enjoy...or...despise; I guess.
Video
Printable View
enjoy...or...despise; I guess.
Video
Excellent video!!!! :lol: :lol:
I never said I liked Kerry.
I said I like him better than Bush.
The war is not the only issue.
If Kerry was President instead of Bush 4 years ago, I'd still say he was wrong. <_<
But if that was so, would you now vote for Bush instead of re-electing Kerry?
excellent point alex, looks like u contradicted urself busyman :lol: nice find by the way
Uh no cpt azad. Point out the contradiction.Quote:
Originally posted by cpt_azad@11 August 2004 - 04:14
excellent point alex, looks like u contradicted urself busyman :lol: nice find by the way
The difference is if John Kerry sent us to war under false pretenses I'd call him on it.
@Alex- No I'd have voted for Kerry still. Bush has fucked up more than just Iraq.
TBH I would vote neither. <_<
Hindsight is 20twintwin.
JUST ASK THEM LIKE LITTLE JOHN SAID TOO.
Quote:
John Edwards :helpsmile:
"If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him," he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...5p-189814c.htmlQuote:
Evidently, Edwards did not know at the time that almost every officer who commanded Kerry or served alongside him opposes his candidacy. Worse, they have formed a group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, that claims more than 250 members
I'll take, uh....enjoy, Manny. :DQuote:
Well, this takes care of the terrorism/war thingie; just press play-no more issue for Kerry.
I'd say that's pretty effective stuff. ;)
Interesting linkQuote:
Originally posted by >SHOCK<^>WAVE>@11 August 2004 - 18:32
JUST ASK THEM LIKE LITTLE JOHN SAID TOO.
Quote:
John Edwards :helpsmile:
"If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him," he said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opin...5p-189814c.htmlQuote:
Evidently, Edwards did not know at the time that almost every officer who commanded Kerry or served alongside him opposes his candidacy. Worse, they have formed a group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, that claims more than 250 members
The question would appear to revolve around a statement Kerry made about being in Cambodia on Christmas day 68 whereas as others say he was actually having a drink in Paris
No wait.... sorry, that last bit should have read 50 miles from the Cambodian border on that particular day. Is it just me or is this is just getting silly? :blink:
In other words, on a fast patrol boat he may have been 2 hours away from the border. Given that whole area was a desperate hell hole I am at a loss as to what the difference was (other than the US should not have been in Cambodia at all).
Something particularly funny is that, during a statement for the Senatorial record (I believe in 1986) Kerry said that while he was "...in Cambodia, where Nixon had sent us..." or some such bilge, he failed to note that he came home before Nixon was even inaugurated.
I fully realize though, that things like this don't count when one is of the ANYBODYBUTBUSH mind. ;)
Whilst on the whole I think I would prefer Kerry to Bush, I do not subscribe to AnybodybutBush. There are undoubtedly far more right wing, downright insane individuals out there who would jump at the chance of taking his place.
It can always get worse, it only might get better. :)
Forgive my simplicity of view, but surely the question one must ask oneself is "Would he make a good President ?".
If only you had brought that to our attention four years ago.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@11 August 2004 - 14:53
Forgive my simplicity of view, but surely the question one must ask oneself is "Would he make a good President ?".
If only you had brought that to our attention four years ago. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+11 August 2004 - 22:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 11 August 2004 - 22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol@11 August 2004 - 14:53
Forgive my simplicity of view, but surely the question one must ask oneself is "Would he make a good President ?".
Sorry, I thought I had said.
My mistake.
Kerry?
No-he makes only an average Senator.
Great reverse full-pike double twisting flip-flopper though. ;)
His attempts to evade (in the video) don't seem to be aided by his patented "nuanced" glibness. :lol:
I'm sorry, I just can't stop. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No mate, anybody.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@11 August 2004 - 22:37
Kerry?
No-he makes only an average Senator.
Great reverse full-pike double twisting flip-flopper though. ;)
The question relates to whoever is to be elected as President.
I don't really know how your system works. However ours works along the lines of - The Leader of the party which wins the most seats becomes the Prime Minister. In reality unless they win more than half of the total available then it's a waste of time. We have tried the coalition Govt thing and it doesn't really work.
So we are voting for - Our Local MP, The Party we wish to form the Government and the PM all at the same time. Does your system work in the same way, or is the election of the President separate from the elections to Senate / Congress.
