Kerry for president!
#1
Posted 27 September 2004 - 10:53 PM
Do you think sKerry will implode? I heard that he was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended! That is very fishy. Kerry is well known for anti-war protests years ago, before most of you were born.
Then there is the issue of guns, where Kerry would make sure you have no right to own one if he has the chance, but he is proud of his Illegal Chinese assault rifle. How can someone who wants to be chief of all law enforcement be in gross non-compliance of the law?
Soon we have debate #1. It should be a lot of fun watching George W. skewer sKerry. Suggested watching even if you have not been assigned the task.
#2
Posted 28 September 2004 - 12:23 AM
So far the only negative claims I've heard against Kerry have all been suspicions, unproven allegations, dirtdigging, and downright irrelevant stuff like what rifles he's owned. When compared to the righteous hellhole George has made America in the past 4 years, I would much rather hear about the issues.
Skewer Kerry?... At debating?... Hoo boy... I'd like to see this thread again after the public debate, which I've quite been looking forward to. I recently saw a news article quoting Fidel Castro as saying "George Bush couldn't win a debate against a Cuban 9th grader." Occasionally our enemies make a good point.
#3
Posted 28 September 2004 - 10:16 AM
But, I disgress. I know little about politics, anyway, so I doubt my opinion means anything. I just don't really think another four years with Bush would be an excellent idea. I'm not going to continue dragging out my points any further, as I don't wish to start a heated political debate.
#4
Posted 28 September 2004 - 05:33 PM
#5
Posted 28 September 2004 - 06:21 PM
Again.
I don't care other than that.
#6
Posted 28 September 2004 - 06:40 PM
Lucky I'm not 18 yet, otherwise I'd be voting for Kerry. By the next presidentail election, I will be able to.
#7
Posted 28 September 2004 - 07:32 PM
And since Kerry seems to be attracting America's enemies to support him.. Why do you think that is? It's either because the "enemies" want to make peace with America, and they think Kerry is the man to do it, or because they want to see America trashed even worse.
Heh. I should really stop watching MadTV's mockeries of them.
#8
Posted 28 September 2004 - 07:51 PM
Since George came into office, the USA has had a lot of troubles. Now I am not saying that the 9-11 was fault because his problems were before that. Everything was falling apart before that. When that happen, he did a good job putting the US back together. But that is the only thing that I can think of. Kerry is not going to be very good as well, however, do I think he will do a better job than Bush; Yep.
#9
Posted 28 September 2004 - 08:09 PM
So, all in all...
Kerry sucks, Bush Rules, end of story, period.
#10
Posted 28 September 2004 - 09:10 PM
The fact of the matter is that John Kerry is the most decorated member of the Senate (I think... I'm pretty sure that's true. Maybe even for all Congress). George Bush never saw active duty. So even if Kerry's Purple Hearts were not as much "earned" as those of other veterans, how on earth does that make him any less qualified to run the nation than Mr. Bush?
John Kerry is a flip-flop. Why? How do you know that? Because everyone else is saying so? Have you looked at his voting record to verify this stance-shifting that he has been accused of? Or have you based your assumptions on television ads and speeches made by Bush supporters? Maybe you'll cite his position on the funds appropriated to US troops in Iraq, one of the recent issues that the Bush campaign likes to oversimplify. Kerry initially supports a bill to send more money to the troops, hoping that it will be paid for by an increased tax on the rich. That idea is shot down, so he instead enters a protest vote, knowing full well that although the bill would pass, he would go on the record as having opposed Bush's imbalanced tax cuts.
If we just say, "He flip-flopped," we don't have to think too much about it. It's easier. And it gives the Bush campaign one more opportunity to villify the opposition.
Me, I support Kerry. I like to think that he'd do a good enough job of balancing the budget for a change, and I would much rather see health care be more available.
#11
Posted 29 September 2004 - 10:13 PM
(people are still talking about 9/11, there have been shows alluding to it, IMO they are making it a bigger deal than it really is, god didn't create death.)
Yes, I'm pretty sure kerry doesn't care about gay marriges, and from what I've heard, he is pro abortion, but he considers a person a person, born or unborn. (born beig outstide their momma, in this context anyway.) Does this mean he doesn't care about living people here?, unless he is a LIAR!
This BS about the army and how "Kerry would never leave a man behind." NO, when you sign up, you are in the army, and you are expendable.
Furthermore, IMO, People say "Well president Bush has made some weird/strange/dumb/stupid/unintelligent choises, well... Assume al gore was president, Would he have done better or worse? I don't think kerry is suitable for president, I don't think bush is either, but he doesn't look like a rabbit (kerry sure does, *looks away from tv*) and really, there are Far too many "johns" in history.
