Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Atrocities, eh? In VietNam? Pretty brave to admit what went on, I'd postulate. Without acknowledgement, there cannot be change.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Quote:
John Kerry may have faults but at least he is'nt being accused of crimes against humanity.

No, he just admitted to atrocities.

Now if bush would only admit that he's had others commit them but lacks the balls to do them himself first hand we'd be getting somewhere huh?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Kerry's Class and Eloquence no doubt plays a large part in the overall performance of The Democratic Party's success at fundraising nation wide. You know what they say ... "Money talks and .... "

It certainly speaks to the fact that my fellow citizens get stupider and more sheep like as time goes on......

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Atrocities, eh? In VietNam? Pretty brave to admit what went on, I'd postulate. Without acknowledgement, there cannot be change.

I saw the testimony on C-Span over the weekend and that was my thought, Gads it took guts at 27 to do that. While George was out partying and getting drunk, Kerry was concerned about the direction of his country and trying to enact change.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

and during those "Kerry" years could you also give us a synopsis of what George Bush was doing/accomplishing? you know, just for comparison.

Beauty, Dys!!! :wink:

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

suzy wrote:
Atrocities, eh? In VietNam? Pretty brave to admit what went on, I'd postulate. Without acknowledgement, there cannot be change.

I saw the testimony on C-Span over the weekend and that was my thought, Gads it took guts at 27 to do that. While George was out partying and getting drunk, Kerry was concerned about the direction of his country and trying to enact change.

Amen!

And the folks that cannot see this -- are intentionally blind to it!

0 Replies

Hell, if we were electing one of them back then based on their actions and statements back then, it would be a different race. Sadly (for Kerry supporters) we have a race between present-day Kerry and present-day Bush. I think the fact that Kerry supporters want to talk about the Kerry of the distant past shows how little they want to talk about the present-day Kerry. Of course, maybe it's just too hard to pin down who present-day Kerry is to really talk about him at all.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Hell, if we were electing one of them back then based on their actions and statements back then, it would be a different race. Sadly (for Kerry supporters) we have a race between present-day Kerry and present-day Bush. I think the fact that Kerry supporters want to talk about the Kerry of the distant past shows how little they want to talk about the present-day Kerry. Of course, maybe it's just too hard to pin down who present-day Kerry is to really talk about him at all.

Unfortunately it is crystal clear who the present day bush is, the same pedantic ne'er do well idiot today as yesterday IMO, you of course sre entitled to your differing one.

Making it out to Sidelines Friday Scrat?

0 Replies

Quote:

Hell, if we were electing one of them back then based on their actions and statements back then, it would be a different race. Sadly (for Kerry supporters) we have a race between present-day Kerry and present-day Bush. I think the fact that Kerry supporters want to talk about the Kerry of the distant past shows how little they want to talk about the present-day Kerry. Of course, maybe it's just too hard to pin down who present-day Kerry is to really talk about him at all.

Kerry has asked Bush on numerous occasions now to have a series of debates. Bush has cowed away from these requests every time. It seems to me like there is only one person trying to open the book here. Kerry is showing no reservations in regards to talking about the issues. Why won't Bush debate Kerry? Quite simply, Bush does'nt have a broken peg leg to stand upon and he knows it. Debate, debate, debate, thats the only way these truths will be exposed and Bush refuses to do it.

0 Replies

Personally, I would like to see at least 2 debates between them, but I think too many debates would be completely out of the question. Remember that bush is still the president and has a job to do. He shouldn't let campaigning be his main focus.

0 Replies

Oh my god, i'm in danger of pissin' my pants, i've never laughed so hard at anything you've written McG--thanks ! ! !

0 Replies

McGentrix - Me too. I really hope that Bush decides to debate. Since I still am terribly confused about the whole thing, I think that a couple of debates will clear up a lot of issues for me.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Making it out to Sidelines Friday Scrat?

An old Navy buddy will be in town, and we're planning to go catch Tribe at the Lincoln (I think). Another good friend (formerly of "Magnethead") just hooked up with Tribe as their new guitarist/keyboardist/backing vocalist, and I need to get out and show him some support. Hope our triumphant return to Garner goes well.

Oh, and Bush is rubber, you are glue. :wink:

0 Replies

I'm genuinely curious about something. Given Kerry's propensity for espousing mutually exclusive positions on almost every issue, often within the same breath, what value would his supporters place behind any statements he might make in a debate or debates?

Seriously. Can any of his supporters here state unequivocally that they believe he is a man of integrity who means what he says? If not, what weight can anything he says in a debate with Bush be given? Can you count on him to be "for" or "against" anything five minutes after he has stated his support or opposition?

I would really like to hear an answer to this. Thanks.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I'm genuinely curious about something. Given Kerry's propensity for espousing mutually exclusive positions on almost every issue, often within the same breath, what value would his supporters place behind any statements he might make in a debate or debates?

Seriously. Can any of his supporters here state unequivocally that they believe he is a man of integrity who means what he says? If not, what weight can anything he says in a debate with Bush be given? Can you count on him to be "for" or "against" anything five minutes after he has stated his support or opposition?