Forgive my obvious ignorance, I quite enjoy it sometimes. It allows me to be unencumbered by facts. Which I find useful on occasion.
More like the CANANYBODYBEBETTERTHANBUSH mind.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@11 August 2004 - 16:32
Something particularly funny is that, during a statement for the Senatorial record (I believe in 1986) Kerry said that while he was "...in Cambodia, where Nixon had sent us..." or some such bilge, he failed to note that he came home before Nixon was even inaugurated.
I fully realize though, that things like this don't count when one is of the ANYBODYBUTBUSH mind. ;)
We wouldn't even be talking about Kerry if Dean hadn't "wigged out" a little in (I think) Iowa.
Kerry is a propped up Democratic candidate; someone "chosen after the culling" to beat Bush.
Much like Bush was chosen partly because of his last name.
I'm not sure what your asking, J'Pol.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@11 August 2004 - 16:45
So we are voting for - Our Local MP, The Party we wish to form the Government and the PM all at the same time. Does your system work in the same way, or is the election of the President separate from the elections to Senate / Congress.
Forgive my obvious ignorance, I quite enjoy it sometimes. It allows me to be unencumbered by facts. Which I find useful on occasion.
We vote for whichever individual we want for whatever office is being contested, regardless of party.
One can vote the straight party line, of course, but as I said, there are (generally) usually two choices for any seat or office.
In November, we will be voting to fill State and Federal Congressional and Senatorial seats as well as the Presidential contest; also any number of state referendums, State Supreme Court seats, State College boards, etc.
Lots of stuff.
I'm sorry, B, but I just find odd the quandary one must find oneself in to feel compelled to vote for someone like Kerry merely to be rid of an incumbent.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@11 August 2004 - 19:17
More like the CANANYBODYBEBETTERTHANBUSH mind.
We wouldn't even be talking about Kerry if Dean hadn't "wigged out" a little in (I think) Iowa.
Kerry is a propped up Democratic candidate; someone "chosen after the culling" to beat Bush.
Much like Bush was chosen partly because of his last name.
Three questions:
1) Are you of the opinion that Bush was drafted to run? :huh:
2) Would you have voted for Dean? :blink:
3) In what sense do you regard Kerry as "propped-up"?
You find what useful? Facts or being unencumbered?Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@11 August 2004 - 21:45
Forgive my obvious ignorance, I quite enjoy it sometimes. It allows me to be unencumbered by facts. Which I find useful on occasion.
the word unencumbered has always sounded kinky to me...
I'm sorry, B, but I just find odd the quandary one must find oneself in to feel compelled to vote for someone like Kerry merely to be rid of an incumbent.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+11 August 2004 - 21:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 August 2004 - 21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@11 August 2004 - 19:17
More like the CANANYBODYBEBETTERTHANBUSH mind.
We wouldn't even be talking about Kerry if Dean hadn't "wigged out" a little in (I think) Iowa.
Kerry is a propped up Democratic candidate; someone "chosen after the culling" to beat Bush.
Much like Bush was chosen partly because of his last name.
Three questions:
1) Are you of the opinion that Bush was drafted to run? :huh:
2) Would you have voted for Dean? :blink:
3) In what sense do you regard Kerry as "propped-up"? [/b][/quote]
No j2, the majority want a change....even if it's John Kerry. My mother wanted to tell me how good John Kerry is about this and that and I had tell her, "Make no mistake, I don't think he's this great guy or something. I just think he would be better than Bush.
You see with Bush, it seems like he hasn't learned anything (RIF) the last four years. We'd continue with same crap, domestic and foreign, that we've had.
Once re-elected, another re-election would not help keep him in check for he would be in his last term.
Kerry, on the other hand, would really be on pins and needles or face an incumbent defeat in 2008.....that is if he doesn't turn into a wooden statue first.
1. No, but it was convenient. Clinton, who was vastly popular, couldn't run again. What better timing. Bush wasn't drafted but "attributes" make a candidate attractive. :lol: :lol: Bush's name was one. Kerry's military service record is another.
2. Most likely. I like Edwards also. He's a very good choice (now) for VP.
3. Once we arrive at the Dem or Republican candidates, they are both propped up. Before Dean wigged out, I heard little mention of Kerry as the front runner; especially with his stance on the war differing from most of the Democrats.