Edited by Eyhr, 29 September 2004 - 10:22 PM.
#12
Posted 30 September 2004 - 06:20 PM
1. He is an extreme flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped about many things, including the following:
-the $87 billion funding: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
-his position on guns (NRA speaker; also, gun-ban convo. speaker)
-probably the biggest: the Iraq war. He has said the following (paraphrase) in 2003 or so:
"Saddam Hussein is a grave danger to our country" or something to that effect; the meaning of the quote is carried through.
He said this not long ago: "This was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
And he just said this today, in response to Diane Sawyer's question, "Was [the Iraq War] worth it?"
"Well, it all depends on the outcome." The outcome? I will be silent for now.
He voted to fund the troops for the war, and other times, he has voted against the war.
"Even with everything we know today, I still wouldn't have gone into Iraq." Mind you, this includes everything about Hussein, who you will remember, said Hussein needed to be taken out before.
2. He seems to be running only on two things: his Vietnam war record and Bush-bashing.
-first, the Vietnam war record. He starts his convention speech with, "John Kerry, reporting for duty." He bases his campaign on something he did 40 years ago!!!!! Now, I am not for the Swift Boat Ads and all that nonsense. I think if JK served, that's his business. But it says absolutely nothing about how he will handle his job as the President of the United States.
-next, the Bush-bashing. Granted, Bush is doing plenty of bashing himself. But I seem to remember Kerry's advocates saying at the DNC that Bush has one of the most negative ad campaigns ever seen. Now, I ask you, have you seen Kerry/Edwards lately? No doubt the derogatives and pejoratives have increased in intensity and magnitude these past days.
-What he should be doing is saying how he will be running this country, which, so far, I have failed to hear on a necessary level.
3. His 20-year Senate record. Wow, 20 years, right? That's a long time. That should be a good thing for the Kerry campaign. But, in actuality, it's just the opposite. Why haven't we heard about his 20-year senate record? He flipflops! He has flippflopped on nearly every issue, from the war to education to the environment, you name it. He has also missed many crucial votes in that 20 years.
So, my point for bringing this evidence up is not to put down Kerry as a person. Outside of politics, he seems like a nice guy. But, in the political realm, a land of cutthroat, heartless contenders, Kerry simply cannot survive. I say this final point with confidence (discourage this if you may): I believe if Kerry stands a chance at all in this political election, it is not because of Kerry's outstanding political record (which he lacks), but it is because the hatred of Bush in this country is so great that people will be willing to vote for someone as long as it is not Bush.
Perhaps I shall expand on Bush's good qualities in another post, but for now, I'll just let this settle in. I have done what I set out to do: express my opinion (with fact) in a civilized manner.
Edited by FireStorm, 30 September 2004 - 06:25 PM.
#13
Posted 01 October 2004 - 12:34 AM
You have successfully quoted, verbatim, the one line (well, two separate lines cut and fused together) which has been in Bush attack ads for weeks now. Can you tell me what Kerry said AFTER that line, during that speech? I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of it outside of a slam ad. Not many people have.1. He is an extreme flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped about many things, including the following:
-the $87 billion funding: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Are all rifle enthusiasts required to speak out for lessened gun control? Some rifle owners join the NRA because they're into responsible ownership of guns. Kerry is one of those rare few. Also, holding an opinion in contrast with a group your are part of is not flip-flopping. In fact, I make a point of picking out opposing but unconsidered views to present to my peers.-his position on guns (NRA speaker; also, gun-ban convo. speaker)
No, I'd like you to quote more. Paraphrasing something important into one line isn't acceptable. Your quote didn't say he was the most dangerous threat to our country, and that's the point he's getting at now: Hussein is not more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden, and I'm quite sure he would have said that in 2003 as well.-probably the biggest: the Iraq war. He has said the following (paraphrase) in 2003 or so:
"Saddam Hussein is a grave danger to our country" or something to that effect; the meaning of the quote is carried through.
Whenever you gauge whether something was "worth it" in retrospect, you have to measure losses versus gains. There is nothing shameful about doing so in war. In fact, that's what the military is for.He said this not long ago: "This was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
And he just said this today, in response to Diane Sawyer's question, "Was [the Iraq War] worth it?"
"Well, it all depends on the outcome." The outcome? I will be silent for now.
