Wacka Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 "I have four words for America, five words for Bush, two words for you, three words for you, I don't know you but I'll come up with some words later, 4 fours for my wife, six words....." 16882[/snapback] I have two words for Kerry. The first starts with F and the second with Y.
Albany,n.y. Posted September 3, 2004 Author Posted September 3, 2004 Why would John Kerry say one week ago, that if he were President he too would have gone to war in Iraq,.....but then tonight he said the President misled the nation into war? Is he saying if he was President he would have misled the nation? 16866[/snapback] Because he said he'd vote to give the President the power to decide what to do in the best interest of the country. He didn't say he would have gone to war the way Bush did. He believes in the power of the Presidency because he will need to have that power in about 4 1/2 months. You've been watching too much of the convention and have started believing the lies. I watched the convention too, heard all the lies and didn't believe them.
Moose Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I'm curious, did he give this little speech using his Boston Brahmin accent... or the phony one he's cultured and uses now? John Kerry=Hugh Carey=Mario Cuomo=Tax & Spend=If you think the economy is bad now, you aint seen NOTHIN' until the socialists (a.k.a. democrats) take it to depths not seen since the Jimmy Carter years.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I'm curious, did he give this little speech using his Boston Brahmin accent... or the phony one he's cultured and uses now? John Kerry=Hugh Carey=Mario Cuomo=Tax & Spend=If you think the economy is bad now, you aint seen NOTHIN' until the socialists (a.k.a. democrats) take it to depths not seen since the Jimmy Carter years. 16995[/snapback] Get a clue. Bush is not your dad's conservative. Bush has spent record levels of money and created record levels of government and mentioned a litany of new programs last night.At least Kerry wants to pay for some of this. And oh yeah, that $87 billion he voted FOR was to tell the rich you can't have your freaking cake and eat it, too. Meanwhile our young men and women, particularly from impoverished areas, are footing the bill with their lives, with 85% of this war's dead coming after "major combat operations" ceased. I'm sick of how little the rich have to sacrifice in this country. Their investments are on the way to being tax-free, they know the tax code in and out and can exploit all the loopholes. Talk about socialism, Bush is the one enacting all the new programs with no funding coming in. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush. What's better, Tax & Spend or "Spend, Spend, Refund and uh, Good Luck Taking Care of That, Kids"?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Because he said he'd vote to give the President the power to decide what to do in the best interest of the country. He didn't say he would have gone to war the way Bush did. He believes in the power of the Presidency because he will need to have that power in about 4 1/2 months. You've been watching too much of the convention and have started believing the lies. I watched the convention too, heard all the lies and didn't believe them. 16978[/snapback] Lies? You mean the DRIECT QUOTES taken from kerry himself? That would make your boy a liar, wouldn't it? "I supported it, but ddidn't support it"
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Because he said he'd vote to give the President the power to decide what to do in the best interest of the country. 16978[/snapback] Which in itself is a gross abrogation of responsibility. The power to "decide what to do in the best interest of the country" where going to war is concerned is specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution. So what he's effectively saying is that he didn't vote for war, he voted to not have any responsibility for it whatsoever. Good, strong leadership there...
billfan63 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Yeah, Massachussetts Democrats have a ridiculously difficult time getting elected, especially to Congress. Ted Kennedy could snort coke of a preschooler's belly and he'd win in a landslide. 16883[/snapback] As a Bush is Texas
billfan63 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Kerry keeps saying all these things he is gonna do as President, but I have yet to hear him ever say how he intends to accomplish any of these plans. 16871[/snapback] Sounds like the first 20 minutes of Bush's speech
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 As a Bush is Texas 17112[/snapback] Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there is proof that a sentence containing 14 letters can make no sense.
billfan63 Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there is proof that a sentence containing 14 letters can make no sense. 17127[/snapback] sorry, had a distraction, As a Bush in Texas, thanks for the put down
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Which in itself is a gross abrogation of responsibility. The power to "decide what to do in the best interest of the country" where going to war is concerned is specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution. So what he's effectively saying is that he didn't vote for war, he voted to not have any responsibility for it whatsoever. Good, strong leadership there... 17110[/snapback] I disagree with the vote -- and I felt this way about the end-around Congress all along -- but a majority of the Senate voted for this. I don't respect many of these guys, but by your logic this calls into question the leadership of all those who voted for this measure, including just about every Republican (gotta go to work, otherwise I'd find out exactly who did and didn't vote for it). Kerry has given his answer on that one, and it's good enough for some, not good enough for others, and a point that others will look past because they want Bush out of office so badly. I wish we could move past that stuff in the campaign and seriously discuss these plans for the future.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Spin it any way you want. That's your right. But it's a long two months. And Gore had a big lead going into the debates in 2000. 16858[/snapback] Yea and as I remember it, GWB crushed algore in the debates and never looked back. When I say crushed I mean that he won......and based on what the elite left media was expecting GWB to do, just winning has to be cnsidered an ass whippin. Even after the first debate when the elite media said, oh well GWB just got lucky and had a good nite. algore was just not himself. Yea, and then when GWB won the 2nd debate, the media was just beside itself. I see the same thing happening this time. The leftist elite media still do not think that GWB can even stand beside thier beloved war hero. Again they will be sadly mistaken. Underestimating GWB has been the lefts problem for 5 years now. I see no change to thier wacky patterns on the horizon.