We get the Conventions which are a big ball sucking festival. I watched Clinton talk and that was it.
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas, but yes, the name certainly did lend to his viablity.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@12 August 2004 - 09:01
1. No, but it was convenient. Clinton, who was vastly popular, couldn't run again. What better timing. Bush wasn't drafted but "attributes" make a candidate attractive. :lol: :lol: Bush's name was one. Kerry's military service record is another.
2. Most likely. I like Edwards also. He's a very good choice (now) for VP.
3. Once we arrive at the Dem or Republican candidates, they are both propped up. Before Dean wigged out, I heard little mention of Kerry as the front runner; especially with his stance on the war differing from most of the Democrats.
We get the Conventions which are a big ball sucking festival. I watched Clinton talk and that was it.
He didn't start as one of my faves, and he still isn't, but I feel that 9/11 changed the landscape to an extent none of us will be able to gauge with any degree of accuracy for years to come.
I see Kerry as a pre-9/11 business-as-usual type of Democrat, with nothing more than a nodding acquiescence to the current circumstances; he seems to think that "Tried and True" methodologies will carry the day for the U.S.
I don't agree.
2) Dean is an idiot.
If he had become the candidate, I think the Republican landslide would out outpaced Reagan's 1984 win over Mondale.
Edwards speaks well, which I attribute to his legal training and experience, however, I would urge you to pay very close attention to any forthcoming debates between he and Mr. Cheney.
Edwards is gonna get smoked.
3) Kerry would have risen to the top of the Democrat heap sooner or later; it happened sooner due to the Dean scream.
As to the conventions, I agree totally, however I will watch the Republican convention 'cuz I'm shopping candidates for -08.
Mitt Romney looks good from here, but time will tell.
You never know; maybe Jeb Bush will run. :D
Cant stand any "videos" that dont give the full interviews and answers, its so easy to get things taken out of context :rolleyes:
J2K4,
I'd heard he'd done a job on Texas, but im a little sketchy on the details...Quote:
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas
Which job are you refering to?
The Corruption in the Texas Housing Agency;
The lapses of the Defence Attorneys not being taken into account to suspend executions;
The "Texas Miracle" in education which didnt happen when comparing the scores nationally;
The "Care Reforms" (HMO's) that he gave patients more Rights...which he actually slowed down as much as possible (he could have signed in 1995, and he still vetoed the Right to sue the organisations in question);
The "Tort changes" which were supposed to save Texans millions in insurance premiums but which the companies were allowed to keep for themselves;
Forcing Prisoners to accept Christ before being considered for parole (One of the prisons was "church"24/7);
The failure to find a permanent solution to school funding after abolishing the local school property tax before actually having something to replace the lost revenue in place;
The fact that he virually stopped rehabilitation for Juveniles and instead increased the punishments drastically (something psychologists have suggested is storing big trouble for later);
The fact that 25% of Texas children in 1999 had no Health Insurance (Only Arizona had a larger proportion) and he TURNED DOWN Federal Money that was there for the asking to participate in CHIP (He limited the earnings limit from 200% of the poverty limit to 150% of poverty limit..excluding 200,000 children..how "Compassionate" is that?);
Do I have to menton the Environment?
Yep, he sure did a Job on Texas ;)
Maybe we should drag CornerPocket in here kicking and screaming to find out which "Side" speaks with forked tongue, he's a Texan....although I have no idea as to his politics :lol:
they could always dig up Neil Bush. much admired for the job he did on Silverado Savings & Loan. there sure are a lot of Bushes out there. a Bush for every occasion, you might say. :PQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@12 August 2004 - 12:41
You never know; maybe Jeb Bush will run. :D
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 August 2004 - 16:57
I'd heard he'd done a job on Texas, but im a little sketchy on the details...Quote:
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas
Which job are you refering to?