First of all, a keyword here, highlighted for emphasis: he voted to fund the troops for the war. Troops are real people. And they needed to be repaid for their enormous efforts. Bush, on the other hand, took that money and did something else with it, while cutting money to the troops themselves. The "mixed message" he seems to be sending here is "Support Our Troops! ...But only until we get 'em out of the country. Then they're on their own."He voted to fund the troops for the war, and other times, he has voted against the war.
"Even with everything we know today, I still wouldn't have gone into Iraq." Mind you, this includes everything about Hussein, who you will remember, said Hussein needed to be taken out before.
Serving in active duty, especially in Vietnam, is something that sticks with you for the rest of your life. Look at the facts:2. He seems to be running only on two things: his Vietnam war record and Bush-bashing.
-first, the Vietnam war record. He starts his convention speech with, "John Kerry, reporting for duty." He bases his campaign on something he did 40 years ago!!!!! Now, I am not for the Swift Boat Ads and all that nonsense. I think if JK served, that's his business. But it says absolutely nothing about how he will handle his job as the President of the United States.
1. The war in Iraq is currently being commanded by a man who has never seen active duty in the military, let alone combat. Forget the quarrel over his attendance record. He just lacks experience.
2. Kerry is at this moment the most decorated member of the United States Senate.
Both of these are hard facts. Now, do you really think John Kerry got his status through lollygagging and wimping his way through such a brutal war? No... really?
He isn't the only one to comment on the negativity of Bush's campaign. Note that Bush has spent somewhere around 7 times as much money on attack ads, compared to John Kerry. He's also spent more time on reelection campaign fundraising than any president in U.S. history. George Bush really, really needs attack ads to win.-next, the Bush-bashing. Granted, Bush is doing plenty of bashing himself. But I seem to remember Kerry's advocates saying at the DNC that Bush has one of the most negative ad campaigns ever seen.
He was saving it for the debate. And yes, that's the word straight from one of his campaign workers. I assume you watched it after you made this post?-What he should be doing is saying how he will be running this country, which, so far, I have failed to hear on a necessary level.
Yada yada... Again, is any of this not taken verbatim from a 30-second Bush campaign ad?3. His 20-year Senate record. Wow, 20 years, right? That's a long time. That should be a good thing for the Kerry campaign. But, in actuality, it's just the opposite. Why haven't we heard about his 20-year senate record? He flipflops!
Man, I never quote opponent's campaign ads when I want to bash a candidate. in Bush's case, I really don't need to. I have whole archives full of quotes and histories I can show you. Very few of them quick and dirty.
If by going up against heartless cutthroats, you become one yourself, then you lose the purpose of going into office in the first place. If you need to know more about this, I suggest you watch A Few Good Men.So, my point for bringing this evidence up is not to put down Kerry as a person. Outside of politics, he seems like a nice guy. But, in the political realm, a land of cutthroat, heartless contenders, Kerry simply cannot survive.
In addition, this brings to mind a bumper sticker I saw that really hit deep. It said: "We're making enemies faster than we can kill them."
Succeeding in the war on terrorism is far, far more than merely going to war. If terrorism is cancer, then battling it requires much more than simply removing the original tumor with a scalpel.
I can say with confidence that I think John Kerry is a better candidate than Al Gore ever was, and I voted for Al Gore in the last election without any doubt in my mind that he was more qualified than Bush. Don't let my Bush-bashing fool you. If I were only voting for John Kerry because he's not Bush, I wouldn't... *ahem* ...beat around the bush about it. I'd say so up front.I say this final point with confidence (discourage this if you may): I believe if Kerry stands a chance at all in this political election, it is not because of Kerry's outstanding political record (which he lacks), but it is because the hatred of Bush in this country is so great that people will be willing to vote for someone as long as it is not Bush.
When I say that I am bitterly opposed to Bush, it is an opposition to a system much larger than Bush itself that has been in place for far too long. In fact, I don't even think the man is really all that remarkable, except for record stubbornness. It's not that the Republican party has always been unreasonable. It's that all the reasonable people are leaving the Republican party because of the direction the party is taking. :\ Makes me wonder if John McCain is next...
Edited by Radien, 01 October 2004 - 12:40 AM.
#14
Posted 01 October 2004 - 12:48 AM
"You cannot lead a country when you're sending mexed missages."
(I apologize if the quote isn't quite accurate. I'm going by memory from a few hours ago.)
#15
Posted 01 October 2004 - 01:55 AM
Bush has said variants of that phrase so many times that I'm sure your recollection of it is an exact quote of one of those instances. Well... except for spelling the word "mexed." ...Or did he actually say that?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users