ball, and it's time to get him out. Kerry sounds like the best man for the job, so he gets my vote.

Ok now I didn't watch the speech (my personal boycott) but I have an opinion on #1.
Heinz has many many companies oversea's, so he's going to punish his wife's company? Yeah... :headbang:

do most democratic senators get hurt by their tax cuts? yeah... I think that answers your question

Ok now I didn't watch the speech (my personal boycott) but I have an opinion on #1.
Heinz has many many companies oversea's, so he's going to punish his wife's company? Yeah... :headbang:
Dumbass--your table is waiting. Neither Kerry nor his wife have anything at all to do with the day-to-day at Heinz. It's not their company.

Is that the translation, or an observation?


It was supposed to be a joke.....

Dumbass--your table is waiting. Neither Kerry nor his wife have anything at all to do with the day-to-day at Heinz. It's not their company.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

You and I are alot alike. I vote for the man who I think is best suited for the job, regardless of what party he is in.

To me Bush has dropped the ball, and it's time to get him out. Kerry sounds like the best man for the job, so he gets my vote.

Indeed, I have to tell you if it was a McCain-Gulianni (SP?) republican ticket, I would have absolutely no problem voting for them but bush has bent this country over the barrel for 4 years and I'm sick of it. Regiem change starts at home.

Well, I voted for Bush the first time around.
I have not been a fan of Kerry's,
I have been trying to decide if I can justify voting for Bush again(I am a God,and Guns guy).
TO the point, I thought Kerry gave a great political speech.
He was passionate yet avoiding sounding....nutty.
He didnt have the usual...robotic feel he has when I hear him.
and while I had originally been wrestling with voting against the "Christian" canidate.
I see nothing ANTI-christian about Kerry, and while BUsh presents a great deal of PRO-Christian words his actions are decidedly un-Christian.
His mistreatment of armed forces personel(and yes that is what Stop-Loss is if you fail to first raise the standing army, which he didnt want to do because that have been admitting he was wrong from the jump on us being prepared to go the distance)...anyway.
I think Kerry gave a good speech, I wish we had a good Republican canidate but we dont.
So, a not-so-bad Democrat will have to do.

God Save America!!
...because the politicians sure wont.

Dumbass--your table is waiting. Neither Kerry nor his wife have anything at all to do with the day-to-day at Heinz. It's not their company.]

but somehow cheney still controls halliburton . . . .

Well, I voted for Bush the first time around.
I have not been a fan of Kerry's,
I have been trying to decide if I can justify voting for Bush again(I am a God,and Guns guy).
TO the point, I thought Kerry gave a great political speech.
He was passionate yet avoiding sounding....nutty.
He didnt have the usual...robotic feel he has when I hear him.
and while I had originally been wrestling with voting against the "Christian" canidate.
I see nothing ANTI-christian about Kerry, and while BUsh presents a great deal of PRO-Christian words his actions are decidedly un-Christian.
His mistreatment of armed forces personel(and yes that is what Stop-Loss is if you fail to first raise the standing army, which he didnt want to do because that have been admitting he was wrong from the jump on us being prepared to go the distance)...anyway.
I think Kerry gave a good speech, I wish we had a good Republican canidate but we dont.
So, a not-so-bad Democrat will have to do.

God Save America!!
...because the politicians sure wont.


if only there were more sane people like you in the world.

oh and as far as heinz goes, none of the products produced outside the US are imported back into the US. it's not like GM sending a plant to mexico and selling the cars back to the unemployed UAW workers who's jobs got stolen.

In other words, he's pretending to be George Bush.

Um, no. Let's go point by point, shall we?

1. Deficit. Bush has reintroduced deficit spending to an all time high with one out of every three dollars spent by the US government being borrowed.

2. Middle Class Taxes. Bush's tax cuts will only delay impact on the middle class, so that any gains they may make now by their extension will have to be paid for later.

3. Tax raise on the wealthy. This hardly needs to be mentioned, as there is no way in living hell that Bush will allow his monetary power base to ever be threatened and his tax cuts actually benefit the wealthy.

4. Health Care. Bush's one answer: Tort Reform. Nice try, but where's the backing and the proof?

5. Conscription. Seeing as how Bush's war has put them there in the first place and kept them there because there was no exit strategy, leading to all time lows in reenlistment and new recruitment...

6. Education funding. No Child Left Behind. Nuff said.

7. Veterans funding. Bush has cut funding for veterans health care and failed to allow for increases correspondent to increasing health care costs.

8. International Relations. Well, this one's obvious.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

pfft
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/homes.asp
"Origins: It's
certainly no secret to anyone familiar with the U.S. political scene that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has a net worth of several million dollars, and that his wife, Teresa, could accurately be described as "super wealthy." Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry was previously married for 25 years to the late Henry John Heinz III, a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company, and after his death in a 1991 plane crash she inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million."

:)

You know I would actually give bush a look see if someone could give me a straight answer when I say why should I vote for him.

Because to not do so is evidently unAmerican, unPatriotic and means The Terrorists Have Already Won.

Or some such nonesense.

]

but somehow cheney still controls halliburton . . . .

Hey, I'm willing to grant Heinz if you grant Cheney.

Because to not do so is evidently unAmerican, unPatriotic and means The Terrorists Have Already Won.

Or some such nonesense.

Oh my, that's actually the most convincing one I've hears yet, too bad there is so much sarcasm.

