Hollywood Donahoe Posted October 7, 2004 Posted October 7, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041006-011859-5099r.htm
Captain America Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041006-011859-5099r.htm 60919[/snapback] Komrade Flopenstien
checkmate Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Komrade Flopenstien 60997[/snapback] How is that flip flopping? He has a better chance at building a global coalition should another conflict arise than Cheney or Bush. That is Kerry's point of you think beyond his words.
swede316 Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Sure it is Checkmate..sure it is. You want the coolaide don't you.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Does this whole "flip-flopping" BS come from GW's daddy "read my lips" fiasco that got him roasted? Kinda funny how the mantra is to hammer that home. Anyway, if it is, it is just plain stupid. Sometimes you can be certain and be dead wrong. What do you do then? Keep on pressing on? Seems GW has a real adversion to "painting himself in a corner". Well here is news, he's already done it.
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 He has a better chance at building a global coalition should another conflict arise than Cheney or Bush. 61106[/snapback] Sure he does. Right now I'm sure everyone who's part of the "Coalition of the Bribed & Coerced" are jumping up and down to work with him. The French and Germans too. When I think beyond the words, I still see the same piece of stevestojan politician who says alot of stuff and accomplishes none of it. 19 years of empty promises and rhetoric.
checkmate Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Sure it is Checkmate..sure it is. You want the coolaide don't you. 61114[/snapback] What school did you study political theory at?
Paco Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 What school did you study political theory at? 61165[/snapback] I didn't study political theory. What does "political theory" say we should about this type of thing? Does it say anything about talking poorly about existing coalition members just before you try to recruit more of them? Does it say what we should do after our own planes are flown into our own buildings, killing our own people, because everything we did up to then SUCKED? I'm just curious. What did your "political theory" class teach you about such things? What book? What chapter? Point me to it and I will be happy to read all about what you learned in college.
Tux of Borg Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Don't tell me you bought Kerry's little speech about pulling troops out in 6 months. No matter who is elected, US troops are going to be over in Iraq for a long time. Kerry can't speed up the training of Iraq's police force, and he won't get other countries to commit troops over there. It's politics as usual....
Captain America Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Don't tell me you bought Kerry's little speech about pulling troops out in 6 months. No matter who is elected, US troops are going to be over in Iraq for a long time. Kerry can't speed up the training of Iraq's police force, and he won't get other countries to commit troops over there. It's politics as usual.... 61178[/snapback] Kerry doesnt know how to act all he can do his re act
John from Riverside Posted October 8, 2004 Posted October 8, 2004 Kerry doesnt know how to act all he can do his re act 61199[/snapback] I think you hit on something I have been thinking... To me that is the biggest difference in these two (and they both have flaws) Bush is a "initiator" he knows what he wants to do and he fricken does it......Kerry is a "reactor" I dont want a "reactor" as commander and cheif.....but that is just me
Recommended Posts