Bush or Kerry or ???
- Thread starter lisan
- Start date
Hey Moe, it wasn't a story or my story, check it out on snopes or some other validation site..limerickman said:
The networks also refuse to show the brutal butchery that has taken place concering hostages in Iraq.. If the Gen public saw those images on CNN, there would be an outcry for the American people to send more troops.....
Maybe you missed the part where kerry admits to committing "war crimes" if he did, he should be punished, if he didn't then he lied under oath and should be punished..and if he said this....My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Kerry is quoted as saying in the October issue of Outdoor Life. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle." He should be court martialed...Beastt said:
You've been away for awhile, you really need to catch up jr...
Helloooo, talk history anytime you want. I've noticed your history seems to be slanted.davidmc said:
It's #1 check it out. Laura sold me my panama red! ha hazapper said:I see you must have fallen off the wagon, there panama...
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/
It is interesting that you claim no party but then if someone is less liberal you assign them to a party. Does less liberal mean Republican? You like to make your philosphical statement that you as a progressive belong to no party. Why then is it so hard to believe a conservative doesn't belong to any party?davidmc said:
You could make it 'plainer'. How about not parroting the DNC line?
Seems to me that you will label any conservative as a republican, but when you claim yourself a progressive, you refuse to be labelled a democrat. A less liberal person could be a conservative democrat, but you jumped right to the republican label. Like that was any surprise.davidmc said:
I'm not assigning,I'm asking. That was a question. The context seemed to be that you were using "less liberal" as a substitute for "right leaning", in a "tongue in cheek" manner; which, judging from your previous post's, hints of sarcasm. I never heard of a liberal right-winger.Bikerman2004 said:
If I'm mistaken & you're not on the right end of the spectrum then I apologize.
I have stated I'm conservative. But not a "right winger". There are plenty of liberal republicans. Arnold is good example. Well as liberal as can be and still be a republican. My post do have some sarcasm. Several post on here just to slam someone else. Everyone is trying to put a label on someone else. I'd like to get past that ****. A lot of your post sound like what I hear on TV and radio shows. Much like Zappers post. I'd rather hear what you think, regardless if it will make Bush or Kerry look good or bad. Your argument is so polarized that you would not even admit that Bush's trip to Baghdad was a good thing. Doesn't really matter if it was a photo op or not. Did it help the troops morale? Yes. And thats all that really matters. Political discussion can only move forward if and when we recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.davidmc said:I'm not assigning,I'm asking. That was a question. The context seemed to be that you were using "less liberal" as a substitute for "right leaning", in a "tongue in cheek" manner; which, judging from your previous post's, hints of sarcasm. I never heard of a liberal right-winger.
I don't know about "plenty" but your point is well taken. I responded the way i did because I've had some(one) nipping at my heels to pigeonhole me into the democratic party. I've stated that both parties are corrupt & self-serving & that i'm voting for kerry because i hate his policies the least. They can decide who can join the debates, does that sound democratic?The dem's/repub's are quite happy that they have a "hammerlock" on the process. I & others are not represented on the "national scene"-e.g.-50% of the populace does'nt vote. It is a statistical improbability that they're all moron's. A good # of them are'nt voting because it legitamizes a corrupt 2 party system. It's the same in the law, if you don't intervene when a crime is being committed, you are complicit. I will vote but w/ reluctant misgivings.Bikerman2004 said:
Incidentally, i don't own/need a television. I get my news from the AP or, as it unfolds, c-span
I've noticed who is nipping at your heels. Not sure what to think of having more political parties. One argument against it is even less would get done than now. Government couldn't operate without a coalition of groups. That by itself isn't bad. But many european governments fall when the coalition dissolves.davidmc said:I don't know about "plenty" but your point is well taken. I responded the way i did because I've had some(one) nipping at my heels to pigeonhole me into the democratic party. I've stated that both parties are corrupt & self-serving & that i'm voting for kerry because i hate his policies the least. They can decide who can join the debates, does that sound democratic?The dem's/repub's are quite happy that they have a "hammerlock" on the process. I & others are not represented on the "national scene"-e.g.-50% of the populace does'nt vote. It is a statistical improbability that they're all moron's. A good # of them are'nt voting because it legitamizes a corrupt 2 party system. It's the same in the law, if you don't intervene when a crime is being committed, you are complicit. I will vote but w/ reluctant misgivings.
Incidentally, i don't own/need a television. I get my news from the AP or, as it unfolds, c-span
Our system just needs to get back to the basics. It would be nice if both parties stated that this is what they stand for. If you like it vote for us, if not vote for them. Whatever the outcome both parties should work for us and not political gain. Just about all the legislation could contain ideas from both parties and work. Honest discussion over why one is better than the other is good. Calling someone evil, stupid, wishy-washy, ******, elitist, or whatever is not.
I was a Dean supporter, saw him twice in Seattle, now a Kerry supporter. I am just tired of the corrupt politics from the Bush administration and would rather not have a rambling idiot in charge of my country. (Trying to win Washington State for Kerry-Edwards, although my absentee vote was for Pennsylvania)
Anybody seen this one?:
The newspaper in Crawford Texas, which endorsed Dubya in 2000, is now endorsing Kerry. Here's the editorial, and it's a good one:
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
<edit>
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
<edit>
Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.
<edit>
Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.
<edit>
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
Now THAT'S an endorsement.
The newspaper in Crawford Texas, which endorsed Dubya in 2000, is now endorsing Kerry. Here's the editorial, and it's a good one:
Kerry Will Restore American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.
Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.
Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.
Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.
Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.
Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and
Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.
<edit>
In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush's lead through any travail.
He let us down.
When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.
<edit>
Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.
The Iconoclast, the President's hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper's publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Again, he let us down.
Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.
We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a "wartime president." America is in service 365 days a year. We don't need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don't get done.
<edit>
Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.
<edit>
The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.
Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.
That's why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.
The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
Now THAT'S an endorsement.
Similar threads
