NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I've just checked www.electoral-vote.com and it appears that Bush would have won substantially more of the electoral college vote if the election were held yesterday.

Bush's popularity sees to be on the rise as even New Jersey and Pennsylvania go for him.

I thought that Americans were entrenched behind their candidate, but it would seem that there are many fickle voters.

What happened to John Kerry?

He forgot how to fight an election. It would appear that his campaign consists of making everyone think he doesn't exist. I thought America had a Democratic candidate that could finally hand out a political beat-down to the Coup Leader, but apparently not. He should be wiping the floor with them; keeping them busy on 9-11 and the War on Terror, whilst pushing his own message out through the electronic and print media. Instead he's performing a political vanishing act and being as much a spectre as Bush's brain cells.

He forgot how to fight an election. It would appear that his campaign consists of making everyone think he doesn't exist. I thought America had a Democratic candidate that could finally hand out a political beat-down to the Coup Leader, but apparently not. He should be wiping the floor with them; keeping them busy on 9-11 and the War on Terror, whilst pushing his own message out through the electronic and print media. Instead he's performing a political vanishing act and being as much a spectre as Bush's brain cells.

You just proved why Kerry will lose the election. Anger does not do any thing positive. The American people are not angry at Bush as most Democrats would have you believe, and the more the left appears to be angry, the larger the gap will be. Plus, I believe that the Clinton's don't actually want Kerry to win as Hillary wants to run in 08, as the Clintons' are the leaders of the party.

You just proved why Kerry will lose the election. Anger does not do any thing positive. The American people are not angry at Bush as most Democrats would have you believe, and the more the left appears to be angry, the larger the gap will be. Plus, I believe that the Clinton's don't actually want Kerry to win as Hillary wants to run in 08, as the Clintons' are the leaders of the party.

Yeah, I agree with that, but what's stopping Hillary from running for '08 if Kerry wins this one?

Yeah, I agree with that, but what's stopping Hillary from running for '08 if Kerry wins this one?


I doubt that the Democrats would run Hillary against a Democrat President if Kerry does win.

I doubt that the Democrats would run Hillary against a Democrat President if Kerry does win.

Yeah of course :D, but what if Kerry doesn't run for the '08 election?

Yeah of course :D, but what if Kerry doesn't run for the '08 election?

If Kerry would win, the only reason he wouldn't run for reelection in 08 would be if he had absolutely no chance of winning or if he were dead. But you never know, maybe the dems would pull a coup on Kerry and throw Hillary into the fray.

Incertonia discussed why at least on of the pollings is creating that impression (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358303).

Is no one else given at least a little pause at how inaccurate polls have been in the last few years? (this is a seperate point)

Following the links on the electoral site provided what I consider some required reading (http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm). (a third point...)

I cant believe how rubbish John Kerry has been in the build up to the election. He should be wiping the floor with Bush but he is trailing in the polls, excluding the bounce Bush got from the republican conference. Bush has been one of the worst Presidents ever.

He turned the biggest budget surplus ever into a defecit. He decreases the tax for the highest earners but tax for the low earners has increased. He started a war for spurious reasons and killed over 1000 US troops, and god knows how many Iraqi civillians. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocall on reducing CO2 emissions thus endangering the worlds future. He is the only president in history who has seen a net fall in people in employment. The list goes on.

If John Kerry had any political skills then he would be miles ahead in the polls. i am now scared that Bush will win the election and the tyranny will continue for another four years. For gods sake Kerry, get a grip!

These polls are designed to lobby for one of the two candidates. The one seemingly winning is supposed to show that he's undefeatable, thus swaying voters who do not want their vote to go to the perceived loser.

It's called peer-pressure and I absolutely hate these polls. They create wrong impressions and affect voter behaviour.

You have to ask? Lol!

-Flip-flops (Most notably, Iraq)
-Attendance record in Senate (Look up any recent Senate vote - from his government web site, I learn he hasn't sponsored or cosponsored any bill in over a year)
-Hypocrisy ("I have a Communist Chinese AK-47..." (though that might actually just be a lie))
-Vietnam (Hey, he brought it up...)
-Criminal record
-Bush's overall greatness

You have to ask? Lol!