The Corruption in the Texas Housing Agency;
The lapses of the Defence Attorneys not being taken into account to suspend executions;
The "Texas Miracle" in education which didnt happen when comparing the scores nationally;
The "Care Reforms" (HMO's) that he gave patients more Rights...which he actually slowed down as much as possible (he could have signed in 1995, and he still vetoed the Right to sue the organisations in question);
The "Tort changes" which were supposed to save Texans millions in insurance premiums but which the companies were allowed to keep for themselves;
Forcing Prisoners to accept Christ before being considered for parole (One of the prisons was "church"24/7);
The failure to find a permanent solution to school funding after abolishing the local school property tax before actually having something to replace the lost revenue in place;
The fact that he virually stopped rehabilitation for Juveniles and instead increased the punishments drastically (something psychologists have suggested is storing big trouble for later);
The fact that 25% of Texas children in 1999 had no Health Insurance (Only Arizona had a larger proportion) and he TURNED DOWN Federal Money that was there for the asking to participate in CHIP (He limited the earnings limit from 200% of the poverty limit to 150% of poverty limit..excluding 200,000 children..how "Compassionate" is that?);
Do I have to menton the Environment?
Yep, he sure did a Job on Texas ;)
I love you like a rock, man, but you are guilty of some of the most egregiously indiscriminate googling in aid of your hatred for Bush..... :huh:
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+12 August 2004 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 12 August 2004 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 August 2004 - 16:57
I'd heard he'd done a job on Texas, but im a little sketchy on the details...Quote:
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas
Which job are you refering to?
The Corruption in the Texas Housing Agency;
The lapses of the Defence Attorneys not being taken into account to suspend executions;
The "Texas Miracle" in education which didnt happen when comparing the scores nationally;
The "Care Reforms" (HMO's) that he gave patients more Rights...which he actually slowed down as much as possible (he could have signed in 1995, and he still vetoed the Right to sue the organisations in question);
The "Tort changes" which were supposed to save Texans millions in insurance premiums but which the companies were allowed to keep for themselves;
Forcing Prisoners to accept Christ before being considered for parole (One of the prisons was "church"24/7);
The failure to find a permanent solution to school funding after abolishing the local school property tax before actually having something to replace the lost revenue in place;
The fact that he virually stopped rehabilitation for Juveniles and instead increased the punishments drastically (something psychologists have suggested is storing big trouble for later);
The fact that 25% of Texas children in 1999 had no Health Insurance (Only Arizona had a larger proportion) and he TURNED DOWN Federal Money that was there for the asking to participate in CHIP (He limited the earnings limit from 200% of the poverty limit to 150% of poverty limit..excluding 200,000 children..how "Compassionate" is that?);
Do I have to menton the Environment?
Yep, he sure did a Job on Texas ;)
I love you like a rock, man, but you are guilty of some of the most egregiously indiscriminate googling in aid of your hatred for Bush..... :huh: [/b][/quote]
Ahhh, but is it true or not? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ahhh, but is it true or not? :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+12 August 2004 - 20:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 12 August 2004 - 20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@12 August 2004 - 21:06
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced
Quote:
@12 August 2004 - 16:57
I'd heard he'd done a job on Texas, but im a little sketchy on the details...Quote:
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas
Which job are you refering to?
The Corruption in the Texas Housing Agency;
The lapses of the Defence Attorneys not being taken into account to suspend executions;
The "Texas Miracle" in education which didnt happen when comparing the scores nationally;
The "Care Reforms" (HMO's) that he gave patients more Rights...which he actually slowed down as much as possible (he could have signed in 1995, and he still vetoed the Right to sue the organisations in question);
The "Tort changes" which were supposed to save Texans millions in insurance premiums but which the companies were allowed to keep for themselves;
Forcing Prisoners to accept Christ before being considered for parole (One of the prisons was "church"24/7);
The failure to find a permanent solution to school funding after abolishing the local school property tax before actually having something to replace the lost revenue in place;
The fact that he virually stopped rehabilitation for Juveniles and instead increased the punishments drastically (something psychologists have suggested is storing big trouble for later);
The fact that 25% of Texas children in 1999 had no Health Insurance (Only Arizona had a larger proportion) and he TURNED DOWN Federal Money that was there for the asking to participate in CHIP (He limited the earnings limit from 200% of the poverty limit to 150% of poverty limit..excluding 200,000 children..how "Compassionate" is that?);
Do I have to menton the Environment?
Yep, he sure did a Job on Texas ;)
Rat-
I love you like a rock, man, but you are guilty of some of the most egregiously indiscriminate googling in aid of your hatred for Bush..... :huh:
Don't be naive, B-
It's a point-of-view thing, as well you know.
For example:
I wonder if you see the soft bigotry of affirmative action in education; quotas and such?