]

but somehow cheney still controls halliburton . . . .
Controls? No. Gets money from and helps in the acquiring of contracts? Unquestionably.

If you don't vote for Bush, bro, you ain't no patriot. Kerry's a jerko dweebie dork dickhole butthead moron skumbag. Bush is the best damm presdent we ever had. Nuff said.

If you don't vote for Bush, bro, you ain't no patriot. Kerry's a jerko dweebie dork dickhole butthead moron skumbag. Bush is the best damm presdent we ever had. Nuff said.
When are the mods going to catch onto FSB?

pfft
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/homes.asp
"Origins: It's
certainly no secret to anyone familiar with the U.S. political scene that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has a net worth of several million dollars, and that his wife, Teresa, could accurately be described as "super wealthy." Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry was previously married for 25 years to the late Henry John Heinz III, a member of the founding family of the H.J. Heinz Company, and after his death in a 1991 plane crash she inherited a Heinz family fortune estimated at over $500 million."

:)


You forgot to read the rest of it:


The aggregate value of these five homes is roughly $29 million, but the claim that John Kerry "owns" all of these properties is problematic. John and Teresa Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate. The Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they own as a couple; the other four belonged to Teresa before her 1995 marriage to John Kerry, and some of them are even still listed under the name of her late husband.

Note the bolded part. If Kerry and his wife as so stinking rich, then how come he had to mortgage a home of his? Granted, they do have alot of money, but they're not like Bill Gates in a sense that they sleep on a matress stuffed with $100 bills.

Besides, mortgaging his own property to pay for his presidential campaign is commendable instead of groveling to corporations for money.

If you don't vote for Bush, bro, you ain't no patriot. Kerry's a jerko dweebie dork dickhole butthead moron skumbag. Bush is the best damm presdent we ever had. Nuff said.

Swing and a miss...

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.

When are the mods going to catch onto FSB?

Your just sayin that cause you know i'm RIGHT. :rolleyes:

Although, not many Americans have multiple homes that can be mortaged...

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.

heh, tru dat.

Good. I sincerely hope their worry keeps them up at night like mine has for the last four years.

and tru dat too

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.

Good. I sincerely hope their worry keeps them up at night like mine has for the last four years.

Fine, I'll leave, jerkos. But you ain't never gonna see me, never again. Good-BYE. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :sniper:

Although, not many Americans have multiple homes that can be mortaged...


True, but he could have sucked up to some big companies or pulled some money from Heinz to finance his campaign, but he didn't.

Fine, I'll leave, jerkos. But you ain't never gonna see me, never again. Good-BYE. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :sniper:

As my Grandmother used to say:

Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.

She was a bit salty.

Fine, I'll leave, jerkos. But you ain't never gonna see me, never again. Good-BYE. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :sniper:
We've heard this many times before from you.

We've heard this many times before from you.


Yep this is common.

Fine, I'll leave, jerkos. But you ain't never gonna see me, never again. Good-BYE. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :sniper:

We can only hope.

Sdaeriji sighting! :)

You and I are alot alike. I vote for the man who I think is best suited for the job, regardless of what party he is in.

To me Bush has dropped the ball, and it's time to get him out. Kerry sounds like the best man for the job, so he gets my vote.
I'd amend that to read "Better man for the job." As much as I dislike the Wolfowitz / Rumsfeld / Cheney White House; Kerry is no great prize.

I thought it was a good speech, well presented, with a lot of energy and a shortage of policy. In this age of soundbites I honestly expected no more than that. Pity. Edwards is a good speaker too, but with a short track record and not a lot of support in his (my) home state. That seems to be acceptable in this day and age.

Net result of this speech? I feel I can vote for the guy who stands a chance of winning, instead of tossing my vote on some random Libertarian. I won't campaign for Kerry / Edwards, but I'll vote for them.

Kerry is no great prize.



Nor will anybody be. Everybody has their flaws, but we just have to hope the person with the least flaws wins.

:)

yeah, I can honetly say kerry is no great prize, but he is by far the lesser of the two evils.

I think they're both 100% pure evil.

I think they're both 100% pure evil.

They're politicians, that's a pre requisite.

They're politicians, that's a pre requisite.
Not all politicians are evil, just the sucessful ones.

They're politicians, that's a pre requisite.

LOL...so true, so true!

But then again, we have to vote for Bush! If we don't, we "ain't no patriots," and we'll be "jerkos," lol!

LOL...so true, so true!

But then again, we have to vote for Bush! If we don't, we "ain't no patriots," and we'll be "jerkos," lol!


No, we'll be "terrists."

Not all politicians are evil, just the sucessful ones.

LOL...that is also true!

No, we'll be "terrists."

Did FSB say that? I was quoting him when I said "ain't no patriots," and "jerkos."

Did FSB say that? I was quoting him when I said "ain't no patriots," and "jerkos."


I dunno, I just felt like saying it. :D

I dunno, I just felt like saying it. :D

Although, knowing him, he probably would say "terrists." :D

or we'll be the dreaded "flip-floppers, just like a pair of them flip-flop sandals."

It amazes me how fast such a simple topic has turned into a political bash fest because of a bunch of people who didn't even watch the speech and don't have any intention of discussing it in a sustantive manner.

