President-Elect John Kerry

[joephoto]

Apparently John Kerry is in the process of scoring a resounding victory for Americans at this moment. What an incredible turnout for him in this very important election to rid this country of George. I'm calling it right now at 6:15 PM EST......Why ?? Because from 3PM-6PM Kerry went from 1-1 to 2-1 to 3-1 on the offshore gambling sites. It's over guys. It's a good day.

[sir_drinkalot]

Damn you Joe! I can see it now. Kerry and rest of the U.N puppets singing kum-by-ah sitting around a campfire. "So, now what do we do". If Kerry wins I'm moving to Aruba.

[joephoto]

Originally posted by sir_drinkalot
Damn you Joe!
Don't thank me. I only had my one vote, but I'm sure the American military and their families were pretty sick of being lied to all this time. George certainly lost their support.

[dchester]

Originally posted by joephoto
Don't thank me. I only had my one vote, but I'm sure the American military and their families were pretty sick of being lied to all this time. George certainly lost their support. I don't know who told you that, but in the Military Times poll a couple weeks ago, Bush was ahead of Kerry by around 55% (about a 4-1 margin).
________
Mazda Xedos 6 picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_Xedos_6)

[Pats247]

Originally posted by joephoto
Don't thank me. I only had my one vote, but I'm sure the American military and their families were pretty sick of being lied to all this time. George certainly lost their support.

Very interesting, where is the link to this poll? I have seen recent data that shows the exact opposite of what you say.

I know several members of the military and they utterly despise John Kerry.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by joephoto
Apparently John Kerry is in the process of scoring a resounding victory for Americans at this moment. What an incredible turnout for him in this very important election to rid this country of George. I'm calling it right now at 6:15 PM EST......Why ?? Because from 3PM-6PM Kerry went from 1-1 to 2-1 to 3-1 on the offshore gambling sites. It's over guys. It's a good day.

I hope joe's right, but Kerry needs to pick up either Florida or Ohio to win (and not lose PA) and I don't see how we can know that yet. The exit polling from the 20% of FL voters who voted yesterday had Kerry up 55/45, which is a very good sign for him.

Plus, he made a good choice eating oysters, mashed potatos & ale at the Union Oyster House. Escargot and chardonnay at Mason Robert wouldn't have gone over as well.

[pookie]

Well, CNN has Bush winning in what can only be described as not so close. 155 to 112 electoral. Not so sure about all that Presiden-Elect Kerry stuff.

Go Bush!

[pookie]

Now it's 170-112 o' 'dem electrical votes for Bush. He's runnin' away wid it.

[dchester]

I think it will go down to the wire. Kerry is expected to win California, along with Oregon and Washington.
________
drug test (http://drugtestingkit.org)

[pookie]

Really? It's now 192-112 and the map is turning red.

[Mark_Henderson]

CNN's exit polling in Ohio has Kerry at 53% with women & 51% with men, but the actual count, with 61% in, is Bush - 52/48. With 95% in, it looks like Bush has Florida. Ohio's the whole enchilada. If CNN's exit polling is off & Bush's lead holds up there, it's over.

[sir_drinkalot]

Substance over style!! WoooooHoooo!!!:dance:

[Ballbustah]

Bush has pushed us from a surplus to a 3 or 4 trillion dollar defecit.

Unemployment has gone up.

He couldn't keep his freaking hands off of Iraq when he should have been focusing on Afghanistan.

I wonder what he will do next?????

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by joephoto
Apparently John Kerry is in the process of scoring a resounding victory for Americans at this moment. What an incredible turnout for him in this very important election to rid this country of George. I'm calling it right now at 6:15 PM EST......Why ?? Because from 3PM-6PM Kerry went from 1-1 to 2-1 to 3-1 on the offshore gambling sites. It's over guys. It's a good day.

Oh really?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Ballbustah]

This is a sad day in America.

Not only do we have an idiot Base Ball Team but we also have an idiot President.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
This is a sad day in America.

Not only do we have an idiot Base Ball Team but we also have an idiot President.

ya know bustah, i am not a kerry supporter. but if kerry had won, i would have respected him and hoped that he would have been able to do the job. i think it's very juvenile of you to call our president names and disrespect him incessantly. i feel sorry for you.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush has pushed us from a surplus to a 3 or 4 trillion dollar defecit.

Unemployment has gone up.

He couldn't keep his freaking hands off of Iraq when he should have been focusing on Afghanistan.

I wonder what he will do next?????

Well, he's going to continue to turn his sights on the "gay scourge". Afterall, we've got to do something about this evil before all our kids are converted and everyone's marriage is rendered meaningless. I know the quality of my marriage has diminished since gay's were given the right to marry in this state. I just don't feel the same way about my wife anymore. :rolleyes:

Then he'll continue to insist that medical researchers follow the virtuous path of not participating in stem cell research. If God wants us to find a cure for some of these horrible diseases, then he'll inspire someone to come up with an answer. If not, then, oh well, it was his will.