Captain America Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Kerry is a liar, he said the vice president called him un fit for duty The VP never said that, of course Kerry is used to lies .But really whats the difference Kerry is finished , as if he ever started in the first place. The Democrats state they would get dirty during this election my guess they were beat at thier own game ....again
IDBillzFan Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 And Gore had a big lead going into the debates in 2000. I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying Bush has a big lead going into the debates and could blow it like Gore did?
BRH Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Kerry is a liar, he said the vice president called him un fit for duty The VP never said that, of course Kerry is used to lies .But really whats the difference Kerry is finished , as if he ever started in the first place. The Democrats state they would get dirty during this election my guess they were beat at thier own game ....again 17235[/snapback] Maybe Cheney didn't say it in those exact words, but that's what he meant and you all know it. Take a gander at this headline from yesterday.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I disagree with the vote -- and I felt this way about the end-around Congress all along -- but a majority of the Senate voted for this. I don't respect many of these guys, but by your logic this calls into question the leadership of all those who voted for this measure, including just about every Republican (gotta go to work, otherwise I'd find out exactly who did and didn't vote for it). Kerry has given his answer on that one, and it's good enough for some, not good enough for others, and a point that others will look past because they want Bush out of office so badly. I wish we could move past that stuff in the campaign and seriously discuss these plans for the future. 17144[/snapback] It only calls into question the leadership of everyone who voted for it if you assume that everyone's reasoning was the same as Kerry's. I think that's a very bad assumption. I'd guess the majority of "yea" votes were actually indicative of a sincere belief that war was justified, and a sincere desire to authorize the office of the President to use the military, not to give the office of the President the power to authorize the the use of the military. I'll bet a large number of voters saw the vote as a declaration of war itself...but by Kerry's reasoning, he didn't. Of course, to be really sure, I'd have to go look at the text of the bill...and I'm sure it's a weasely, mealy-mouthed example of Congress trying to cover their asses... And though most of the "issues" in this campaign I find shallow in the extreme, this (among a few others) is one I think is important. His actions regarding his Vietman experience (serves, gets four medals, comes back essentially saying he's a war criminal, now he goes back to being a war hero), his tax plan ("I'll cut taxes for the middle class...the key to job growth is increased taxes on the middle class"), his Iraq War justifications ("I voted to go to war, even though I didn't want to...but I didn't vote to go to war, just to let the President decide") collectively make me question just how effective a President he'd really be. I don't know what causes him to do this BS, if he's truly spineless or if he just over-intellectualizes everything to the point that he can't express a single coherent thought, but it's not something I want to see in a Presidential candidate.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Are you saying Bush has a big lead going into the debates and could blow it like Gore did? 17247[/snapback] But just think of Bush's performance in the handful of press conferences he's given. Now imagine him in a debate.
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 Kerry keeps saying all these things he is gonna do as President, but I have yet to hear him ever say how he intends to accomplish any of these plans. 16871[/snapback] Careful with your stone throwing. The current administration has yet to address how they are going to pay for the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. Unfortunately, those bills are going to be due someday.
IDBillzFan Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 I don't know what causes him to do this BS, if he's truly spineless or if he just over-intellectualizes everything to the point that he can't express a single coherent thought, but it's not something I want to see in a Presidential candidate. Interesting side comments from the panel on MSNBC last night regarding the fact that while Bush, for better or worse, has Karl Rove driving his campaign, the problem with Kerry's campaign is that HE is running it himself and does not have a Rove-like person leading it for him. Even Andrea ("Clinton got the balloons right") Mitchell, clearly a Kerry supporter, sees this as the biggest problem with Kerry's campaign right now. I wonder to what extent that this causes Kerry to come across as so indecisive. Damage control is being handled by the person causing the damage, and that's a bad recipe. But just think of Bush's performance in the handful of press conferences he's given. Now imagine him in a debate. Methinks this comes under the heading of the 'lesser of two evils' thinking in that both of these guys stumble when they talk, but Bush truly sticks to his points and rarely strays from them from the standpoint of public perception and massive headlines. Probably the best thing Pataki did leading up to Bush's speech last night was hammer home Bush's biggest strength versus Kerry's biggest weakness. He says what he means and he means what he says. Strategically speaking, this public perception of Kerry as a flipper will go down as his achille's heel should he lose this election.
whynot Posted September 3, 2004 Posted September 3, 2004 But just think of Bush's performance in the handful of press conferences he's given. Now imagine him in a debate. 17255[/snapback] You know I'd love to agree with this, as his press conferences were indeed very weak, but the man has never lost a debate. He came out on top against Gore, and must have done something right when dealing with the popular Ann Richards in Texas. Don't misunderestimate our President, he may be a better debater than we think.
Recommended Posts