2 posts later:



That's better than it ever was under Clinton


You... you seriously have got to be kidding me.... are you even looking at the crap you are spewing before you hit the submit button? you know that your claims are completely false and unfounded right?


Heh, just thought it was funny.

or we'll be the dreaded "flip-floppers, just like a pair of them flip-flop sandals."

True. Personally, though I'm not voting for either of them. Would that make me a 'jerko' a 'ain't no patriot,' a 'dweebie,' or what? Lol...

True. Personally, though I'm not voting for either of them. Would that make me a 'jerko' a 'ain't no patriot,' a 'dweebie,' or what? Lol...


Yes. Yes it would.


;)

Anyone can say he's going to create jobs or fight terror better. He still hasn't said how he is going to do these things better than Bush.
The creation of jobs should be a piece of cake for Kerry. Bush will have a net job loss at the end of his term. Last President to accomplish this feat was Herbert Hoover.

As far as fighting terror is concerned, Kerry will look to traditional allies and make amends. Bush's "you are either with us or against us" attitude worked as far as Afghanistan is concerned but fell apart when Iraq was attacked.

Fine, I'll leave, jerkos. But you ain't never gonna see me, never again. Good-BYE. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :sniper:
I have seen you say this before and you didn't keep your promise.

Hey folks, you know when you read posts, you get a feel for the tone of them, I suppose some do this better then others. Listen to the hate and anger and bitterness coming from the people who are having to face Bush is probably going to be a one term president. It sort of makes me laugh.. it's so transparent, they're worried.
What gets me is that there are so many anti Kerry ?new? members to NS and they all seemed to have found their way to this thread. It must be Howdy Doody Time?

Latest Zogby poll had Kerry with a 5 point bounce before he gave his speech tonight, and it should grow from there over the next few days. It won't last until November, but it'll feel good to have a little breathing room for a few weeks.

My favorite line--"In order to have family values, you have to value families" and then he ran off the litany of family programs that have been beneficial and have been slashed by the Bush administration and the Republican congress.

Latest Zogby poll had Kerry with a 5 point bounce before he gave his speech tonight, and it should grow from there over the next few days. It won't last until November, but it'll feel good to have a little breathing room for a few weeks.

My favorite line--"In order to have family values, you have to value families" and then he ran off the litany of family programs that have been beneficial and have been slashed by the Bush administration and the Republican congress.
I'd say he's looking at a nice 10 pt bounce from the convention, not too bad.

The latest efforts to go multilateral with Iran have proven to be a failure. We don't need permission from other countries to defend our national interests.


We didn't go at it alone. Amazing the lies the left believes.

We may as well have gone alone with this wonderful coalition. Take a look at our allies:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

This is from the official White House website. Notice how they haven't removed Spain yet? Azerbaijan? Uganda? What a joke.

Afghanistan's army...is...our army.

Hey now--who's talking smack about Micronesia and Palau? They'll, umm, throw coconuts at you and that'll really hurt? :D

BEWARE THE MARSHALL ISLANDS!!!!!!1!!

Iceland doesn't have an army.

The United Kingdom is on a short US leash.

Kerry's speech was very good. I think he would be able to clean up all of Bush's mistakes and I hope he gets elected.

Kerry's speech was very good. I think he would be able to clean up all of Bush's mistakes and I hope he gets elected.
He's not Superman.

Yeah, but the stupid thing is that kerry's entire campaign has pretty much been just a whole bunch of bush bashing. then he gets up there and says that crap at the end, about respecting each other. talk about total hypocrisy! it's either that or making himself look like a god with the whole vietnam war hero act. kerry didn't talk about any of the real issues. sure, he got up there and made a bunch of empty promises about health care and education, but it stopped there. so my question for you is: how can you support someone like this, a flip-flopping hypocrit?What are you smoking? Cuz you ned to pass that shit.

When you look at the ads that both sides have been running, you find that not only has the Bush administration been running more negative ads than the Kerry campaign, they're running them more often--3 times as often to be precise, according to a recent study.

And I love how you contradict yourself--kerry didn't talk about any of the real issues...he made a bunch of empty promises about health care and education. So which is it? Did he or did he not talk about real issues? And why don't you mention all the time he spent talking about the situation in Iraq and the war on al Qaeda?

Yeah, but the stupid thing is that kerry's entire campaign has pretty much been just a whole bunch of bush bashing. then he gets up there and says that crap at the end, about respecting each other. talk about total hypocrisy! it's either that or making himself look like a god with the whole vietnam war hero act. kerry didn't talk about any of the real issues. sure, he got up there and made a bunch of empty promises about health care and education, but it stopped there. so my question for you is: how can you support someone like this, a flip-flopping hypocrit?
Except you're an idiot. He's talking about the actual candidates. He doesn't want the candidates (Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney) being negative. They need to be optimistic. Of course the parties are going to be negative. To tell them not to and to force them not to would be violation of the first ammendment...

Latest Zogby poll had Kerry with a 5 point bounce before he gave his speech tonight, and it should grow from there over the next few days. It won't last until November, but it'll feel good to have a little breathing room for a few weeks.

My favorite line--"In order to have family values, you have to value families" and then he ran off the litany of family programs that have been beneficial and have been slashed by the Bush administration and the Republican congress.

and what family values is kerry offering? did he mention any? can he really value families (making a mention to both father and mother in his speech) when he doesn't oppose gay marriages? sounds like a whole lot of hooplah to me. but what else do you expect from a flip-flopping hypocrit?