And who cares about the mounting debt. It's all about getting what you can, when you can. Live for the moment. Relax. By the time our kids have to manage the debt, we'll either be dead or in nursing homes.

Oh well. Hopefully we can survive the next four years. But I'm not overly optimistic.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
ya know bustah, i am not a kerry supporter. but if kerry had won, i would have respected him and hoped that he would have been able to do the job. i think it's very juvenile of you to call our president names and disrespect him incessantly. i feel sorry for you.

Don't feel sorry for us. Feel sorry for your children who will ultimately have to pay for his policies. Feel bad for the soldiers and their families who are dying in a war that never should have been fought. Feel sorry for an entire class of people who's rights are constantly attacked by religous conservatives. Feel bad for millions of people suffering from horrible inflictions who may never have hope of finding a cure.

I have disliked many Presidents in the past but still respected them. But the actions of this president have been very personal for me. His policies have been direct attacks on people that I love and care for very much. For that, he gets absolutely no respect from me.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by joephoto
[B I'm calling it right now at 6:15 PM EST......[/B]

The lesson to be learned from this is that exit polls taken during certain hours are meaningless. Common sense. Go to the polls before 5:00 and you'll see mostly retirees, jobless people, and housewives. Not exactly a representative sample.

The working people are at the polls either from 7 AM to 8 AM or after 5:00 PM. When you "call it" at 6:15, the taxpayers haven't yet showed up to vote.

[Ballbustah]

I wish I had some confidence in Bush but I don't.
Don't feel sorry for me.... Feel sorry for America.



Originally posted by Spinal Tap
ya know bustah, i am not a kerry supporter. but if kerry had won, i would have respected him and hoped that he would have been able to do the job. i think it's very juvenile of you to call our president names and disrespect him incessantly. i feel sorry for you.

[Spinal Tap]

I don't feel sorry for America. This is the greatest country in the world. Why would I feel sorry for it? I feel sorry for Islamic facists that can't roam freely and plan terrorist attacks. I feel sorry for all the morons that gave Michael Moore their hard earned money to see his "documentary". What a bunch of losers those people are. I feel sorry for just about every Democrat out there that is going to be p!ssing and moaning for the next 4 years.

I don't, however, feel sorry for Hilary Clinton. She got exactly what she wanted.

[Undertaker #59]

I think people take this stuff too seriously. For me, I don't think my life would be much different with either guy in there.

[Ballbustah]

So you plan on ignoring the defecit...
Our economy can not giddy-up while we have this tremendous defecit going on?

You plan on ignoring that Bush misled the American people about WMD in Iraq?

You plan on ignoring that unemployment has gone up since Bush has been President?

This war on Iraq is costing us a lot of money. Basically Bush made a bad decision in going to war with Iraq. It was an embargoed nation that would have been crushed under it's own weight by today.







Originally posted by Spinal Tap
I don't feel sorry for America. This is the greatest country in the world. Why would I feel sorry for it? I feel sorry for Islamic facists that can't roam freely and plan terrorist attacks. I feel sorry for all the morons that gave Michael Moore their hard earned money to see his "documentary". What a bunch of losers those people are. I feel sorry for just about every Democrat out there that is going to be p!ssing and moaning for the next 4 years.

I don't, however, feel sorry for Hilary Clinton. She got exactly what she wanted.

[Spinal Tap]

Bustah, I'm not a staunch Bush supporter. I am not blind to the fact that he made a serious mistake in Iraq. I don't agree with you about the economy, the economy is not as terrible as you make it out to be. The deficit does not concern me, it's a number that is quite transparent and means much less than you think it does.

I was fully prepared to wake up this morning to see that John Kerry was our next president. If so, I would have dealt with it. I would have hoped that he could lead our country in these very troubling times.

George Bush is not the best man to be leading this country, but he's better than John Kerry and those were my choices. Give me a better candidate and I'll vote and support him.

[dchester]

Something bad has happened in our country. I'm not sure when it started, but it has been going on for some time. People are spending way too much time hating. I have to say that the Bush haters really seem an awful lot like the Clinton haters, with the only real difference being who they hate.

I really puzzles me how we get out of this hyperbole and hatred, and back to a more pragmatic debate. Both candidates were flawed, and both have some strengths.

Did the Clinton haters really think he was going to ruin the country, or was that just hyperbole to get out the vote. The same goes with the Bush haters. I really think Bush (for the most part) thought he was trying to do the right thing for this country in going into Iraq. I have no clue how anyone could seriously believe he went into Iraq to help his "rich buddies".

Should people vociferously disagree with Presidents? Of course. Nothing could be more American. But what people like Michael Moore and others have tried to do (passing off a propaganda film as a documentary), or sending out emails saying that Bush wants to reinstate the draft when a democrat was the one that filed that bill, was just dispicable, and I think a lot of others felt the same way.