-Flip-flops (Most notably, Iraq)
-Hypocrisy ("I have a Communist Chinese AK-47..." (though that might actually just be a lie))
-Vietnam (Hey, he brought it up...)
-Criminal record
-Bush's overall greatness
Flip-flops:*points to sig*
Hypocrisy:George Bush is a hypocrite too.
Vietnam:Oh, so skipping out on duty is better than what Kerry did?
Criminal record:OK, I'm clueless on this one. Waht did Kerry do?
Bush's "greatness":That's YOUR opinion. IMO, he's an idiot warmonger who only cares for big business.

Kerry did have a bad Aug, but it would appear by the majority of polls only two out there now saying Bush has some sort of huge lead, that it's pretty much a tie again and Kerry has been doing quite well so far in Sept. I don't think we will know for sure until after at least the first debate.

You just proved why Kerry will lose the election. Anger does not do any thing positive. The American people are not angry at Bush as most Democrats would have you believe, and the more the left appears to be angry, the larger the gap will be. Plus, I believe that the Clinton's don't actually want Kerry to win as Hillary wants to run in 08, as the Clintons' are the leaders of the party.

I'm not the left and I'm angry. So I guess at least some Americans are angry at Bush.

If John Kerry had any political skills then he would be miles ahead in the polls.
You are starting to see the light

Kerry did have a bad Aug, but it would appear by the majority of polls only two out there now saying Bush has some sort of huge lead, that it's pretty much a tie again and Kerry has been doing quite well so far in Sept. I don't think we will know for sure until after at least the first debate.
And those polls have serious methodological flaws. This race is tight, no doubt about it, and the link at the top is ridiculously flawed, since they're assigning states--to both sides--that are literally dead heats. It means nothing--it would mean nothing if this were November 1 in those states.

In the last six months Kerry has made so many changes to his platform that nobody really knows what to expect from him.

Will he send more troops to Iraq or bring them home? Will he lower spending or raise it? Will he increase military spending or lower it?

All valid questions and all he has answered both ways.

What it all comes down to is Kerry's Platform (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrynotbush.htm)

Funny--Bush has made even more changes to his platform, and yet people like you don't seem to be bothered by that Bozzy. Why the hypocrisy?

Name one change made to Bush's Re-Election Platform that he's made.

Name one change made to Bush's Re-Election Platform that he's made.
Well, considering that, as the incumbent, his record as President is his reelection platform, where shall I start? The Homeland Security Department? The 9/11 Commission? Gay Marriage? Nation Building? The Assault Weapons Ban? Fiscal Responsibility? Negotiation with North Korea?

Do you really want me to continue?

Actually since Bush is a sitting incumbent, it has nothing to do with Kerry really, it's a referendum on Bush, not Kerry.

Actually since Bush is a sitting incumbent, it has nothing to do with Kerry really, it's a referendum on Bush, not Kerry.
So you are saying Kerrys platfor is that he's not Bush?

Hmm, compelling.

So you are saying Kerrys platfor is that he's not Bush?

Hmm, compelling.
That's not what she's saying at all. Kerry's platform has nothing to do with the fact that elections with incumbents are always about the incumbent's record.

And by the way, nice attempt to dodge the question and fail to defend your guy's record on flip-flops.

Err...what the fuck are you talking about?

The race is as good as tied (thanks Newsweek for misweighting the polls!), honestly.

Anyone else remember the other time that Kerry's campaign was left for dead?

Err...what the fuck are you talking about?

The race is as good as tied (thanks Newsweek for misweighting the polls!), honestly.

Anyone else remember the other time that Kerry's campaign was left for dead?Won Iowa and cruised from there as I recall--much to my dismay at the time. :D

Well, considering that, as the incumbent, his record as President is his reelection platform, where shall I start? The Homeland Security Department? The 9/11 Commission? Gay Marriage? Nation Building? The Assault Weapons Ban? Fiscal Responsibility? Negotiation with North Korea?

Do you really want me to continue?
I won't deny that in the last four years Bush has had to make concessions as a normal part of politics - though the examples you gave are not examples of complete position changes at all. (When did his position on Gay Marriage change?)

Meanwhile, in his re-election cycle his values have not changed at all, particularly on important issues such as Tort Reform, Iraq, Taxes, Marriage, etc. There is very little to Kerry's platform (of the moment) that hasn't been contradicted by Kerry himself within the last six months - particularly Iraq.

