![]() |
|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
even the losers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
|
![]() Something about Kerry just rubs me the wrong way, just as Bush does to most of you. His entire political career seems to have been deliberately scripted from the Kennedy how-to manual; from his hyped PT109ish heroic war record, right down to his Ted Kennedyesque annulment buying convenient Catholicism. He sure has a certain talent for marrying well, I gotta give him that.
Be careful what you wish for in November, you might just get it. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/t...20040731.shtml We all know that Senator John Kerry was in the Vietnam war. He repeatedly reminds us of it at every opportunity. He also repeats the great things he will accomplish when he becomes President of the United States. What he says very little about is what he has actually accomplished in the three decades in between. That is very appropriate because he has accomplished very little in his 19 years in the Senate. Can you name a single piece of major legislation that has Senator Kerry's name on it? Don't be embarrassed if you can't because there is none. What was John Kerry doing before he became a Senator? He tells us that he was a prosecutor. What he does not mention is that he was also lieutenant governor when Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts. This is the same Michael Dukakis who ran for President in 1988 while trying to run away from his liberal-left record, and who tried to cover up his typical liberal anti-military bias by being photographed in a tank. The picture looked so phony that it backfired. This is the same Michael Dukakis who came out of the Democratic convention with a double-digit lead over the elder George Bush in the polls -- until his liberal track record became public knowledge, including his allowing violent criminals weekend furloughs from prison. John Kerry's track record as the most liberal Senator from the country's most liberal state is likewise being covered up with images and rhetoric. Whether or not history will repeat itself on election day remains to be seen. It is considered an "attack" or "negative advertising" to tell people the plain truth that John Kerry's voting record in the Senate was ranked more liberal than that of Ted Kennedy. It was not Republicans who made these rankings but a liberal organization as well as a non-partisan research group. Like Dukakis back in 1988, the Kerry campaign is waving aside "labels" as irrelevant. But "irrelevant" is itself a label -- and one used to avoid confronting the question of whether the charge of being a liberal is true or false. Liberals are not some new and exotic species. They have been around for a long time and their positions are well known on issues ranging from racial quotas to military policy. That is why so much effort has gone into camouflaging those positions at the Democratic convention and in the Kerry campaign. What are those issues and what is the camouflage? Foremost in this age of international terrorism is the issue of military defense and intelligence-gathering. Ever since the days of George McGovern back in 1972, liberal Democrats have been for cutting back spending on the military and on the intelligence agencies. John Kerry has voted time and again to do both. Now he is among those loudly criticizing the inadequacies of the agencies he voted to weaken. It is not just a question of cutting money to those agencies. Liberals have also voted to hamstring our intelligence agencies by limiting their scope at home and abroad. Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission that is so critical of these agencies for not sharing information was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration and it was she who forbad the FBI from sharing information with the CIA. As for taking military action, liberals have been for outsourcing such decisions to the United Nations, where nothing decisive will ever be done, militarily or otherwise. That is what makes the UN so convenient for liberals. How can such a record of weakness be covered up? By using the word "strong" -- again and again. The Democratic convention was dominated by banners saying "A Strong America." John Kerry used the word "strong" or "strength" a dozen times in his 50-minute speech. Other speakers at the Democratic convention likewise keep loudly repeating the word "strong." They clench their fists again and again. Jimmy Carter did it. John Kerry did it. Even Senator Joe Lieberman did it. It is orchestrated disinformation. The big question is: Will it work? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
![]() Quote:
however, the only reason to vote for him is a most compelling one: i'm comfortable that he is not likely to take us into an unwinnable war to fulfill his political agenda. that's good enough for me. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Rebel With A Cause
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: VA-USA
Posts: 5,088
|
![]() Quote:
