John Kerry vs GOP Congressmen

[Guest Vyce]

Several leading Republicans said Kerry's comments were inappropriate with U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the statement amounted to "petty, partisan insults launched solely for personal political gain."

 

Well, this is true.

 

You can shout with glee, "He said what needed to be said!" But if it was someone who WASN'T planning on running against Bush saying what Kerry said, the words would have far more weight.

 

Instead, it's just more partisan politics. The war is going well, so the Dems have to look at the events prior to the war for material to use against the current administration.

 

And I agree, regardless of whatever he said, "regime change" is an extremely poor choice of words given the context of how they are being used in reference to our actions in Iraq.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I catch the parallel between Kerry, who spoke out against the government, and Benedict Arnold.

[Guest Powerplay]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I catch the parallel between Kerry, who spoke out against the government, and Benedict Arnold.

You said traitor label being tossed at a war hero. Benedict Arnold was a war hero who became a traitor. Nothing against Kerry, but just faulty logic there. Just because their war heros don't mean they don't change.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The irony is that he (DeLay) is calling Kerry, a war hero who has done nothing traitorous, a traitor and unpatriotic and whatever else nonsense he spewed. The irony, of course, is that DeLay was a draft dodger.

[Guest Powerplay]

The irony is that he (DeLay) is calling Kerry, a war hero who has done nothing traitorous, a traitor and unpatriotic and whatever else nonsense he spewed. The irony, of course, is that DeLay was a draft dodger.

Delay's was stupid, just as Kerry's was. The questioning of Kerry's patriotism is just as bad as saying that we need a 'regieme change' just as much as Iraq. Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose . I'm putting more worth into the other ones, which don't question his patriotism, but rather arguing that he was just playin partisan politics in order to gain some sort of advantage in the Democratic Primaries.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The real irony is you're defending the patriotism of a guy questioning the patriotism of others by calling the Bush Administration a regime.

 

As for the Dems in '04, no matter who gets nominated they're screwed because they have NO platform.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The real irony is you're defending the patriotism of a guy questioning the patriotism of others by calling the Bush Administration a regime.

 

As for the Dems in '04, no matter who gets nominated they're screwed because they have NO platform.

...that's ignorant. Each candidate has a rather vast platform that could be viewed by simply checking their website.

 

Try knowing the facts before you spew.

 

And Judge, yeah, you're right, it was probably partisan in nature. Both sides do it, and it's not really notable. This likely wouldn't have made the news if DeLay hadn't been a fucktard.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The real irony is you're defending the patriotism of a guy questioning the patriotism of others by calling the Bush Administration a regime.

 

As for the Dems in '04, no matter who gets nominated they're screwed because they have NO platform.

...that's ignorant. Each candidate has a rather vast platform that could be viewed by simply checking their website.

 

Try knowing the facts before you spew.

 

And Judge, yeah, you're right, it was probably partisan in nature. Both sides do it, and it's not really notable. This likely wouldn't have made the news if DeLay hadn't been a fucktard.

Bullshit.

 

Dems are opposition on most issues and the exact same (as Reps) on others that Americans find extremely important.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

...which further proves the point that you haven't researched much.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The guy's a conservative and pushes the conservative agenda.

Errr? He's a populist. Get with it now.

 

 

And I still remember him hosting Inside Edition. I read one of his books, but after that scene where he blew away the anti-war guy who's Dad died in the attacks, insinuated that his late Dad is angry with him for not wanting to strike out in retaliation, then threatening during the commercial "get out of my studio or I'll rip you to fucking pieces," I won't give him a moment's more of my attention.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Dems are opposition on most issues and the exact same (as Reps) on others that Americans find extremely important.

I'm going to stick that proclimation in a lockbox for future use.

 

Kerry is a spirited, intelligent, badass motherfucker, and I find it hard to believe the centerist, "Bush Lite" Edwards could top him. We need someone less moderate. It's the moderation that is killing politics. Everybody wants the same thing, and it's shitting things up.

 

However: If the war goes like it's going, next year the Republicans can just run ads of smiling Iraqis holding American flags and point to cheap gas at the pumps and win.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Dems are opposition on most issues and the exact same (as Reps) on others that Americans find extremely important.

I'm going to stick that proclimation in a lockbox for future use.

 

Kerry is a spirited, intelligent, badass motherfucker, and I find it hard to believe the centerist, "Bush Lite" Edwards could top him. We need someone less moderate. It's the moderation that is killing politics. Everybody wants the same thing, and it's shitting things up.

 

However: If the war goes like it's going, next year the Republicans can just run ads of smiling Iraqis holding American flags and point to cheap gas at the pumps and win.

Again, I'll remind you --- far-left candidates DON'T win.

 

They haven't in a long, long time.

 

If the Dems wish to push a non-moderate, feel free.

 

I hate close elections.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Well, this is true.

 

You can shout with glee, "He said what needed to be said!" But if it was someone who WASN'T planning on running against Bush saying what Kerry said, the words would have far more weight.

 

Instead, it's just more partisan politics. The war is going well, so the Dems have to look at the events prior to the war for material to use against the current administration.

 

And I agree, regardless of whatever he said, "regime change" is an extremely poor choice of words given the context of how they are being used in reference to our actions in Iraq.

Yeah but current politics seems to dictate that no one who isn't running directly against Bush is going to do it, and he did. Erego my glee. I could care less about the messenger, it only takes one leak in politics to start to break the dam. If one person can stem the tide of "don't say that, it's unpatriotic!" then the other 500 can rush through and turn it back. That's good. The problem will be getting them to rush through.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Again, I'll remind you --- far-left candidates DON'T win.

 

They haven't in a long, long time.

