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.
Joe, changing the topic already?
Perhaps you would care to comment on the content and ideas in the article, rather than ignoring the content and condemning the source.
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?
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.
Generally people who avoid addressing the content of someone's argument, are people who have to avoid it.
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...
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?
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.
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.