Unfortunately, I don't have a grand solution to this problem of political hatred, but it is more than just a "vast right wing conspiracy", as it is pervasive in both parties. But I do think term limits for the Congress (maybe a 12 year max) would be a step in the right direction.

There you have it, my two cents on all this.


BTW, does anyone have a guess as to when the major media outlets will "officially" declare Bush the winner?
________
marijuana vaporizers (http://weedvaporizer.info/)

[Undertaker #59]

Nice post D, I agree.

[Spinal Tap]

drchester, I agree with you. but the hate level of liberals in this country is at an all time high. i have never seen a more contradictory stance than the democratic stance. they want to help/ love everybody........except republicans. how much sense does that make?

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush has pushed us from a surplus to a 3 or 4 trillion dollar defecit.

Unemployment has gone up.

He couldn't keep his freaking hands off of Iraq when he should have been focusing on Afghanistan.

I wonder what he will do next?????

add another 2-4 trillion to the deficit for one.

[Spinal Tap]

Where's Joe_photo this morning? Is he going to rescind his initial prediciton of this thread? Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. Ouch.

[Ballbustah]

Either you believe in a candidate or not.

I have been a republican all my voting life but the irrational decisions that Bush has made has turned me against Bush.
How can you believe in a President when you see him fumbleing and bumbleing throughout his Presidency?

Defecit, an irrational war against Iraq, unemployment,

I am done with this issue....

[PA_PATS_FAN54*]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Either you believe in a candidate or not.

I have been a republican all my voting life but the irrational decisions that Bush has made has turned me against Bush.
How can you believe in a President when you see him fumbleing and bumbleing throughout his Presidency?

Defecit, an irrational war against Iraq, unemployment,

I am done with this issue....

For the first time I agree with every point you made Busta
For the record I don't affiliate myself with either party I register Independent and vote for who I believe may live up to their promises.
The lesser of the 2 evils if you will.

Bush has shown countless times that he is not the man for fiscal responsibility ( just look at the deficit)
Going the war ALONE then deviating from the main threat and going after goddamn insane instead. Granted goddamn insane should of been taken out by Clinton BUT Binladen was and remains to be the Largest threat to the USA and the world for that matter. It just sickens me to think that anyone that does not make over 200,000 a year could vote for dubya.

:cuss:

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
So you plan on ignoring the defecit...
Our economy can not giddy-up while we have this tremendous defecit going on?

You plan on ignoring that Bush misled the American people about WMD in Iraq?

You plan on ignoring that unemployment has gone up since Bush has been President?

This war on Iraq is costing us a lot of money. Basically Bush made a bad decision in going to war with Iraq. It was an embargoed nation that would have been crushed under it's own weight by today.

Ballbustah - it may be a bad day for YOU, but 58 million Americans don't share your viewpoint. Are they dumb? Are you intelectually superior to them? I honestly don't understand why it is a bad day for America because you say it is. This is not an attack, I am just curious.

As for George Bush, I personally can think of 10 or 20 people I would have voted for over him. There is only one problem, the only alternative on the ballot was John Kerry.

The intelligence that George Bush used in making his decision to go to war in Iraq, is essentially the same intelligence that John Kerry and John Edwards saw when they voted to authorize the use of force. They did not have to vote that way, Ted Kennedy and many others voted against the authorization. They either voted that way because they felt Saddam presented a clear and present threat, or they voted that way because politically they had to in order to be taken seriously as a potential commander in chief (if it was the second reason thank god they weren't elected).
Several times in the 1990's, Saddam Hussein had defied UN inspectors and had hidden weapons that he had not declared. In fact, his sons - in - law defected to Jordan and gave information showing nuclear material that Saddam had claimed was destroyed (they eventually returned to Iraq and Saddam executed them). In 1998, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq and said he had no doubt that Saddam had no bomb making capabilities. My point is this, inspections had proven to be innefective several times since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was someone that obviously had lied and could not be trusted - my feeling is that most lawmakers (including George Bush and John Kerry) honestly felt that Saddam had the weapons.

As for your assertion that Iraq would have been crushed "under it's own weight" - how do you know that? Iraq's economy had been crippled by a decade of UN sanctions yet Saddam Hussein still found the money to build several ornate palaces (costing billions?). The only people suffering from the UN sanctions were children and the sick, millions of which died due to lack of care. Many people felt the sanctions were brutal and should be removed - yet if we (George Bush, John Kerry, Bill Clinton etc.) felt that Saddam still had weapons then removing the sanctions were not a viable option.

All I'm saying is this, I think it is far too simplistic to say that Bush "misled" the American people on WMD - it was/is a complex situation.

I will agree with you on this, the war has not gone well and people have every right to want Bush out because he made the final decision to go to war. Obviously, a lot of people didn't think Kerry was a better choice.

[Undertaker #59]

Nice post Pats....just as a point of clarification I would like to say that the war DID go well. The occupation has not.