Except you're an idiot. He's talking about the actual candidates. He doesn't want the candidates (Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney) being negative. They need to be optimistic. Of course the parties are going to be negative. To tell them not to and to force them not to would be violation of the first ammendment...

except you're the idiot. kerry talked about respecting the candidates, but what respect has he showed bush?

and what family values is kerry offering? did he mention any? can he really value families (making a mention to both father and mother in his speech) when he doesn't oppose gay marriages? sounds like a whole lot of hooplah to me. but what else do you expect from a flip-flopping hypocrit?
1) Not sure that Gay Marriage devalues families as much as you think...that's an opinion you hold...and my opinion is my opinion. There is no fact here.
2) Kerry is oppsed to gay marriage.
3) The flip-flop argument is baseless and just goes to show who is riding the negativity...

except you're the idiot. kerry talked about respecting the candidates, but what respect has he showed bush?
He talked about being an optimist. I like the originality by the way.

I'll give you a summary of what this speech has done for to the Republican party so far: PWNT! (and it isn't over yet..)

I watched it (on C-SPAN, without that annoying commentary from the major networks), and I thought he did a pretty good job, once he got past the expected bits about his family, and his attempts to appear more likable. I think it's a wash whether or not he succeeded there. Some of his anecdotes fell a little flat, like the one about riding his bike into East Berlin, but I think he succeeded in conveying his love for his family, his respect for his wife, and his love for his country. He did seem genuinely moved by the crowds response after he was introduced. He isn't a very dynamic speaker, but he's competent and restrained, and is good at expressing ideas concisely. You don't get that edge-of-your-seat feeling you get watching Bush, waiting for his next gaffe, but I'd rather be bored than embarrassed by a national leader.

I think he outlined his stances on the issues pretty well in the second part of his speech. He was very clear about cutting taxes for the middle class, and rolling back the tax cut. He was also clear about restoring our relationships with our allies, and his aversion to pre-emptive military action.

He did make mention of distortions on his record on taxes. I thought he could have fleshed that out a bit, but then he would have seemed a bit defensive. I also thought I heard him say something like "wouldn't it be nice to have a president who believes in science?" Did I hear that right? I'm not sure what he meant by that one.

I should have written this sooner, when it was still fresh in my mind. Personally, most politicians put me to sleep, and I expect, and usually get, a lot of rhetoric. Sure there was a good amount of that, but I think overall his performance was admirable. If we're judging "appearing presidential" strictly by public speaking ability, Kerry wins hands down.

I haven't read all the threads yet, so if it's not in there, please tell me what PWNT means!

I also thought I heard him say something like "wouldn't it be nice to have a president who believes in science?" Did I hear that right? I'm not sure what he meant by that one.
One of my biggest critiques of this administration is the way they distort or simple ignore scientific findings when they don't agree with the right-wing ideology. They've done it on global warming, on pollution, and on dozens of other issues, and you can trace it back to large corporate interests that donate tons of money to his campaign and other Republican interests every time.

Water-powered tanks = cheap war = good business.

1) Not sure that Gay Marriage devalues families as much as you think...that's an opinion you hold...and my opinion is my opinion. There is no fact here.
2) Kerry is oppsed to gay marriage.
3) The flip-flop argument is baseless and just goes to show who is riding the negativity...

thanks for helping me prove my point. you stated that kerry is opposed to gay marriage, which i am well aware of, yet he isn't going to do any thing about it, which proves two counts
1) he plays both sides of the fence (which isn't a negative comment. it's the truth. sorry, but i think that we need a president that can stand his ground, especially in such turbulent times).
2) he doesn't actually value the family. he opposes gay marriages, so he must think that they are harmful. but he doesn't care enough about protecting the family to do something about it.

One of my biggest critiques of this administration is the way they distort or simple ignore scientific findings when they don't agree with the right-wing ideology. They've done it on global warming, on pollution, and on dozens of other issues, and you can trace it back to large corporate interests that donate tons of money to his campaign and other Republican interests every time.

I couldn't agree with you more. Bush's policies are so counter-productive, so detrimental to public health, his administrations stances on this issue alone may be reason enough not to vote for him.

thanks for helping me prove my point. you stated that kerry is opposed to gay marriage, which i am well aware of, yet he isn't going to do any thing about it, which proves two counts
1) he plays both sides of the fence (which isn't a negative comment. it's the truth. sorry, but i think that we need a president that can stand his ground, especially in such turbulent times).
2) he doesn't actually value the family. he opposes gay marriages, so he must think that they are harmful. but he doesn't care enough about protecting the family to do something about it.
OR IF YOU WOULD STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT FOR ONE SECOND...
Kerry thinks that the decision on gay marriage should be left up to the states. I don't understand how marriage is an issue the federal government should handle.

thanks for helping me prove my point. you stated that kerry is opposed to gay marriage, which i am well aware of, yet he isn't going to do any thing about it, which proves two counts
1) he plays both sides of the fence (which isn't a negative comment. it's the truth. sorry, but i think that we need a president that can stand his ground, especially in such turbulent times).
2) he doesn't actually value the family. he opposes gay marriages, so he must think that they are harmful. but he doesn't care enough about protecting the family to do something about it.
I do like though that you only address one of my 3 points.

What are you smoking? Cuz you ned to pass that shit.

