Introducing John Kerry

Yeah, what happened in Kerry's adult life?

0 Replies

Geez, Bill Clinton gets a few lousy blowjobs and he becomes Mephistopheles-on-the-Potomac. Dick Morris, in contrast, gets his toes sucked by a $200-an-hour hooker and, just because he's a Republican and he gets to write a column for the NY Post, he is somehow believable?

Really, I hope this is an indication that the right-wingers have decided that, since they can find it in their hearts to forgive the sexual transgressions of Dick Morris, they will now open their arms to all the other errant sinners out there who, in weaker moments, have o'erstepped the bounds of matrimony.

0 Replies

Joe, changing the topic already?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Geez, Bill Clinton gets a few lousy blowjobs and he becomes Mephistopheles-on-the-Potomac. Dick Morris, in contrast, gets his toes sucked by a $200-an-hour hooker and, just because he's a Republican and he gets to write a column for the NY Post, he is somehow believable?

Really, I hope this is an indication that the right-wingers have decided that, since they can find it in their hearts to forgive the sexual transgressions of Dick Morris, they will now open their arms to all the other errant sinners out there who, in weaker moments, have o'erstepped the bounds of matrimony.

Perhaps you would care to comment on the content and ideas in the article, rather than ignoring the content and condemning the source.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Joe, changing the topic already?

Sorry, McG, I knew you were going to bring up Clinton sooner or later. I guess I preempted you.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Perhaps you would care to comment on the content and ideas in the article, rather than ignoring the content and condemning the source.

I give about as much credence to a Dick Morris column on John Kerry as I would a James Carville column on George Bush. Partisan hacks with their own particular axes to grind.

0 Replies

The slime is flowing like a river through this board today, pumped furiously by the pathetic, frightened A2K conservatives who are beginning to realize that Bush's days are dwindling to a few.

Lift your feet so it doesn't run into your shoes...

0 Replies

I find it interesting that you are completely unwilling to talk about the assertions in the article, and confine yourselves to condemning the article's origin.

Since the two of you post here habitually, it can't be that you don't want to talk about the elections and the candidates.

Generally people who avoid addressing the content of someone's argument, are people who have to avoid it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I honor his service in Vietnam. I think a man who knows what it is like to fight in a war is a good person to have as commander-in-chief. John Kerry is a good man. But what else is there?

What else was there with George Bush? Or should I say, what was there? If this guy, who can barely put two syllables together, can do the job, I'm pretty sure Kerry can do it. I never knew what they meant when they said that anybody in America could grow up to one day be president. Now I realize how true that is...any body...a dead body...a body of water...

0 Replies

...a smirking airhead...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I find it interesting that you are completely unwilling to talk about the assertions in the article, and confine yourselves to condemning the article's origin.

Where's your commentary on this column, Brandon?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Generally people who avoid addressing the content of someone's argument, are people who have to avoid it.

Heh heh, that's a good one coming from you.

0 Replies

When I see the kind of posts that started this thread, I think, "If I want to read the screeds of right-wing commentators, I would read the NY Post or one of the web sites that spew this kind of BS."

What is it about the righties that compel them to post this kind of swill? Is it so much more brilliant than their own original thought? Scary idea...

0 Replies

Brandon
Did you listen to the speech. Or are you echoing the words of Dick Morris. IMO opinion and many of the opinions I heard it was a well thought out speech touching all of the necessary points. While I watched and listened I reflected on how it was a pleasure to listen to the articulate Kerry as opposed to that bumbling fool who presently pollutes the white house. An individual that can't put two coherent sentences or thoughts together. What is that line, he can't chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time? Morris finds fault with Kerry's resume but has no qualms regarding Bush's. Shall I call him blind, stupid or just the normal republican lemming?

Kicky
George Bush cannot do the job. That has been amply demonstrated. To say he does the job is tantamount to saying that a 200 hitter who can't catch is a baseball star.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

When I see the kind of posts that started this thread, I think, "If I want to read the screeds of right-wing commentators, I would read the NY Post or one of the web sites that spew this kind of BS."