[Ballbustah]

Pats247

Perhaps the inspectors should have been given enough time to do there jobs instead of being removed because Bush was in so much of a hurry to invade Iraq.


I believe the people would eventually revolted. How long can a country be repressed?

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Pats247

Perhaps the inspectors should have been given enough time to do there jobs instead of being removed because Bush was in so much of a hurry to invade Iraq.

How much time is enough time? 10 years isn't enough?

I believe the people would eventually revolted. How long can a country be repressed?

A damn long time.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Pats247

Perhaps the inspectors should have been given enough time to do there jobs instead of being removed because Bush was in so much of a hurry to invade Iraq.


I believe the people would eventually revolted. How long can a country be repressed?

Bustah, weapons inspectors had 11 years to "do their jobs". Is that not long enough?

And the answer to the question: "How long can a country be repressed?" Well, it was about 25 years and running under Saddam. There were no signs of an organzied uprising when we invaded that country. You tell me how long it would have taken, because I have no idea.............but I can tell you it is longer than 25 years, and that is a long time.

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Nice post Pats....just as a point of clarification I would like to say that the war DID go well. The occupation has not.

Agreed

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Pats247

Perhaps the inspectors should have been given enough time to do there jobs instead of being removed because Bush was in so much of a hurry to invade Iraq.


I believe the people would eventually revolted. How long can a country be repressed?

I know what you are saying about the inspectors, but I think they had a SEVERE credibility problem with the American people and most politicians as well. The fact is, many people felt that the inspectors were at best incompetent and at worst complicit in ignoring signs of violations. My point is, inspectors had been deceived before - and even if they have been given a full year of unlimited access to the country a lot of people simply would not have accepted their findings.

As for the repression thing, I don't have an answer for you. But many countries that have horrific civil rights records and brutally supress their populations have been in power for several decades (countries in Asis and the Middle East etc.).

[gmoney1918]

My response to you gloating Republicans:

Sad day. The evil conservatives manipulate the ignorant and homophobic ones.

Deficit out of control. Middle East out of control. Gas prices out of control. US Soldiers and innocent civilians dieing everyday to desensitized newspaper readers. If you voted for Bush, you should go fight the war or help pay for it.

Congratulations. Now fix it.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by gmoney1918
My response to you gloating Republicans:

Sad day. The evil conservatives manipulate the ignorant and homophobic ones.

Deficit out of control. Middle East out of control. Gas prices out of control. US Soldiers and innocent civilians dieing everyday to desensitized newspaper readers. If you voted for Bush, you should go fight the war or help pay for it.

Congratulations. Now fix it.

It's even sadder that your feeble mind was able to vote.

By the way......fix what? What the hell is broken? Please advise.

[Ballbustah]

The inspectors evidently were correct. There were no WMD. They should have been given the chance to prove it.

We are talking about an embargoed Iraq. The UN was ready to bring more products to the table.





Originally posted by Pats247
I know what you are saying about the inspectors, but I think they had a SEVERE credibility problem with the American people and most politicians as well. The fact is, many people felt that the inspectors were at best incompetent and at worst complicit in ignoring signs of violations. My point is, inspectors had been deceived before - and even if they have been given a full year of unlimited access to the country a lot of people simply would not have accepted their findings.

As for the repression thing, I don't have an answer for you. But many countries that have horrific civil rights records and brutally supress their populations have been in power for several decades (countries in Asis and the Middle East etc.).

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
[B]Then he'll continue to insist that medical researchers follow the virtuous path of not participating in stem cell research. If God wants us to find a cure for some of these horrible diseases, then he'll inspire someone to come up with an answer. If not, then, oh well, it was his will.One more time. Bush has done nothing of the kind. (I'm going to italicize the key words for you here.) He has limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on newly harvested lines of cells.

And its worth noting that the kinds of stem cell research that he (and essentially everyone) supports, adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells, have thus far contributed to over 300,000 cures in humans. Embryonic stem cells have done zero. Every experiment in humans has been rejected by the host or actually developed into a tumor.

But again, anyone is free to research with any embryonic stem cells they want - just purchase them from your local abortion facility, on the cheap. But there is no federal funding for this research. You'd think, though, with all the promises to cure Michael J. Fox, Muhammed Ali, and Christopher Reeve, that there would be venture capitalists lining up to back research (just like in most scientific fields). But there aren't, because there is a grand total of ZERO positive results from serious experimentation with embryonic stem cells. Capitalists are funny critters in that they tend to focus on results.

As do I. As I've mentioned before, my oldest sister has MS, and another sister has Lupus. I was all onto the embryonic stem cell research train until I looked into: 1) how it was actually done (by ending the life of a developing human); and 2) how little success, or real prospects for success, there has been with this research.