When you look at the ads that both sides have been running, you find that not only has the Bush administration been running more negative ads than the Kerry campaign, they're running them more often--3 times as often to be precise, according to a recent study.

And I love how you contradict yourself--kerry didn't talk about any of the real issues...he made a bunch of empty promises about health care and education. So which is it? Did he or did he not talk about real issues? And why don't you mention all the time he spent talking about the situation in Iraq and the war on al Qaeda?

yeah, but bush isn't the one saying "we need to respect each other". and about the ads, that's because kerry's doing live campaigning with live bush-bashing, whereas bush has to use ads because he's pretty busy doing a pretty good job of being president.

and apparently he didn't talk about iraq or al-qaida very long because i don't remember it. by the way, making empty promises isn't addressing the issues. you need a plan to do that.

yeah, but bush isn't the one saying "we need to respect each other". and about the ads, that's because kerry's doing live campaigning with live bush-bashing, whereas bush has to use ads because he's pretty busy doing a pretty good job of being president.

and apparently he didn't talk about iraq or al-qaida very long because i don't remember it. by the way, making empty promises isn't addressing the issues. you need a plan to do that.
He didn't make empty promises--he provided details as to what he planned to do and how he planned to do it, and he's been doing that for months. And quite honestly, if you didn't hear him talk about Iraq or al Qaeda, it's because you had your head in your ass and couldn't hear--he spoke about that for even longer than he talked about domestic issues.

Tell you what--rather than rely on your obviously faulty memory, how about you google up a transcript of the speech. It's available all over the place.

OR IF YOU WOULD STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT FOR ONE SECOND...
Kerry thinks that the decision on gay marriage should be left up to the states. I don't understand how marriage is an issue the federal government should handle.

because it's a traditional institution, not so fly-by-night, play-it-by-ear gathering. it's sacred. it's universal. it's a value!!! which, kerry isn't upholding. if he really cared, he would stop it at the federal level, or at least attempt to. but no, he has to appeal to all the liberal voters by leaving it to the states while appealing to the conservative voters by opposing it. sounds like flip-flopping to me!

and apparently he didn't talk about iraq or al-qaida very long because i don't remember it. by the way, making empty promises isn't addressing the issues. you need a plan to do that.

Here's what Kerry said about Iraq, and the war on terror:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/election2004/9274935.htm?1c

"I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership - so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.

As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.

We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.

We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

And the front lines of this battle are not just far away they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9/11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America."

yeah, but bush isn't the one saying "we need to respect each other". and about the ads, that's because kerry's doing live campaigning with live bush-bashing, whereas bush has to use ads because he's pretty busy doing a pretty good job of being president.
By the way--are you saying that Bush gets credit because he hasn't said "we need to respect each other?" Does that make it okay for him to lie and distort what Kerry has said and done over his career? Man, you have a seriously fucked view of the world.

I do like though that you only address one of my 3 points.
i did address all three points. i mentioned that gay marriages, apparently even to kerry, are harmful (1), which is why kerry opposes it (2), but won't do anything about it, making him a flip-flopper (3).

By the way--are you saying that Bush gets credit because he hasn't said "we need to respect each other?" Does that make it okay for him to lie and distort what Kerry has said and done over his career? Man, you have a seriously fucked view of the world.

no, you just have a messed up view with what i say. mudslinging will always be part of campaigning. i never said that it was good. but it takes some nerve to get up in a national convention and talk about respecting candidates when your daily campaigning consists of bush-bashing

And the front lines of this battle are not just far away they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9/11 families. As president, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America."

thanks for showing that to me. i guess i missed it. i came in on the 9/11 commission stuff.

i did address all three points. i mentioned that gay marriages, apparently even to kerry, are harmful (1), which is why kerry opposes it (2), but won't do anything about it, making him a flip-flopper (3).
...I'm glad I haven't been subjected to moronic dribble...oh wait...

no, you just have a messed up view with what i say. mudslinging will always be part of campaigning. i never said that it was good. but it takes some nerve to get up in a national convention and talk about respecting candidates when your daily campaigning consists of bush-bashingWhat you so self-righteously call Bush-bashing I call discussing the issues, the most primary of which is the shitty job Bush has done as President. When Bush does his Kerry-bashing, its always with distortions of the record--like the "voted to raise taxes 350 times" bullshit.

The next argument from the right: Would you really vote for someone who has a chin that sweats?

...I'm glad I haven't been subjected to moronic dribble...oh wait...
well if that's the best you can come back with . . .

Not taking a side isn't flip-flopping...really...

What you so self-righteously call Bush-bashing I call discussing the issues, the most primary of which is the shitty job Bush has done as President. When Bush does his Kerry-bashing, its always with distortions of the record--like the "voted to raise taxes 350 times" bullshit.
so what's been so bad about bush?

You also seem to know little about Kerry anyway...I mean, you just now found out that he is against gay marriages...

Oh GOD, you just opened the flood gates...

so what's been so bad about bush?
You mean besides his absolute disrespect for the international community and our Constitution?

Not taking a side isn't flip-flopping...really...
oh, he's taking a side on the issue. in fact, he's taking two.

