Vets Charge: Kerry Killed Fleeing Teen

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@10 August 2004 - 23:26
Hank (like Bush), just because you say it doesn't make it true. Some people seem to think that if you repeat the same thing over and over makes it a fact...

Hank, do you hate Kerry or love Bush?

Alex, do you love Kerry or hate Bush?

Hank's got a vote, too.

I've pointed this out elsewhere, but I find it terribly ironic to hear someone attempt to argue, on principle, that Bush is a liar, and Kerry is not; that Bush is a flip-flopper, and Kerry is not; that Bush is a rich-boy and Kerry is not; that Bush is stupid, and Kerry is not (Bush apparently got better gradesthan Kerry at Yale ), then abandon principle altogether in order that they might say "ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!", because Kerry is so unpalatable as to not warrant a vote otherwise.

I find Bush's domestic policy to be just this side of abhorrent, his fiscal policies are much too liberal for my taste (tax-cuts aside)and he needs a few lessons in glibness, but I think he's doing as well as can be expected otherwise-to be blunt, to the extent Kerry has enumerated his plan vis a vis Iraq, etc., it pretty much mirrors Bush.

Funny little story in the L.A. Times (no fans of Bush, they) that all of our former allies (the ones Bush has so completely alienated) have stated that, if comes time for Kerry to line them up to help in the Mideast, etc., he can go suck eggs.

Hilarious.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 August 2004 - 13:30
Funny little story in the L.A. Times (no fans of Bush, they) that all of our former allies (the ones Bush has so completely alienated) have stated that, if comes time for Kerry to line them up to help in the Mideast, etc., he can go suck eggs.

Hilarious.

Actually i can believe that because a person from another country generally doesn't look at the USA as being the president or the politicians and they see the actions of those representatives as the actions of americans. Just as we look at other countries in the same way.

Try not to take this as a comment about Bush but a comment on life in general...

One bad act can cancel out hundreds of good. It takes time to build respect and just a moment to lose it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 August 2004 - 14:42
[ Try not to take this as a comment about Bush but a comment on life in general...

One bad act can cancel out hundreds of good. It takes time to build respect and just a moment to lose it.

True enough; I think we all know that.

Anent Kerry: Even in light of the fact we aren't going to find out, I'd love to have witnessed Kerry's "sensitive" war.

That would have been a hoot.

[Alex H]

j2 - I am not saying Kerry is a wonderboy.

I do think it says something about a candidate to see how their campeigns are run - Kerry is trying to sell something new, Bush is trying to make sure people don't buy it. Kerry takes a swing at Bush and suggests an alternative (maybe not a great one, but his unique idea of asking the UN for help in Iraq isn't a bad one). Bush on the other hand is only interested in attacking Kerry and repeating "The United States is now a safer place".

Take the two candidates' service records - when Bush's National Guard service came into question, the Democrats and the left-leaning public said "Please explain." What did we get? Stonewalling, followed by a troupe of right-wingers with their slings full of mud and their sights on Kerry.

[j2k4]

QUOTE: AlexH:

I do think it says something about a candidate to see how their campeigns are run - Kerry is trying to sell something new,(New? What's "New" about it? What IS IT, exactly? Kinda hard to tell, so far.) Bush is trying to make sure people don't buy it. (I think that's called an "ELECTION CAMPAIGN") Kerry takes a swing at Bush and suggests an alternative (maybe not a great one, but his unique idea of asking the UN for help in Iraq isn't a bad one) (Neither is it a NEW one). Bush on the other hand is only interested in attacking Kerry and repeating "The United States is now a safer place".("Safer" is a relative term; this would not change under Kerry, even [and especially] if he "cuts and runs".)

Take the two candidates' service records - when Bush's National Guard service came into question, the Democrats and the left-leaning public said "Please explain." What did we get? Stonewalling, followed by a troupe of right-wingers with their slings full of mud and their sights on Kerry. (I'm sure they'd stash their slings, mud and sights if Mr. Kerry would "explain" a few things about his service, Alex.)

BTW-I heard today the U.N. voted to continue it's "mission" in Iraq, as if they've been there all along.

What is there to continue?

They ran away when they got bombed, and haven't been back.

Who will protect them if they return?

The U.N. should, as Busyman is fond of saying, STFU.

[Alex H]

As the whole contest is between Bush and Kerry, my comments are to be taken in context of their previous political history.

Kerry is trying to sell something new, i.e. "It" is the presidential candidates and Bush is the "old" one and Kerry is the "new" one. My point was that there is not enough positive campaigning.

The comment about UN involvement in Iraq was tounge-in-cheek - It is not a new idea, but it didn't seem to occour to Bush and maybe the American public have a short attention span and can't remember what life was like when the US played an active role in the UN.

I know safe is a relative term, and you know it. Bush on the other hand is quite happy to keep repeating it in the hope that it will become true, in the same way that he denies making mistakes and make his presidency look less disasterous than it really is.

Kerry's service record comes after Bush's - Bush is President and should explain himself. People who come along later should be measured against him, but as he is not inclined to talk about his time in the National Guard I don't see why Kerry is suddenly the bad guy by doing the same thing as Bush.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@12 August 2004 - 21:22
Kerry's service record comes after Bush's - Bush is President and should explain himself. People who come along later should be measured against him, but as he is not inclined to talk about his time in the National Guard I don't see why Kerry is suddenly the bad guy by doing the same thing as Bush.

Utter bullshit.

Kerry is the one who opened the whole can-of-worms by introducing himself continually as "John Kerry-War Hero".

He put himself in front.

As to the rest of your post, context, as with safety, is a relative thing; it is, after all, an election season.

[Alex H]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Bush take America to war before Kerry went into the running for President? Bush was happy to describe himself as a war President and he too exploited his service record with stunts like the "Mission Accomplished" jet landing (record? HA! What record? Didn't they get lost somewhere?)

Bush made defence an election priority, and Kerry trumped him by having more experience. Sorry.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@13 August 2004 - 02:05
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Bush take America to war before Kerry went into the running for President? Bush was happy to describe himself as a war President and he too exploited his service record with stunts like the "Mission Accomplished" jet landing (record? HA! What record? Didn't they get lost somewhere?)

Bush made defence an election priority, and Kerry trumped him by having more experience. Sorry.

By use of such stilted reasoning, you might trace the "militarism" (as opposed to service records, which is silly; such things haven't concerned the Dems for several decades until now) right to 9/11, Alex, and unless you're pushing the idea that Bush staged that as a re-election ploy...






Are you sure you want to take this to it's logical conclusion?