I really don't know that much about John Kerry ...but I can see they fixed his teeth and he flashes his best John Kennedy smile on for the cameras like a goddamned toothpaste commercial all the while reminding us of his heroic efforts in Vietnam like 30 fuckin' years ago which probably consisted of giving guys blow jobs. ...Pardon me...not only am I inebriated right now, but I just had one more fucking blow to my life which may have been the final one ...and I'm on a rant. Mr. John Kerry may be alright ...I dunno ...but like just about every other presidential canidate that ever existed ...it's a goal and an ego boost they've jerked off on since puberty. I rather liked Bill Clinton in a way ...at least he had the decency to jerk off in public ...in Monica Lewinsky's mouth ...what am I saying? ...decency? ...He tried to lie about it ...typical ...another guy with dreams of grandeur. Kind of backfired on him didn't it? Thanks to that Trip called Linda who looks like a fucking horse in make-up. ...la la la ...the rant continues. That's just it, John Kerry may be alright, but he has an entourage behind him that guides his every move and he's just pussy enough to go along with it to win at every cost instead of just being himself. Speaking as someone who has helped guide the careers of Hollywood actors ...the similarity is striking. Bush is not much better. I think he would have gone down as perhaps the most forgettable President ...had it not been for 911 ...He simply did what any guy in that position would have done ...but he did a little more ...what with his comments like "wanted dead or alive" when he lapsed into thinking he was John Wayne or something ...and immediatly moved into war ...where our guys are being killed to this day. Bet he was so proud of that video of the statue of Saddam Hussain coming down ...quite a few video photograhers...American as well as our British pals have been killed too. The whole thing makes me sick. Why can't we have somebody really good run for President? Yer probably talking to the wrong person here. I want Bono from U2 for President. End of my rant...I'm going to listen to the B52's now. If anyone actually read this, I thank you for bearing with my ranting ill attitude. tomboy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
even the losers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
|
![]() Quote:
xpunx@xpunx.mil : xpunx Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war. "in all probability" ? "might" ? those are very strong & decisive words. ![]() http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...=la-util-op-ed latimes1 : latimes2 Figuring out in advance what any potential president will do is a difficult undertaking in the best of circumstances, because political rhetoric often has little in common with actual policy. Witness George W. Bush's transformation from skeptic to champion of nation-building. Or Bill Clinton's metamorphosis from China-basher to China-booster. But prognostication is especially tough in Kerry's case. There are three main schools of American foreign policy: isolationism, idealism and realism. At various points in his career — sometimes at various points in the same speech — Kerry has championed all of them. ......This muddle raises the question of whether Kerry has a worldview, or whether he merely goes wherever the political winds blow. Surely it's no coincidence that his stances track precisely mainstream Democratic opinion, which was isolationist in the 1970s and 1980s, idealistically interventionist in the 1990s and coldly realist since 2001. When the Democrats were split, as they were over Iraq in 2002 and 2003, he clumsily tried to appease both hawks and doves. Where he will wind up nobody knows — not even, I suspect, him. this guy's all over the place tk. i guess i'm a lost cause.......i actually prefer the idiot over sen. flip-flop. ![]() Last edited by daddydirt : 11-08-04 at 05:59 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
===\/------/\===
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
|
![]() I would prefer the idiot (Bush) if the puppet master (cheney) and the war mongers (Rummy, wolfie) go away. If not then Im voting for frankenlincoln (kerry).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
![]() Quote:
we're talking about the US Senate, where yea and nay votes are cast for a variety of reasons besides the actual merits (or lack thereof) of whatever is being voted on. there's a helluva lot of horse-trading that goes on in the Senate cloakroom that determines who votes for what (as in "you vote for my bill and i'll vote for yours)....votes are also cast in protest or as a bone to appease constituencies or because of certain provisions in a bill. so i know it is a gross oversimplification to say "Senator X voted against this military appropriations bill, therefore he's anti-military" or "Senator Y changed his vote, therefore he's an indecisive waffle". examine any Senator's voting record and you will find all kinds of inconsistencies....and the further you go back, the more you will find. do they say more about the man or the realities of American politics? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
One half won't do
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
|
![]() Well I was a Kucinich supporter, but then America won't elect anyone with any moral and intellectual integrity. And since Dennis held his nose and threw his support behind Kerry that that gives me some comfort. Any way you cut it Kerry is 10 times the man Bush is. Any fool devoid of an agenda can see that.
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress. Alan Moore [in Salon] ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
even the losers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
|
![]() moral and intellectual integrity ≠ holding nose and throwing support behind Kerry
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|