It is a NON-ISSUE scientifically. It's a bellweather for the abortion/when-does-life-begin debate. Just like Lacy's Law, on the other side. Or did you think that Planned Parenthood donated millions of dollars to the embryonic stem cell research ballot initiatives and advertising because they're branching off into curing auto-immune diseases? (Actually, that's not fair. They would have a huge financial windfall from being able to sell their client's aborted fetuses to labs for research.)

[gmoney1918]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
It's even sadder that your feeble mind was able to vote.

By the way......fix what? What the hell is broken? Please advise.

Was "deficit, gas prices and war" not clear? Maybe we should talk about what's not broken. The Do Not Call List legislation was a phenomenal initiative. And I do believe shark attacks are down.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by gmoney1918
Was "deficit, gas prices and war" not clear? Maybe we should talk about what's not broken. The Do Not Call List legislation was a phenomenal initiative. And I do believe shark attacks are down.

that's a typical response from a left wing loony liberal.

see folks, this is the reason why i will NEVER vote for a democrat. who the hell would i be able to call "crazy"?

gas prices? i thought bush went to iraq to steal all the oil. you mean he's hogging it all for himself?

deficit? do you have any idea how much the deficit/ surplus in this country really matters? are you an economist, you certainly don't play one on television.

war? yes, you are correct, we are at war............on terrorism. it's unfortunate but we must defend ourselves against islamic facist pigs..............like you!

[O_P_T]

On the deficit issue.

Yes I agree that GWB has not been fiscally conservative.

However, I am surprised on how this has become such a huge issue.

With the exception of a few years in the late 90's, the Federal government has run a huge deficit since the mid 1960's.

I don't recall a whole lot of hand wringing over this issue back then.

With regards to the surplus in the late 90's that was due soley to the stock market bubble. That had tax revenues up big time. Much of the "projected" surplus was based on the assumption that the stock market would remain at the inflated value for the next 10 years.

The fact that the stock market made an adjustment and lost 40% of its value (most of which was completely unjustified by any reasonable ecomomic theory) the deficit numbers were guarenteed.

Now as I said, the degree of the deficit is greater because the republicans have not be fiscially conservative. however, Congress desreves much of the balem for that as well.

As far as Iraq and the UN, it is doubtful that sanctions would have been kept in place for much longer.

There was a great deal of sympathy around the world for the pleight of the average Iraqi and many countries thought that lifting sanctions was a good idea.

Had they been kept in place, one still had to face the Oil for Food program scandle.

The jury's still out on that one but the allegations made suggest that Saddam was taking in a whole bunch of money to spend on what he wanted and high officials in the UN and other countries were being bribed big time to maintain the situation.

[Ballbustah]

You forgat that the prevelant notion that Iraq had WMD was incorrect.

OPT...
I remember the scenario a bit differently.




Originally posted by Spinal Tap
that's a typical response from a left wing loony liberal.

see folks, this is the reason why i will NEVER vote for a democrat. who the hell would i be able to call "crazy"?

gas prices? i thought bush went to iraq to steal all the oil. you mean he's hogging it all for himself?

deficit? do you have any idea how much the deficit/ surplus in this country really matters? are you an economist, you certainly don't play one on television.

war? yes, you are correct, we are at war............on terrorism. it's unfortunate but we must defend ourselves against islamic facist pigs..............like you!

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You forgat that the prevelant notion that Iraq had WMD was incorrect.

OPT...
I remember the scenario a bit differently.

Yes Bustah, that information was incorrect and it was a mistake to invade Iraq. You know my position on this. Of course, that was John Kerry's position as well.............that is BEFORE he was able to look in the rear view mirror. So as far as Iraq goes, both Bush & Kerry were incorrect in their assumptions about WMD. Using your rationale, you should have voted Nadar. I hope you did or you are a hypocrite.

[Oedipus Tex]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Pats247

Perhaps the inspectors should have been given enough time to do there jobs instead of being removed because Bush was in so much of a hurry to invade Iraq.


I believe the people would eventually revolted. How long can a country be repressed? Heh.

There's this little island, south of Florida...

I think it was Kennedy who first made the "Castro will fall under his own weight, how long can the people of Cuba be repressed?" argument in the early 1960s. Apparently, the answer is 40 years and counting.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by dchester
Something bad has happened in our country. I'm not sure when it started, but it has been going on for some time. People are spending way too much time hating. I have to say that the Bush haters really seem an awful lot like the Clinton haters, with the only real difference being who they hate.


I aree with the sentiment that less division would be nice, but there's a characteristic difference between the Bush haters & the Clinton haters. First of all, the Clinton haters came first and started the ball rolling.

While the people who hate Bush talk about his policies (Iraq, deficit, tax cuts focused on wealthy, stem cell research ban, gay marriage amendment, etc.), the Clinton haters simply spent 8 years trying to character assasinate the man. There was endless ranting about minor issues with a 10 year old land deal (Whitewater), a nefarious murder/suicide (Vince Foster), an alleged conspiracy smuggling cocaine through an Ark. air force base, firing some Bush-1 holdovers in the White House travel office, etc.