Won Iowa and cruised from there as I recall--much to my dismay at the time. :D
Anyone else remember a campaign that was flying high and 'sure' to win by the consensus of all of the pundits?

Much to my dismay, they didn't.

That's not what she's saying at all. Kerry's platform has nothing to do with the fact that elections with incumbents are always about the incumbent's record.

And by the way, nice attempt to dodge the question and fail to defend your guy's record on flip-flops.
In fact, Kerry's platform has very little to do with fact at all! Much easier to discuss 'secret' plans for Iraq and Medical costs than to actually have any.

re: dodging - how fast do you think I can type??!!!

Actually since Bush is a sitting incumbent, it has nothing to do with Kerry really, it's a referendum on Bush, not Kerry.
Then tell me how your statement does not relate to this:
Kerry's Platform (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrynotbush.htm)

I won't deny that in the last four years Bush has had to make concessions as a normal part of politics - though the examples you gave are not examples of complete position changes at all. (When did his position on Gay Marriage change?)

Meanwhile, in his re-election cycle his values have not changed at all, particularly on important issues such as Tort Reform, Iraq, Taxes, Marriage, etc. There is very little to Kerry's platform (of the moment) that hasn't been contradicted by Kerry himself within the last six months - particularly Iraq.
As a candidate in 2000, Bush said that same-sex marriage was a state's rights issue and was none of the Federal government's business. Now he's for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

So tell me why when it's Bush, it's called "concessions as a normal part of politics" and when it's Kerry, it's "flip-flops." It's the same thing in both cases, and I'll be the first to admit that I think it's good when a person shows flexibility. But Bush and his campaign try to paint it as a weakness while they do exactly the same thing--that's hypocrisy, plain and simple, which is why I call them out on it.

Then tell me how your argument does not relate to this:

Kerry's Platform (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrynotbush.htm)

That's not what she's saying at all. Kerry's platform has nothing to do with the fact that elections with incumbents are always about the incumbent's record.

Thanks Incertonia, that is exactly what I was saying. One would of thought that obvious, some people do enjoy trying to spin though now don't they! Tsk, Tsk Bozzy.

Curious, he has left our Iraq. I guess he still hasn't decided his position on that one.

WTF. why are the threads all out of sequence?

Then tell me how your statement does not relate to this:
Kerry's Platform (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrynotbush.htm)

I think Kerry has a good platform. I can't say the same about Bush's. I guess it depends on what you think is important.

Kerry's Real Platform (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)

I think Kerry has a good platform. I can't say the same about Bush's. I guess it depends on what you think is important.

Kerry's Real Platform (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/)
Curious that he left out Iraq - I guess he hasn't decided which of his statements to go with.

In fact, Kerry's platform has very little to do with fact at all! Much easier to discuss 'secret' plans for Iraq and Medical costs than to actually have any.

re: dodging - how fast do you think I can type??!!!
You want specifics on his health care plan? Here you go. (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html)

Now as to Iraq, don't you agree it would be foolish to put forth a plan for a situation when you have literally no idea what the situation will be like in 4 months, which is when Kerry would be taking over? I wouldn't expect that from anyone--you have to react to the situation as it exists at the time. Kerry has talked about basics he'd like to accomplish, including getting more help from allies, but at this point, it would be irresponsible to lay out plans that would likely be outdated by the time they could be implemented in any meaningful way. When I criticize Bush, it's not for his future plans--it's for what he's done thus far to get us into this mess.

You want specifics on his health care plan? Here you go. (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/health_care.html)

Now as to Iraq, don't you agree it would be foolish to put forth a plan for a situation when you have literally no idea what the situation will be like in 4 months, which is when Kerry would be taking over? I wouldn't expect that from anyone--you have to react to the situation as it exists at the time. Kerry has talked about basics he'd like to accomplish, including getting more help from allies, but at this point, it would be irresponsible to lay out plans that would likely be outdated by the time they could be implemented in any meaningful way. When I criticize Bush, it's not for his future plans--it's for what he's done thus far to get us into this mess.


Gee, yet he can project forward FOUR YEARS and claim to bring them home then?

Considering Bush spoke before the UN and gathered a considerable team of allies prior to entering Iraq, Kerry's argument is null. IF Kerry believes he can get more allies, then what is holding him back from doing so now?