You mean besides his absolute disrespect for the international community and our Constitution?
you mean the international community's disrespect for our country? and how has he disrespected the Constitution?

oh, he's taking a side on the issue. in fact, he's taking two.
No. He's taken the side of States Rights. Just because he isn't an idiot about scar our constitution with ammendments that limit people's right but at the same time isn't for gay marriage doesn't mean he isn't on ONE side.

you mean the international community's disrespect for our country? and how has he disrespected the Constitution?
I'm not even going to respond to the first one because you obviously never knew anything about international relations until they stood up against Bush. As for the second one, banning gay marriage would scar our constitution just like the 18th ammendment did. Besides, which one of the candidates in question said "There ought to be limits to freedom"?

You also seem to know little about Kerry anyway...I mean, you just now found out that he is against gay marriages...
if you had read what i wrote, i knew beforehand that kerry oppossed gay marriages. i've known that for a while.

and what family values is kerry offering? did he mention any? can he really value families (making a mention to both father and mother in his speech) when he doesn't oppose gay marriages? sounds like a whole lot of hooplah to me. but what else do you expect from a flip-flopping hypocrit?
That was 2 pages ago...

I'm not even going to respond to the first one because you obviously never knew anything about international relations until they stood up against Bush. As for the second one, banning gay marriage would scar our constitution just like the 18th ammendment did. Besides, which one of the candidates in question said "There ought to be limits to freedom"?
so if there is an amendment making gay marriage illegal, would there begin to be another rise of organized crime or something? honestly, what's so bad about it? even your beloved kerry opposes gay marriages.

so if there is an amendment making gay marriage illegal, would there begin to be another rise of organized crime or something? honestly, what's so bad about it? even your beloved kerry opposes gay marriages.
The point is, the constitution is for the expansion of rights and liberties, not for the restriction of them. I don't really have a strong opinion on gay marriage, but I do know that an ammendment banning gay marriage is the absolute last thing I want.

so if there is an amendment making gay marriage illegal, would there begin to be another rise of organized crime or something? honestly, what's so bad about it? even your beloved kerry opposes gay marriages.
Besides, if Kerry had it his way, the states would decide and then the gays could move to those states that approve gay marriage.

I'm not even going to respond to the first one because you obviously never knew anything about international relations until they stood up against Bush. As for the second one, banning gay marriage would scar our constitution just like the 18th ammendment did. Besides, which one of the candidates in question said "There ought to be limits to freedom"?
and how is kerry going to go about winning the hearts of the french and the germans? by more flip-flopping? bush did the right thing. he tried time and time again to get support from the UN, and then NATO. he didn't want to do it "unilaterally", but when no one would come to his aid, except good old reliable england, he went ahead and did the right thing anyway.

The point is, the constitution is for the expansion of rights and liberties, not for the restriction of them. I don't really have a strong opinion on gay marriage, but I do know that an ammendment banning gay marriage is the absolute last thing I want.
you'd rather have terrorists running amok than an ammendment valuing families, like what kerry is trying to advocate? honestly, make up your mind!

and how is kerry going to go about winning the hearts of the french and the germans? by more flip-flopping? bush did the right thing. he tried time and time again to get support from the UN, and then NATO. he didn't want to do it "unilaterally", but when no one would come to his aid, except good old reliable england, he went ahead and did the right thing anyway.
I'm not going to reply to another post of yours unless you stop accusing him of flip-flopper and start defending your accusation.

you'd rather have terrorists running amok than an ammendment valuing families, like what kerry is trying to advocate? honestly, make up your mind!
You just called gays terrorists...
Besides, terrorists kill people, not gays.

Besides, if Kerry had it his way, the states would decide and then the gays could move to those states that approve gay marriage.
oh great, another split union! maybe we'll even have another civil war.

You just called gays terrorists...
Besides, terrorists kill people, not gays.
i didn't call gays terrorist, i was asking you about your "last thing in the world i want." gays are not terrorists. they are people. sorry for that misunderstanding

oh great, another split union! maybe we'll even have another civil war.
Uh...making it an ammendment would cause civil war...
The only reason that the first civil war was started was because the northern states were trying to ban slavery in all states...and now Bush is trying to ban gay marriage in all states...
Now who is moving toward civil war?

i didn't call gays terrorist, i was asking you about your "last thing in the world i want." gays are not terrorists. they are people. sorry for that misunderstanding
You notice there are no ammendments banning murder?

I'm not going to reply to another post of yours unless you stop accusing him of flip-flopper and start defending your accusation.
oh, i've been defending! you just haven't been attacking it. alright, i'll stop accusing him of being someone that doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes.

Just as a side note on terrorism, it's gone UP since the war in Iraq. Just a quick heads up ;)

You notice there are no ammendments banning murder?
that's already law

that's already law
It's a state law.

oh, i've been defending! you just haven't been attacking it. alright, i'll stop accusing him of being someone that doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he believes.

"Fine, I won't prove that point, I'll just make MORE stupid assumptions that have no basis! That'll show you!"

It's a state law.
in every state

in every state
Because every state agrees that murder is wrong, but there is no need for it to be in the constitution. If every state agreed that gay marriages are wrong, then it would follow that gay marriage would be illegal in every state, and still wouldn't be needed in the constitution.

"Fine, I won't prove that point, I'll just make MORE stupid assumptions that have no basis! That'll show you!"
"And i'll just keep whining about it because i can't prove that he's not!"