Clinton appointed William Cohen (Rep.) as Sec'y of Defense. He tried to give Bill Weld a major ambassadorship. Dubya, who ironically promised to be a "uniter not a divider", gave us Ashcroft & Rumsfeld and on every conceivable issue has taken an unapolgetic, far right stance.

I respect that George Bush has won a fair re-election & he is my President for the next four years (because after all, the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to IMPEACH him over some inconsequential crap in his personal life). But, I fear that he won re-election less on the issues than on smearing his opponent. All's fair in politics, but the Swift boat stuff was pure Willie Horton. When the campaign focused on actual issues, like in the debates, Kerry gained ground.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by dchester
Something bad has happened in our country. I'm not sure when it started, but it has been going on for some time. People are spending way too much time hating. I have to say that the Bush haters really seem an awful lot like the Clinton haters, with the only real difference being who they hate.


I aree with the sentiment that less division would be nice, but there's a characteristic difference between the Bush haters & the Clinton haters. First of all, the Clinton haters came first and started the ball rolling.

While the people who hate Bush talk about his policies (Iraq, deficit, tax cuts focused on wealthy, stem cell research ban, gay marriage amendment, etc.), the Clinton haters simply spent 8 years trying to character assasinate the man. There was endless ranting about minor issues with a 10 year old land deal (Whitewater), a nefarious murder/suicide (Vince Foster), an alleged conspiracy smuggling cocaine through an Ark. air force base, firing some Bush-1 holdovers in the White House travel office, etc.

Clinton appointed William Cohen (Rep.) as Sec'y of Defense. He tried to give Bill Weld a major ambassadorship. Dubya, who ironically promised to be a "uniter not a divider", gave us Ashcroft & Rumsfeld and on every conceivable issue has taken an unapolgetic, far right stance.

I respect that George Bush has won a fair re-election & he is my President for the next four years (because after all, the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to IMPEACH him over some inconsequential crap in his personal life). But, I fear that he won re-election less on the issues than on smearing his opponent. All's fair in politics, but the Swift boat stuff was pure Willie Horton. When the campaign focused on actual issues, like in the debates, Kerry gained ground.

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson


But, I fear that he won re-election less on the issues than on smearing his opponent. All's fair in politics, but the Swift boat stuff was pure Willie Horton. When the campaign focused on actual issues, like in the debates, Kerry gained ground.

I don't think it is fair to lump the Swift Boat vets in with the furlough attacks on Dukakis. When John Kerry walked on the stage with his comrades and declared that he was "reporting for duty" he opened his military record up to scrutiny. The Swift Boat vets are actual vets, they served, they endured combat, and they earned the right to express their opinions about Kerry. They hated him, they felt he was a glory hound, they felt he recommended himself for medals when they weren't warranted, they felt he gained politically by trashing Vietnam veterans and labeling them all as war criminals. I honestly believe these guys (especially O'Neil) didn't feel that Kerry deserved to be president and wanted to get out the "other side of the story".

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Pats247
I don't think it is fair to lump the Swift Boat vets in with the furlough attacks on Dukakis. When John Kerry walked on the stage with his comrades and declared that he was "reporting for duty" he opened his military record up to scrutiny. The Swift Boat vets are actual vets, they served, they endured combat, and they earned the right to express their opinions about Kerry. They hated him, they felt he was a glory hound, they felt he recommended himself for medals when they weren't warranted, they felt he gained politically by trashing Vietnam veterans and labeling them all as war criminals. I honestly believe these guys (especially O'Neil) didn't feel that Kerry deserved to be president and wanted to get out the "other side of the story".

O'Neill was handpicked by Nixon in '72 to smear Kerry. He's on the oval office tapes being advised on strategy by Nixon and convicted felon Chuck Colson. So, the Swifties started as a smear campaign with personal instruction from the master. O'Neill had no contact with Kerry in Vietnam.

I understand that some of the vets were offended by Kerry's anti-war testimony, but they didn't express concerns about him while he was IN VIETNAM, only after he protested the war.

[joephoto]

Originally posted by Spinal Tap
Where's Joe_photo this morning? Is he going to rescind his initial prediciton of this thread? Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. Ouch.
International gambling sites had Bush a 4-1 betting underdog at 6 PM. The one I use is http://www.wsex.com (World Sports Exchange) Hours earlier Bush was a favorite of course.

I was in the process of putting $40 on the Scott Peterson trial ( $40-$120 for a hung jury).

Luckily as the 1st poster I can delete and disavow any knowledge of this thread. Hmmmmm....

[sir_drinkalot]

Kerry was in bed with all the wrong people. Will he keep Springsteen's guitar pick?
People generally do NOT like Michael Moore.
Senator Kerry talked about stategies and exit plans....but no one knew what they were. Maybe now he will share.

People like George Bush. Senator Kerry never let anyone in.