Bush 331
Kerry 207

As of Sunday September 19, 2004

Tomorrow? I expect these numbers to change! PA, as of right now and according to the Keystone Poll (Have no idea they existed LOL) has Bush up by 2 points

The Mason-Dixon Poll has Bush up by 7 in Ohio, 9 in NH, 7 in MO!

Survey USA has NJ in the Bush Camp by 4 points!

More polls will come in but there is a break down on the States Pages that has all the poll groups that did at:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html

This is a close election and I'll be honest, I'm skeptical of this lead and I expect these numbers to change tomorrow and going till November 2!

Curious that he left out Iraq - I guess he hasn't decided which of his statements to go with.

Actually he has...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

Gee, yet he can project forward FOUR YEARS and claim to bring them home then?

Considering Bush spoke before the UN and gathered a considerable team of allies prior to entering Iraq, Kerry's argument is null. IF Kerry believes he can get more allies, then what is holding him back from doing so now?What's holding him back? It's a bit presumptuous to try to get allies while you're only a candidate, don't you think? You guys would have a field day with that. Once he's the President-elect, I imagine he'll be in some pretty serious talks.

Actually he has...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html
The first two read more like a Christmas Wish list than a platform - missing is the 'how'. He may as well say he is going to move the Moon - without the 'how' it is meaningless. Conclusions without premesis.

"Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions" by doing what?

"Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq" by doing what?

"Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO" With what money and why would NATO join after already saying no?

"Plan for Iraq’s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts" already being done - with considerable progress.

These are all meaningless statements of hoped for concenquences for actions not specified. AKA - "Wishes" They are statements of anticipated results - not statements of expected actions. Kerry must do better than that to win votes.

What's holding him back? It's a bit presumptuous to try to get allies while you're only a candidate, don't you think? You guys would have a field day with that. Once he's the President-elect, I imagine he'll be in some pretty serious talks.
Never stopped Carter from handling foreign affairs during the Clinton years..

Never stopped Carter from handling foreign affairs during the Clinton years..
Oh come on, Bozzy. You can do better than that.

They are meaningless unless he gets elected. The reason in case you haven't clued in that the world is not all that willing to play ball with the Bush administration is because he's done nothing but insult us for the last 3 years. The USA will have a much better chance of having the world listen to you if you change the messenger!

And what you failed to realize Stephistan is that he is not telling the American People how he will do what he plans on doing! People would love to hear that from a cadidate.

These are all meaningless statements of hoped for concenquences for actions not specified. AKA - "Wishes" They are statements of anticipated results - not statements of expected actions. Kerry must do better than that to win votes.

They are meaningless unless he gets elected. The reason in case you haven't clued in that the world is not all that willing to play ball with the Bush administration is because he's done nothing but insult us for the last 3 years. The USA will have a much better chance of having the world listen to you if you change the messenger!

They are meaningless unless he gets elected. The reason in case you haven't clued in that the world is not all that willing to play ball with the Bush administration is because he's done nothing but insult us for the last 3 years. The USA will have a much better chance of having the world listen to you if you change the messenger!
"Us"? You are the world? I am quite clued in - thank you.

Wow, I've never presumed to speak for 4 billion people before.

I don't recall Bush insulting any nation or world leaders.

I do recall Bush and his team doing substantial negotiations with the UN and many member nations. What makes you think Kerry would be treated any differently? I doun't think changing the messenger would do anything - and the message is something Kerry and many others have already endorsed.

And what you failed to realize Stephistan is that he is not telling the American People how he will do what he plans on doing! People would love to hear that from a cadidate.
He's telling them--you're just not listening.

He's telling them--you're just not listening.

No, I have listened Incertonia. Every speech that I have heard includes plans yes but not how he will accomplish them. I've also heard him talk about Vietnam in his speeches and I wish he stops it because frankly, no one cares. He HAS NOT talked about his senate record and people are noticing it.

Unless he starts to explain how he plans on accomplishing what he wants done, he'll lose this election.

Bush has explained what he plans on doing and how he will go about it.

He's telling them--you're just not listening.

I addressed this same thing a few posts back- with quotes from Kerry's website.

Kerry only mentions results, not methods. Meaningless.