The fallacy of the NEA, and how it harms blacks?
Are you in favor of school vouchers?
Night, now. ;)
1. YesQuote:
Originally posted by j2k4@12 August 2004 - 22:23
I wonder if you see the soft bigotry of affirmative action in education; quotas and such?
The fallacy of the NEA, and how it harms blacks?
Are you in favor of school vouchers?
Night, now. ;)
2. I assume your're talking about The National Education Association. Please expound on the fallacy.
3. Yes but what happens to traditional public schools?
Do children get "left behind" that still can't afford private schools even with their earmarked money?
Is this a slick move to privatize public schools or eventually get rid off them all together?
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+13 August 2004 - 01:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 August 2004 - 01:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@12 August 2004 - 16:57
I'd heard he'd done a job on Texas, but im a little sketchy on the details...Quote:
1) Bush was much-admired for the job he did in Texas
Which job are you refering to?
The Corruption in the Texas Housing Agency;
The lapses of the Defence Attorneys not being taken into account to suspend executions;
The "Texas Miracle" in education which didnt happen when comparing the scores nationally;
The "Care Reforms" (HMO's) that he gave patients more Rights...which he actually slowed down as much as possible (he could have signed in 1995, and he still vetoed the Right to sue the organisations in question);
The "Tort changes" which were supposed to save Texans millions in insurance premiums but which the companies were allowed to keep for themselves;
Forcing Prisoners to accept Christ before being considered for parole (One of the prisons was "church"24/7);
The failure to find a permanent solution to school funding after abolishing the local school property tax before actually having something to replace the lost revenue in place;
The fact that he virually stopped rehabilitation for Juveniles and instead increased the punishments drastically (something psychologists have suggested is storing big trouble for later);
The fact that 25% of Texas children in 1999 had no Health Insurance (Only Arizona had a larger proportion) and he TURNED DOWN Federal Money that was there for the asking to participate in CHIP (He limited the earnings limit from 200% of the poverty limit to 150% of poverty limit..excluding 200,000 children..how "Compassionate" is that?);
Do I have to menton the Environment?
Yep, he sure did a Job on Texas ;)
I love you like a rock, man, but you are guilty of some of the most egregiously indiscriminate googling in aid of your hatred for Bush..... :huh: [/b][/quote]
Actually there wasnt a great deal of "Googling" in there...I will if you want.
All those stories came from 2 sources:
The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post in the years 1999 - 2000
Im sure you'll agree at least one of those is not "Liberally Biased"...
1. YesQuote:
Originally posted by Busyman+13 August 2004 - 06:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 13 August 2004 - 06:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 August 2004 - 22:23
I wonder if you see the soft bigotry of affirmative action in education; quotas and such?
The fallacy of the NEA, and how it harms blacks?
Are you in favor of school vouchers?
Night, now. ;)
2. I assume your're talking about The National Education Association. Please expound on the fallacy.
3. Yes but what happens to traditional public schools?
Do children get "left behind" that still can't afford private schools even with their earmarked money?
Is this a slick move to privatize public schools or eventually get rid off them all together?[/b][/quote]
Actually, I think I can tie 2 and 3 together in the interest of brevity; I'm a bit screwed for time this morning.
The NEA has an attitude of "There's nothing we can't accomplish with more money.
If anybody starts in on standardized testing for teachers, the NEA goes into rhetorical overdrive in order to paint their members as beyond reproach.
They are so solidly tied politically to the Democrats that they have almost complete control of the party platform.
Why in the world would the NEA have an official stance on "Family Planning"? Abortion? Gun Control? Feminism?
These things are a little out of their proper purview, which is, if I remember, education.
As to vouchers, there have been a variety of formulations, but the ones most often sought have been (financially) to give the parents a choice between a voucher or P.S. attendence.
The amount of the voucher is on a par with the cost of private schooling, which is in most cases cheaper than public schooling.
The value of vouchered (private) schooling as opposed to public schooling is beyond debate.
The NEA, of course, does all it can to forestall the voucher system because it represents a threat to the survival of the failing and bloated public system.
What would happen to the public system, you ask?
It would suffer the slings and arrows of healthy competition; that is to say, it would learn to compete, or it would die.
No great loss, if that were to happen.
And before anyone cries that private schooling is more expensive, do some research before you reply.