Honestly, if I thoght senator Kerry had a better plan, I would have voted for him. He just never shared that plan with me.

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
O'Neill was handpicked by Nixon in '72 to smear Kerry. He's on the oval office tapes being advised on strategy by Nixon and convicted felon Chuck Colson. So, the Swifties started as a smear campaign with personal instruction from the master. O'Neill had no contact with Kerry in Vietnam.

I understand that some of the vets were offended by Kerry's anti-war testimony, but they didn't express concerns about him while he was IN VIETNAM, only after he protested the war.

O'Neil isn't some dim-witted stooge that was propped up by Nixon's attack machine, he is a graduate of the Naval Academy who served honorably in Vietnam (for a full tour).

Dick Nixon is long dead and O'neil still feels strongly that Kerry is not fit to be the commander in chief. O'neil is also not a shill for Bush, he voted for Gore in 2000 and Perot before that. He has told friends in Texas that he thinks Bush is an empty suit but he feels Kerry is dangerous.

My only point is that these guys served in Vietnam either with Kerry, at the same time as Kerry, or after Kerry (like O'Neil) - and they have every right to present their side of the story. They may not have officially complained about Kerry while in Vietnam but many of these veterans have said that they privately voiced their displeasure with him. I guess it really doesn't make any difference now anyway.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I aree with the sentiment that less division would be nice, but there's a characteristic difference between the Bush haters & the Clinton haters. First of all, the Clinton haters came first and started the ball rolling. I actually think it started before Clinton. The Judge Bork hearings in the Senate is where I first saw character assasination used (by Teddy Kennedy) to advance a cause (in this case stopping Bork from getting to the Supreme Court). I don't think the republicans ever got over that. The next one to get "Borked" was Clarence Thomas, although he got appointed in the end.

I will give you that lots of people have different opinions on when or how this all came about, and maybe you are right as to when it all started. The reality is that it really doesn't matter that much how it started, but the real issue is how to get beyond it.

While the people who hate Bush talk about his policies (Iraq, deficit, tax cuts focused on wealthy, stem cell research ban, gay marriage amendment, etc.), the Clinton haters simply spent 8 years trying to character assasinate the man. There was endless ranting about minor issues with a 10 year old land deal (Whitewater), a nefarious murder/suicide (Vince Foster), an alleged conspiracy smuggling cocaine through an Ark. air force base, firing some Bush-1 holdovers in the White House travel office, etc. If you really think that people haven't been assasinating Bush's character, we view things quite differently. How many people have talked about Bush invading Iraq to help his "rich oil friends"?

I respect that George Bush has won a fair re-election & he is my President for the next four years (because after all, the Democrats don't have the votes in Congress to IMPEACH him over some inconsequential crap in his personal life). But, I fear that he won re-election less on the issues than on smearing his opponent. All's fair in politics, but the Swift boat stuff was pure Willie Horton. When the campaign focused on actual issues, like in the debates, Kerry gained ground. I think Kerry did plenty of smearing himself, like the claim that Bush was planning on implementing a draft right after the election. As for the debates, the media seemed to think Kerry won because he looked more "presidential and polished" rather than due to any points that he made.

The way I see it, Bush haters think their criticisms of Bush are fair and reasonable, while criticisms against their guy are not. Clinton haters viewed things pretty much the same, you just have to switch the names. They each think they're absolutely right, and if you can't see that, you're either an idiot, or maybe an evil person. I just think things are a little more complicated than that.
________
starcraft II replays (http://screplays.com/)

[pookie]

Far be it from me to take part in a lengthy political discussion, so......

[runnerone]

Originally posted by pookie
Far be it from me to take part in a lengthy political discussion, so......
:LOL: ROFL :LOL: ROFL

I looked at that pic for about a minute before I realized what was in it! Great shot pook, where did you find that one?:thumb:

[pookie]

Originally posted by runnerone
:LOL: ROFL :LOL: ROFL

I looked at that pic for about a minute before I realized what was in it! Great shot pook, where did you find that one?:thumb:

You really don't want to know.... but anyway, I apologize for bringing levity to such a serious and seemingly hateful thread in this lovely politics forum.

[runnerone]

Yes, yes, you should be hanging your head in shame for attempting to lighten the mood around here.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Pats247
O'Neil isn't some dim-witted stooge that was propped up by Nixon's attack machine, he is a graduate of the Naval Academy who served honorably in Vietnam (for a full tour).

Dick Nixon is long dead and O'neil still feels strongly that Kerry is not fit to be the commander in chief. O'neil is also not a shill for Bush, he voted for Gore in 2000 and Perot before that. He has told friends in Texas that he thinks Bush is an empty suit but he feels Kerry is dangerous.

My only point is that these guys served in Vietnam either with Kerry, at the same time as Kerry, or after Kerry (like O'Neil) - and they have every right to present their side of the story. They may not have officially complained about Kerry while in Vietnam but many of these veterans have said that they privately voiced their displeasure with him. I guess it really doesn't make any difference now anyway.