Rather than suggest people are just not listening, maybe you should listen to them and consider that they may be right or provide evidence that they are not.

Oh come on, Bozzy. You can do better than that.
Whoops, missed this post. I gotta give it a smiley!

No, I have listened Incertonia. Every speech that I have heard includes plans yes but not how he will accomplish them. I've also heard him talk about Vietnam in his speeches and I wish he stops it because frankly, no one cares. He HAS NOT talked about his senate record and people are noticing it.

Unless he starts to explain how he plans on accomplishing what he wants done, he'll lose this election.

Bush has explained what he plans on doing and how he will go about it.
Again--he has been talking about it on the campaign trail--he's just not getting any press coverage about it because the media is too busy talking about bogus issues like Swift Boat Vets and typewriter fonts and shit that happened 30+ years ago.

Again--he has been talking about it on the campaign trail--he's just not getting any press coverage about it because the media is too busy talking about bogus issues like Swift Boat Vets and typewriter fonts and shit that happened 30+ years ago.
Dont you think he might want to make mention of it on his website then?

If he didn't want to discuss his service record then he never should have brought it up in the first place.

I addressed this same thing a few posts back- with quotes from Kerry's website.

Kerry only mentions results, not methods. Meaningless.

Rather than suggest people are just not listening, maybe you should listen to them and consider that they may be right or provide evidence that they are not.And Bush offers more in the way of specifics? Hell, an article in the Washington Post last Saturday noted that all of Bush's promises in his acceptance speech will cost a third more than Kerry's suggested programs will, and Bush plans on cutting taxes even more. How does he plan to pay for all of this? How does he plan to straighten the situation out in Iraq, given that he's done such a brilliant job thus far? Let's hear it.

And Bush offers more in the way of specifics? Hell, an article in the Washington Post last Saturday noted that all of Bush's promises in his acceptance speech will cost a third more than Kerry's suggested programs will, and Bush plans on cutting taxes even more. How does he plan to pay for all of this? How does he plan to straighten the situation out in Iraq, given that he's done such a brilliant job thus far? Let's hear it.
Well, to bring up a recent argument of yours - Bush has 4 years of incumbency to help define his platform.

Kerry has a platform of wished for results and unnamed methods. If he wants a chance to win he will have to do better than wish in public, and which is why is campaign is faultering.
(bringing us back to the topic of this thread)

And by the way, Bozzy, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why when Bush changes his position, it's a concession to political reality and when Kerry does it, it's flip-flopping, and why it's not hypocritical for the Bush campaign to attack Kerry for something that they do all the time.

Bozzy, you say Bush doesnt flip-flop. So he wont change his position. Therefore in the future our allies wont join us because it will be the same Bush using the same arguments.

Kerry on the other hand flip-flops. So if he isnt getting our allies support he will "flip-flop" and maybe get it.


I mean is flip-flopping really a bad thing. Whats the problem? You cant trust him. Well it will be a Republican legislature so unless you cant also trust Republicans no crackpot legislature will be passed. If he is wrong which you say he is, he will change his position. If he is right then th legislature will be passed. Bush on the otherhand is right sometimes is wrong sometimes and stays wrong all the time.

Well, to bring up a recent argument of yours - Bush has 4 years of incumbency to help define his platform.

Kerry has a platform of wished for results and unnamed methods. If he wants a chance to win he will have to do better than wish in public.That doesn't address the question I asked. Nice attempt at dodging, but come on--if you can't answer the challenge, then just say so.

It came as a surprise to me that people aren't voting for kerry. People here are not as stupid as I once thought. I thought they'd vote for kerry cuz they need a face to blame the war and 9/11 so they choose Bushs' face. :mp5: :sniper: But yeah kerry has horrible views and he will bring america into a aging hippy liberal land.... just look at his military policies. :rolleyes:

And by the way, Bozzy, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why when Bush changes his position, it's a concession to political reality and when Kerry does it, it's flip-flopping, and why it's not hypocritical for the Bush campaign to attack Kerry for something that they do all the time.
Because the circumstances have not changed causing Kerry to need a change of position on issues such as Iraq - he just does it based on who he is talking to. I thought I was clear on that earlier, sorry if I wasn't.

Hillary wants to run in 08

No, she does not and she will not.