Because every state agrees that murder is wrong, but there is no need for it to be in the constitution. If every state agreed that gay marriages are wrong, then it would follow that gay marriage would be illegal in every state, and still wouldn't be needed in the constitution.
yeah, except massachusetts has already legalized it, and california won't be too long

"And i'll just keep whining about it because i can't prove that he's not!"
You're the one accusing. Don't we believe in innocent until proven guilty? Prove him a flip-flopper.

yeah, except massachusetts has already legalized it, and california won't be too long
I said IF. But clearly, not all states think it is wrong, and therefore, a constitutional ammendment would do more to cause civil war then letting states decide.

yeah, except massachusetts has already legalized it, and california won't be too long
And not only that, but it's not a matter of "legalizing" it. It's a matter of "illegalizing" it.

Because every state agrees that murder is wrong, but there is no need for it to be in the constitution. If every state agreed that gay marriages are wrong, then it would follow that gay marriage would be illegal in every state, and still wouldn't be needed in the constitution.
and besides, if every state thought it was wrong, what would be so bad about putting it in the constitution. it wouldn't be taking away any rights that would already be taken away, which goes against your argument of how bush is "disrespecting the constitution".

I said IF. But clearly, not all states think it is wrong, and therefore, a constitutional ammendment would do more to cause civil war then letting states decide.
instead, you'll just have a division of gay states and straight states. yeah, like that will keep us united.

and besides, if every state thought it was wrong, what would be so bad about putting it in the constitution. it wouldn't be taking away any rights that would already be taken away, which goes against your argument of how bush is "disrespecting the constitution".
No, it doesn't go against my argument. There are probably other laws that take away from people's right (like the thing about the girl that posted nude pics of herself and got bust since she is 15). Laws will be laws but my constitution will never limit a person's right. I don't care. Laws are intended to keep the peace. The constitution is intended keep the rights. If you want to add an ammendment to the constitution, add one stating that no one can be denied the right to vote, free speech, etc etc etc based on sexual orientation (because the constitution doesn't have one for that...)

and besides, if every state thought it was wrong, what would be so bad about putting it in the constitution. it wouldn't be taking away any rights that would already be taken away, which goes against your argument of how bush is "disrespecting the constitution".Murder doesn't have to be in the constitution because it's already a federal crime, made illegal by numerous acts of Congress under their power derived from the Constitution. It's not the same thing as marriage.

You're the one accusing. Don't we believe in innocent until proven guilty? Prove him a flip-flopper.
don't you know him well enough? i already showed with the gay marriage. also, if you look at his voting record on iraq, taxes, etc. you'll see. i'd love to continue this, but i'm going to bed.

No, it doesn't go against my argument. There are probably other laws that take away from people's right (like the thing about the girl that posted nude pics of herself and got bust since she is 15). Laws will be laws but my constitution will never limit a person's right. I don't care. Laws are intended to keep the peace. The constitution is intended keep the rights. If you want to add an ammendment to the constitution, add one stating that no one can be denied the right to vote, free speech, etc etc etc based on sexual orientation (because the constitution doesn't have one for that...)
so income tax is a right?

instead, you'll just have a division of gay states and straight states. yeah, like that will keep us united.
The thing is...hrm, I think you just need to study history. There was no beef between the slave and non-slave states until the non-slave states tried forcing the slave states to give up slavery. A constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage would force laws on states with a majority of the population supporting gay marriage...a constitutional ammendment would mean that even if 100% of Californians supported gay marriages (keep in mind, that's 12% of the nation), they still couldn't allow it...this is what's going to cause the seperation.
You don't see us having civil war because we have the right to choose a religion do you?

don't you know him well enough? i already showed with the gay marriage. also, if you look at his voting record on iraq, taxes, etc. you'll see. i'd love to continue this, but i'm going to bed.
I know him well enough I guess and would like to see where you're coming from on the flip-flopping issue. I think you're just taking the party line and repeating.

I think there may be an ammendment concerning gay marriage already...I think there's something about it in the 10th ammendment...

I think there may be an ammendment concerning gay marriage already...I think there's something about it in the 10th ammendment...
It's all in the interpretation. You can argue that the 10th Amendment gives the power to define marriage to the states, or you can argue that it gives the power to the individuals to define marriage for themselves, especially if you add in the equal protection argument of the 14th Amendment.

Is there an ammendment that protects homo/bisexual's right to vote?

Brilliant speech if you ask me.

was that a joke? :confused:

Of course not, silly. :rolleyes:

Murder doesn't have to be in the constitution because it's already a federal crime, made illegal by numerous acts of Congress under their power derived from the Constitution. It's not the same thing as marriage.
Get your facts straight, murder per se is not a Federal Crime, and if it were it would be illegal under the Constitution.

and how is kerry going to go about winning the hearts of the french and the germans? by more flip-flopping?.

Oh yes, it's Kerry who is the Flip Flopper (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855) ? I don't think so!

because it's a traditional institution, not so fly-by-night, play-it-by-ear gathering. it's sacred. it's universal. it's a value!!! which, kerry isn't upholding. if he really cared, he would stop it at the federal level, or at least attempt to. but no, he has to appeal to all the liberal voters by leaving it to the states while appealing to the conservative voters by opposing it. sounds like flip-flopping to me!

It is now and has always been a state's rights issue. Bush even campaigned on a platform plank claiming it was a states rights issue, until states began exercising their rights, that is. So, if you want to talk about flip-flopping...