What is it about the righties that compel them to post this kind of swill? Is it so much more brilliant than their own original thought? Scary idea...

Ya know, I just scrolled back through the last four pages to see how many interesting threads you have started based on your own original thoughts. Can you guess how many I found?

0 Replies

What I find interesting is the Dems refusal to see their own
inconsistency.
The dems are saying that Iraq is "
illegal,immoral,wrong,unneccessary,and to expensive,JUST LIKE VIE
TNAM.
Now,they have nominated a man for President that proudly ADMITS
to having served in that ILLEGAL,IMMORAL,UNJUST war,and don't
notice the hypocrisy.
The Dems are trying to say Iraq is another Vietnam,so why would
they nominate Kerry.I would think that if Vietnam is everything
they say it was,that they would want a candidate that was not
there,and not one that brags in every speech that he was there.
Also,if it was so bad,and if Iraq is exactly like Vietnam,then
why are the dems nominating a man that wants to commit MORE
troops to that mess?
It doesn't make sense to me,maybe someone else can understand it.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
Did you listen to the speech. Or are you echoing the words of Dick Morris. IMO opinion and many of the opinions I heard it was a well thought out speech touching all of the necessary points. While I watched and listened I reflected on how it was a pleasure to listen to the articulate Kerry as opposed to that bumbling fool who presently pollutes the white house. An individual that can't put two coherent sentences or thoughts together. What is that line, he can't chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time? Morris finds fault with Kerry's resume but has no qualms regarding Bush's. Shall I call him blind, stupid or just the normal republican lemming?

To answer one of your questions, I didn't watch a second of the Democratic convention. I know the policies I've heard coming from that quarter for the past year, and I know I don't agree with them. I read or at least skim between 5 and 20 newspapers from various countries every day, and have a pretty good idea of where everyone stands in this election.

To answer another of your questions, I posted the article mostly to stir up trouble on a boring Friday afternoon. It is similar to a lot of articles you guys regularly post about Bush.

As far as your invective against the president goes, it lacks much content other than expressing your personal dislike of him. I agree with most of his policies, and think he's done a great job, so I will vote for him.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I find it interesting that you are completely unwilling to talk about the assertions in the article, and confine yourselves to condemning the article's origin.

Where's your commentary on this column, Brandon?

Brandon9000 wrote:
Generally people who avoid addressing the content of someone's argument, are people who have to avoid it.

Heh heh, that's a good one coming from you.

I think I see a pattern here. Once again, rather than address the content of an argument, you merely attempt to discredit its source.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think I see a pattern here.

So do I.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

What I find interesting is the Dems refusal to see their own inconsistency. The dems are saying that Iraq is "illegal,immoral,wrong,unneccessary,and to expensive,JUST LIKE VIETNAM. Now,they have nominated a man for President that proudly ADMITS to having served in that ILLEGAL,IMMORAL,UNJUST war,and don't notice the hypocrisy. The Dems are trying to say Iraq is another Vietnam,so why would they nominate Kerry. [..]

It doesn't make sense to me,maybe someone else can understand it.

Yeah, I can - that one's easy.

The difference is between starting an illegal, unnecssary etc war; and fighting in one.

See, on the one hand you have a President who starts or pursues an illegal, unnecessary (etc) war. Who decides to wage one.

And on the other hand you have an American citizen who, once his country is at war, heeds the call of the army and fights where his fellow Americans are dying.

Mind you - I have respect for those citizens who recognized that the Vietnam war was wrong, and took their own risks by fleeing the draft. But I also have a great deal of respect for a man who feels that when his country is at war, when his President has called on Americans to serve with honour, joins the troops, risks his life and saves that of his fellow men.

Now a President who decides to start one of those (illegal, unnecessary etc) wars, however - who calls upon such men to risk and give their life - for him, I have little respect.

Is that difference clear enough?

0 Replies

Introducing John Kerry

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know