I saw O'Neill when he was on Hardball lined up against a pro Kerry vet. When they went to him for his closing 30 seconds, as the hour was about to end, he threw out the term "self-inflicted" to describe Kerry's battle wounds. If he had made that reference at any point earlier in the program, Matthews would have questioned him on it and asked him what evidence he had to support that allegation. But instead, he just threw out that term right before the cut away. That's classic, old school Dick Nixon smear.

[Ballbustah]

Kerry changed his mind after the evidence was out. Bush was fooled by the lack of evidence and he jumped to a conclusion.

Why are you insistent on badgering me?
You looking for a fight or something?



Originally posted by Spinal Tap
Yes Bustah, that information was incorrect and it was a mistake to invade Iraq. You know my position on this. Of course, that was John Kerry's position as well.............that is BEFORE he was able to look in the rear view mirror. So as far as Iraq goes, both Bush & Kerry were incorrect in their assumptions about WMD. Using your rationale, you should have voted Nadar. I hope you did or you are a hypocrite.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Kerry changed his mind after the evidence was out. Bush was fooled by the lack of evidence and he jumped to a conclusion.

Why are you insistent on badgering me?
You looking for a fight or something?

Bustah, I'm not badgering you. I'm not looking for a fight either. I'm just trying to figure out why you didn't vote for Nader. You haven't given me a good reason yet. Your position on Iraq is almost identical to mine. Since BOTH candidates were wrong, you've got to look to other issues to make a decision.

If you think that trying to have a conversation is badgering, then you need to get out a bit more. Maybe get some friends or something.

[Spinal Tap]

One more thing (non badgering), are you telling me that John Kerry did not examine the evidence before making a decision on whether Iraq had WMD??? If so, he's even more unfit to lead this country than I initially thought. Anyone that would vote for such a critical issue surely should have examined the "evidence" themselves before casting the ballot.

[Ballbustah]

I'm saying that Kerry was smart enough to be able to change his opinion after the real facts came out.
That Bush jumped to conclusions instead of letting the inspectors do thier jobs was the difference in this war.
Had Bush had a level head and not prayed to God to tell him what to do we may have had a different outcome. A much better one.

Nader is a GOP hack. He takes money from Republicans.... I'm surprised you didn't know that. He was being funded by many republicans so he could try to split the dems votes.
At one time Nader was a crusader. Stood alone against companies willing to harm the American public. Now he is just a shell of himself...

I believe Kerry would have corrected what Bush insisted was the right thing but turned out to be the wrong thing. Bush was stupid to invade Iraq. That is why I do not trust him. I believe he is an idiot about to make many mistakes.

[Spinal Tap]

I'm not sure "smart" would be the word I would use when describing Kerry's change of heart on Iraq. Kerry has the luxury of changing his mind because he's not the damn president. If Kerry were Bush (president) and Bush were Kerry (Senator) the roles would have been reversed. Would Kerry have invaded Iraq? I don't know, maybe........maybe not. But if he had and there were no WMD, do you think he would have been compaigning on the grounds that it was the wrong time, wrong war? I don't.

I don't think Bush is an idiot. I think he's made some very big mistakes, but idiots aren't smart enough to become president. Bush is probably smarter than you are, I guess that would make you an idiot too........only worse. He's probably smarter than me too, so I guess both of us should try out for the Red Sox next year. We can be a merry band of idiots.

[Ballbustah]

Kerry = Intellectual
Bush = Dummy






Originally posted by Spinal Tap
I'm not sure "smart" would be the word I would use when describing Kerry's change of heart on Iraq. Kerry has the luxury of changing his mind because he's not the damn president. If Kerry were Bush (president) and Bush were Kerry (Senator) the roles would have been reversed. Would Kerry have invaded Iraq? I don't know, maybe........maybe not. But if he had and there were no WMD, do you think he would have been compaigning on the grounds that it was the wrong time, wrong war? I don't.

I don't think Bush is an idiot. I think he's made some very big mistakes, but idiots aren't smart enough to become president. Bush is probably smarter than you are, I guess that would make you an idiot too........only worse. He's probably smarter than me too, so I guess both of us should try out for the Red Sox next year. We can be a merry band of idiots.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Kerry = Intellectual
Bush = Dummy

If your life depended on winning a chess match, would you rather that your opponent be Bush or Kerry (assuming that Bush doesn't get to have Cheney standing over his shoulder)? I can't believe that anyone would select Kerry over Bush, given this choice.

[Ballbustah]

If my life and yours depended on a chess match I would much rather have Kerry.

Bush has learning disabilities.




Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
If your life depended on winning a chess match, would you rather that your opponent be Bush or Kerry (assuming that Bush doesn't get to have Cheney standing over his shoulder)? I can't believe that anyone would select Kerry over Bush, given this choice.