Wanna know why the Left is so angry? Because every time the Right opens their mouths, they lie. Just like you making that statement.

You cannot do anything without telling lies and people actually believe your lies and that makes the Left angry. Learn to stop telling lies and then we might pay attention to you.

It came as a surprise to me that people aren't voting for kerry. People here are not as stupid as I once thought. I thought they'd vote for kerry cuz they need a face to blame the war and 9/11 so they choose Bushs' face. :mp5: :sniper: But yeah kerry has horrible views and he will bring america into a aging hippy liberal land.... just look at his military policies. :rolleyes:
Tell that to the majority party who approves all bills.

Because the circumstanced have not changed causing Kerry to need a change of position on issues such as Iraq - he just does it based on who he is talking to. I thought I was clear on that earlier, sorry if I wasn't.
Oh bullshit. You realize that you're arguing that the circumstances changed for Bush but not for Kerry, and so it's okay for Bush but not for Kerry. Give me a break.

Oh bullshit. You realize that you're arguing that the circumstances changed for Bush but not for Kerry, and so it's okay for Bush but not for Kerry. Give me a break.
Then explain what circumstances have changed in the last three months that have taken Kerry from "Knowing what I know today I still would have supported taking out Saddam" to "The wrong war at the wrong time"?

Circumstance changed for Bush, meanwhile Kerry only says what he thinks people want to hear. He needs to be consistient at least during his campaign if he wants to be taken seroiusly by anyone but the mostt partisan voters.

Then explain what circumstances have changed in the last three months that have taken Kerry from "Knowing what I know today I still would have supported taking out Saddam" to "The wrong war at the wrong time"?

Circumstance changed for Bush, meanwhile Kerry only says what he thinks people want to hear. He needs to be consistient at least during his campaign if he wants to be taken seroiusly by voters.
Kerry never said what you claim he did--that's what's changed.

John Kerry has said that knowing all he does today, he still would have voted to authorise the use of force in Iraq.

For Kerry's positions, please see http://www.KerryOnIraq.com.

Kerry never said what you claim he did--that's what's changed.
So, then, tell me where the media got it wrong?

OF ALL THE DASTARDLY THINGS GEORGE W. BUSH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DOING IN HIS TWENTIES, AT LEAST HE WASN’T SHMOOZING WITH HIGH-LEVEL VIET-CONG OFFICERS AND NORTH VIETNAMESE OFFICIALS WHILE STILL IN UNIFORM AND WHILE WE WERE STILL FIGHTING A WAR IN WHICH THE ABOVE-NAMED GROUPS WERE THE ENEMY, NOR WAS GEORGE W. BUSH THE SOURCE OF BOGUS ACCUSATIONS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES ON INNOCENT VIETNAMESE CIVILIANS THAT VIET CONG TORTURERS USED TO TORMENT THEIR AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
You know, one day John Kerry might be eligible for forgiveness for those deeds. I imagine that to become so eligible he might have to do a few things: publically apologize for and recant his anti-Americanism and commie-nuzzling activities – with no “I was just an idealistic youth” bullshit either – apologize also to the Swiftboat Vets for slandering them and threatening them with lawsuits, lick the Vietnam Memorial clean of all bird droppings and other grime with his own personal tongue… But still, I leave the question of his forgiveness to a higher authority than mine.
Just think, Dems, you could have had Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman. Instead you chose this – this upper-crust Major Frank Burns – for your candidate. I think that, and the response of the station to a major liberal television news show’s use of false evidence, shows me what sort of party you have become.

OF ALL THE DASTARDLY THINGS GEORGE W. BUSH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DOING IN HIS TWENTIES, AT LEAST HE WASN’T SHMOOZING WITH HIGH-LEVEL VIET-CONG OFFICERS AND NORTH VIETNAMESE OFFICIALS WHILE STILL IN UNIFORM AND WHILE WE WERE STILL FIGHTING A WAR IN WHICH THE ABOVE-NAMED GROUPS WERE THE ENEMY, NOR WAS GEORGE W. BUSH THE SOURCE OF BOGUS ACCUSATIONS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES ON INNOCENT VIETNAMESE CIVILIANS THAT VIET CONG TORTURERS USED TO TORMENT THEIR AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
You know, one day John Kerry might be eligible for forgiveness for those deeds. I imagine that to become so eligible he might have to do a few things: publically apologize for and recant his anti-Americanism and commie-nuzzling activities – with no “I was just an idealistic youth” bullshit either – apologize also to the Swiftboat Vets for slandering them and threatening them with lawsuits, lick the Vietnam Memorial clean of all bird droppings and other grime with his own personal tongue… But still, I leave the question of his forgiveness to a higher authority than mine.
Just think, Dems, you could have had Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman. Instead you chose this – this upper-crust Major Frank Burns – for your candidate. I think that, and the response of the station to a major liberal television news show’s use of false evidence, shows me what sort of party you have become.
Forget about Kerry and Bush fora second.