 

If the Dems wish to push a non-moderate, feel free.

 

I hate close elections.

            -=Mike

Yeah, but ideally Kerry could change the minds of the moderates.

"Sure, we may disagree on the war, but can't we agree that (social security) (campaign finance) (corporate reform) (economy)?"

The war should have nothing to do with the election, seeing as the war will be over in a week or two. Sure, he can have a stance on it, but making more out of it than it should be will do more harm than good.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You've also got the game every candidate plays.

 

"I'm a moderate... no, really!"

 

Even Bush played it.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Every viable Presidential canidate today plays to the middle of the road. I don't see someone campaigning has a liberal or conservative winning.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Read: they *pretend* to be middle of the road by saying it repeatedly, even if their agenda isn't exactly middle of the road.

 

The swing voters are truly the masses who know no better. The informed people are going to vote for their party no matter what; the uninformed are those who need to be influenced.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Which proves my point.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What the hell are you talking about? Everyone *SAYS* they're middle of the road, but that doesn't mean they have no agenda or anything. In fact, they push their partisan agendas as middle of the road even if they're radical. Both sides do this.

 

Each of the dem candidates has a distinct agenda which you are too ignorant to admit. Pry yourself away from Rupert Murdoch's Ministry of Truth for a few minutes and look it up.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Show me 1 issue on which the Dems have an original stance. Not an opposition or "it worked for the Reps, lets use it" stance. There's a reason they suffered an unprecedented result in '02.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?sec...out&page=issues

 

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?p...bpyhyw9d6.app8a

 

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/key_issues.asp

 

Whom else do you need to see? I don't see any of the aforementioned "I DUN LIKE REPUG ISSUES LOLZ" comments there.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Well....

 

At this point you're right.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I really don't think they're stupid enough to go on an anti-repub platform... it costs too much money to lose, really. They HAD to have learned from 2002, and I think they've got some strong candidates.

 

It's still too early to call, though, as I said.

[Guest EricMM]

Does anyone really think Bush is going to loose in a year? Please. If you don't like it, get used to it. I would probably prefer a Dem in office due to their position on Environmental issues, but I'm not going to fool myself into thinking this could happen.

 

I guess maybe if the Economy takes a nosedive or something maybe people'd get mad at Bush. But I don't see that happening really.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

"Takes a nosedive"?

 

Where have you been for two years?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

DEMOCRATIC FIELD QUITS

Kerry: "Who Are We Kidding?"

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15--In a move that stunned veteran political observers, the entire field of undeclared Democratic presidential hopefuls today followed former party front-runner Al Gore in declaring themselves out of the running for the 2004 race.

 

At a group press conference here, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, previously considered the post-Gore front-runner, said that he and others contemplating a run had come separately to the same conclusion: "We're delusional.'' Of his own chances, Kerry said, "I've got just two things to say to myself: 'Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor,' and 'Swiss finishing school.'"

 

Following Kerry, others offered similar and unusually personal explanations for their decisions to quit their efforts. "Take a look at me," said North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, "I'm 15 years old, right? Maybe 16, max. Also, I'm a personal injury lawyer." Said Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, "If every man, woman and child in Vermont, and every one of their friends and relatives, and every person on the planet who does, or wishes to do, business in Vermont, gives me every penny they have, or ever hope to have, I'll have enough cash on hand to buy lunch."

 

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle simply said, "Please, I mean, really."

 

Take the late Mr Kelly's advice, gentlemen. Any Democratic candidate in 2004 will be nothing more than a waste of time, money, and vast amounts of hot air.

Then again, few Democrats are short of these resources.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As are many Republicans, especially those who think trickle down economics is a viable solution to all of our problems.

 

Also, congrats on finding a completely bullshit article. Perhaps I should start posting articles from the Onion as a basis for my opinions.

[Guest EricMM]

*ahem*

 

If I recall correctly, a large large largelargelarge part of why the DOW tanked in 2001 was first from 9/11 and then again because of corporate(sp?) scandal. This was back when bush was barely one year old as president. Basically I'm saying you can't pin the last two year's economic situations on Bush. Most of these periods he didn't effect the economy much at all. You know how slow politics can go.

 

*EDIT* You could post from the Onion if you were posting a joke. I'm sure you can find a nice one about how Bush is a "moron" or something. And we will all take it just as seriously as a piece about politicians being honest (about their chances of winning). hah.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As are many Republicans, especially those who think trickle down economics is a viable solution to all of our problems.

Also, congrats on finding a completely bullshit article. Perhaps I should start posting articles from the Onion as a basis for my opinions.

Might want to take the chip off your shoulder after you extract it from your brain.

Look, kid, I understand from your other posts in this forum that you have this mental image of me as your Nemesis, but the fact is that I don't know who you are and I don't really care.

 

The article is obviously humourous, and adequately summarises the chances of any Democratic candidate in 2004. It's not necessarily a reflection on any individual; it simply reflects the reality of the intellectual bankruptcy of the party.

 

As for "trickle-down economics..." no one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, or President Reagan's superb leadership, would bother to use that term. It simply doesn't refer to anything that was ever real. Try dropping melodrama class and taking something worthwhile in your college instead, if you're really in one.

 

Congrats on being a belligerent knee-jerk twit. Lose the attitude and there's a chance that might change.

 

Someday.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

His unbalanced budget and fiscal irresponsibility lead to the downfall in equal parts to the economic downturn as did 9/11, according to many folks. Also, if lost jobs is any indicator for how healthy the economy is (which it obviously is one of the main indicators), we have the largest unemployment rate since 1994, and a statistic of millions of people losing their jobs since Bush has taken office (I can't find the statistic, but here's one on the unemployment figure: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1966554.stm)

 

The economy is far from healthy.