The fact that you can get a quickie marriage and divorce in Nevada has done no more to divide the country or cheapen the institution than allowing individual states to reach their own decisions on the issue of same-sex marriage. For the last 200 years states have defined marriage on their own terms and, even without same-sex couples, the institution is looking tattered. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and fidelity is a thing of the past.

Kerry has stood firmly against same-sex marriage, yet has sensibly realized that it is not an issue for a Constitutional Amendment because that would give the federal government a huge step outside of it's mandate. It's ironic and dismaying that the Republican party supports this amendment so strongly when they are traditionally the party of state's rights and less federal government interference and simply speaks to the further degradation and corruption of the party of Lincoln.

Ultimately, however, in a world plauged by terrorism, in a slowing economy (and yes, it slowed in the second quarter of 2004) that still has not created more jobs than it's lost, with health care costs going through the roof and poverty rates on the rise, it is not the most important issue facing the country today. So good on Kerry for realizing this, stating his opinion, trusting the political system to work like it's supposed to, like our founding father's intended, and moving on to issues that really matter and not getting bogged down in a hot button issue that has little to no substance and only fiery emotional rhetoric behind it.

No, you see Berk, people think that if you're in the Senate you're never suppose to change your mind over a 20 or 30 year period. See, they believe the world is static and times never change. That's why they call democrats "progressive" they can tell the difference between 1970 and 2004, apparently the republicans believe it would of been better for Kerry to never grow with the times and hold the same opinions on every issue for the last 30 years.. it's all rhetoric.

Kerry nailed it.. and what is better is the next time the republicans try to go negative, the democrats can go SEE! Brilliant. He has made it so that if the republicans try any games that aren't the issues, they will look bad. Talk about the issues.. cause that's what the Democrats are doing! A perfect 10 for John Kerry.. I knew he had it in him! Yay!

Any republican who bad mouths Kerry will now only prove Kerry's point! :cool:
Hmmm, I would say calling the President of the US a liar negative politicking... If that is your point. Dont be hypocrtical. Both sides have exhibited negative actions, no party more than the other. Even at the DNC, the widespread orders were to tone down the Bush-bashing. Even toned down, they still can not resist. And for that matter, you cannot restrain Al Sharpton anyway.

Hmmm, I would say calling the President of the US a liar negative politicking... If that is your point. Dont be hypocrtical. Both sides have exhibited negative actions, no party more than the other. Even at the DNC, the widespread orders were to tone down the Bush-bashing. Even toned down, they still can not resist. And for that matter, you cannot restrain Al Sharpton anyway.

Were you not listening? Kerry said between him and Bush/Cheney.. Kerry has never went negative nor has Edwards..Cheney bashes Kerry every chance he gets. Al Sharpton isn't running for office. That $80 million in attack ads on Kerry all said "I'm George Bush and I approve this message"

Get your facts straight, murder per se is not a Federal Crime, and if it were it would be illegal under the Constitution.The Federal Government Sentencing Guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/2a1_1.htm) disagree with you.

The Federal Government Sentencing Guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/2a1_1.htm) disagree with you.
Therefore, things can be federal law without being in the constitution. You'll notice how there is also nothing at all about the internet or anything in the constitution despite there being lots of federal laws about it? The government can make laws without putting it in the constitution. If there is a ban on gay marriage, I'm not going to be extremely upset (as I'm not gay) so long as it isn't in my constitution.

And there is currently a law on the books that states that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state--it's called DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act. (The fact that it's likely unconstitutional under the "full faith and credit clause" is another argument altogether.)

Hmmm, I would say calling the President of the US a liar negative politicking... If that is your point. Dont be hypocrtical. Both sides have exhibited negative actions, no party more than the other. Even at the DNC, the widespread orders were to tone down the Bush-bashing. Even toned down, they still can not resist. And for that matter, you cannot restrain Al Sharpton anyway.
There weren't "orders" and it was toned down. They had to say "tone it down" in order to achieve a regular level of negativity, otherwise there would have been riots in Boston since this President has done so much so wrong that it has just pissed so many people off that much.

There weren't "orders" and it was toned down. They had to say "tone it down" in order to achieve a regular level of negativity, otherwise there would have been riots in Boston since this President has done so much so wrong that it has just pissed so many people off that much.

Speeking of riots, I can't wait till the RNC in NYC. Every anarchist group that was at the WTO convention in 1999 has pledged that they will be there. :D

Speeking of riots, I can't wait till the RNC in NYC. Every anarchist group that was at the WTO convention in 1999 has pledged that they will be there. :D
And how much do you want to bet the networks will cover them a lot more closely than they did any of the protestors in Boston, in order to try to link the crazies with the Democratic party?

And how much do you want to bet the networks will cover them a lot more closely than they did any of the protestors in Boston, in order to try to link the crazies with the Democratic party?
Well, they did have some really crazy (radical cheerleaders, though I do like pink with black) protestors at the DNC.

:rolleyes:

Ok. Follow me!

There was a standing policy that if you are wounded three times, you go home!

Guess what? He was wounded three times?

Did you follow that?

Shall we talk about the shrubs military record?

No not exactly, you have to request to be sent home, it doesn't just happen. He had to whine and say he was scratched in order to get those medals.

No not exactly, you have to request to be sent home, it doesn't just happen. He had to whine and say he was scratched in order to get those medals.
...why don't you compare Kerry's military record to Bush's..