Do you support protecting the enviornment?

Do you believe the government should help the poor and disabled?

Do you believe in a methodical debate over issues?

It's been fun but I gotta go. C-ya

So, then, tell me where the media got it wrong?A challenge for when you get back--find the quote where he says what you say he said.

No, she does not and she will not.

Wanna know why the Left is so angry? Because every time the Right opens their mouths, they lie. Just like you making that statement.

You cannot do anything without telling lies and people actually believe your lies and that makes the Left angry. Learn to stop telling lies and then we might pay attention to you.

Ok, I have a beach for sale in Arizona. Want to buy it? Believe what you want to about Mrs Clinton, but it is her agenda to become the first female President! Bill wants to complete the Clinton legacy.

Wow! You really do have an anger issue. Maybe with Kerrys' healthcare plan you could get the mental health you so desperately need. :) Republicans are the only ones who lie? Are you serious??? All politicians lie, it comes with the job.

"It is seared....seared into my memory!"

If you can't see the lies that your party spews as well as the rights', then I feel sorry for you.

So, then, tell me where the media got it wrong?
Because the quotes have been taken completely out of context. Kerry was against going to war unilaterally and without allowing inspectors to do their jobs properly. He was not against putting pressure on Iraq and eventual war as a last resort.

Hey, I've just checked www.electoral-vote.com and it appears that Bush would have won substantially more of the electoral college vote if the election were held yesterday.

Bush's popularity sees to be on the rise as even New Jersey and Pennsylvania go for him.

I thought that Americans were entrenched behind their candidate, but it would seem that there are many fickle voters.

What happened to John Kerry?
I never thought Bush was winning. I'm as surprised as you are.

Ok, I have a beach for sale in Arizona. Want to buy it? Believe what you want to about Mrs Clinton, but it is her agenda to become the first female President! Bill wants to complete the Clinton legacy.


She has said on numerous occasions that she has no plans to run for the Presidency. You are simply making it up and cannot back up your claims. Hence, you are a liar.

Not Kerry, not Bush, not anyone else on the planet am I addressing this to: YOU, MoeHoward, are a liar. Deal with it.

She has said on numerous occasions that she has no plans to run for the Presidency. You are simply making it up and cannot back up your claims. Hence, you are a liar.

Not Kerry, not Bush, not anyone else on the planet am I addressing this to: YOU, MoeHoward, are a liar. Deal with it.

We all know she wants to run but '04 was not her time! She didn't want to run in 2004 because of all the people that were running. Also, she wants to complete her Senate Term which is up in 2006!

I do believe that she will run in 2008!

You are right, she has said that she doesn't run in the THIS election. However, she has said nothing about 2008! If you listen to her talk, it does sound like she is gearing up for a 2008 run if Kerry doesn't get elected.

"Us"? You are the world? I am quite clued in - thank you.

Wow, I've never presumed to speak for 4 billion people before.

I don't recall Bush insulting any nation or world leaders.

I do recall Bush and his team doing substantial negotiations with the UN and many member nations. What makes you think Kerry would be treated any differently? I don't think changing the messenger would do anything - and the message is something Kerry and many others have already endorsed.
She was actually speaking for six billion people. She was right too. The vast majority of people in every part of the world except America and Israel dislike the Bush agenda and methods.

Maybe you don't recall it. I'll give you some help. How about "freedom fries". How about "you're either with us or with the terrorists". Two words: shit diplomacy.

The PNAC neocons in control of the Bush administration have never had anything but contempt for the UN. The "negotiations" mostly consisted of lying and coercion.

At least Kerry seems like more of an internationalist than a unilateralist.