I would really like to hear an answer to this. Thanks.

I worked in state government, so I'm not about to say any politician is 100% honest. They are trying to get elected, so they often say things that are vague and appear one way with one special interest group and differently with another special interest group. Rarely to politicians get elected because they are just good guys that want to make things better. There are so many special interest groups with lobbys and bucks that can go against you, so you have to tred lightly. Unfortunately, not all voters are saavy on issues either and will vote for whatever candidate their special interest group endorses.

However, I believe Kerry is a man of integrity, that is not afraid to adjust to new information and change his path when necessary, just as many have done regarding the war in Iraq as new information was available.

The other piece is looking beyond the "record" on voting for Kerry. What appears to be one thing on the surface, is usually filled with some conditions or special provisions in the detail. Sometimes the big picture is something that make sense, but it doesn't make sense to vote for something if embedded inside are things that are just not right.

A debate by Kerry and Bush will be interesting. Bush will hammer at voting records on surface things that looked good but weren't in the details. Kerry will hammer away at Bush's performance.

To me it's important to have a leader that tries to represent all of the people in the US, not just the ones you like or agree with. Bush's style of "with us or against us" has this country divided. He has a very strong stance on every issue, and that's fine from a personal standpoint, but his job is not to enact his personal belief. His job is to enact the will of the people. The president's job is no longer one of a republican or a democrat, but of the entire US citizenship.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Making it out to Sidelines Friday Scrat?

An old Navy buddy will be in town, and we're planning to go catch Tribe at the Lincoln (I think). Another good friend (formerly of "Magnethead") just hooked up with Tribe as their new guitarist/keyboardist/backing vocalist, and I need to get out and show him some support. Hope our triumphant return to Garner goes well.

Oh, and Bush is rubber, you are glue. :wink:

Haven't seen tribe but I've seen magnethead. They're really good. we will rock Garner to the ground I promise. As for bush I think the best part of him got left in a rubber and what's left is what we have today. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm genuinely curious about something. Given Kerry's propensity for espousing mutually exclusive positions on almost every issue, often within the same breath, what value would his supporters place behind any statements he might make in a debate or debates?

Seriously. Can any of his supporters here state unequivocally that they believe he is a man of integrity who means what he says? If not, what weight can anything he says in a debate with Bush be given? Can you count on him to be "for" or "against" anything five minutes after he has stated his support or opposition?

I would really like to hear an answer to this. Thanks.

The Bush administration has leveled some serious accusations against Kerry by calling him a "flip flopper". Have you seen proof of his alleged flip flops from the Bush administration? If so what and when did this flip flop occur? And furthermore, did you make any effort to seek Kerry's side of the story, or did you take George W. Bush's word as absolute truth? You have to remember that the world is an ever changing place. What is good for today may not be good for tomorrow. I change my mind on a daily basis in regards to my life due to new information made available to me. Do you ever change your mind due to changing circumstances? A debate would be a wonderful time for them to bring such proof out before the public where Kerry can respond in real time, as well Bush can respond to Kerrys' criticisms. Kerry has shown no apprehension about defending such accusations and welcomes open debates on them. Are you saying that you don't think open debates would bring issues to light?

0 Replies

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a petty mind . . .

0 Replies

Windtamer wrote:

The Bush administration has leveled some serious accusations against Kerry by calling him a "flip flopper". Have you seen proof of his alleged flip flops from the Bush administration?

Are you kidding me? No offense, but you'd have to be hiding under a rock to ask this question. This isn't "the Bush administration" leveling accusations, this everyone including the largely liberal media pointing out that Kerry's record shows he never met a side of an issue he didn't like, briefly, at least.

Let me help you out here...

Here's a link to a Slate article. (Slate is no conservative outlet.)

John Kerry's Waffles

There's a wonderful table there (doesn't copy and paste well) that lists issues and the different stances Kerry has taken on them.

Now, is it your contention that the Bush administration runs Slate? Or is it more accurate to state that the Bush administration has been pointing out THE FACTS of Kerry's inability to make up his mind what he believes in?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Windtamer wrote:
The Bush administration has leveled some serious accusations against Kerry by calling him a "flip flopper". Have you seen proof of his alleged flip flops from the Bush administration?

Are you kidding me? No offense, but you'd have to be hiding under a rock to ask this question. This isn't "the Bush administration" leveling accusations, this everyone including the largely liberal media pointing out that Kerry's record shows he never met a side of an issue he didn't like, briefly, at least.

Let me help you out here...

Here's a link to a Slate article. (Slate is no conservative outlet.)

John Kerry's Waffles

There's a wonderful table there (doesn't copy and paste well) that lists issues and the different stances Kerry has taken on them.

Now, is it your contention that the Bush administration runs Slate? Or is it more accurate to state that the Bush administration has been pointing out THE FACTS of Kerry's inability to make up his mind what he believes in?

Yes, I've seen this site. These supposed "waffles" are ten years apart from each other in most cases. Are you saying that priorities have not changed in over a decade of time? Are you saying that people from the Nixon administration should still be fighting communism or else they will be labeled "wafflers"?

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know