videogamer
Banned
Loki said:And I know you're not going to argue that physicians are loathsome (particularly ones who were following proper protocol
Deal with them all the time and you might say otherwise.
Loki said:And I know you're not going to argue that physicians are loathsome (particularly ones who were following proper protocol
A politician is not able to change his/her mind over time?Diablos said:His track record in the senate (in terms of being wishy washy) is very evident
Well, that's great.Bruce Vilanch said:I just bought reportingforduty.net and reportingforduty.org
Ahahaha!Bruce Vilanch said:I just bought reportingforduty.net and reportingforduty.org
ErasureAcer said:It was a decent speech. Domestically okay. However, what the fuck was that about Republicans in his cabinet?
However, Kerry gets an "F" on foreign policy. He didn't mention anything about Israel and little to nothing on how he can stop people from hating America in the first place. His support for more troops and a bigger pentagon budget is scary, considering we already outspend the rest of the world combined. His continuation of the Iraq war has no end date and has said in the past the troops will remain his entire time in office. Kerry has no plan to win the peace with the people in Iraq or others who dislike America.
In the end...I can't endorse someone who has such a fucked up foreign policy. Support for Israel, Continuation of a non-winnable war that he himself voted for(why is he yelling at bush again for lies about WMD when Kerry himself did nothing to stop him and never asked for proof?).
The best part of the speech was replacing the bush cabinet(rummy, ashcroft, cheney) but what do we get in replace? The aforementioned republicans? "I love the death penalty" John Edwards? Please, Kerry should stop trying to preach that he is going to bring about drastic change because we all know not much, if anything is going to change.
Israel will continue to take over Palestinian lands. Blacks will continue to die on death row and we'll continue to pay hundreds of billions of dollars into a non-winnable war as our education and healthcare go down the tubes.
Looks like I'll be voting for Cobb or Nader(if he makes the debates).
seismologist said:In terms of foreign policy Kerry is much better off than Bush.
After Bush promising that your either "with us or your with the terrosists".
Kerry might be our only chance to gain back some of the respect that we've lost.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is considering stepping down after the November election, telling colleagues he is worn out from the massive reorganization of government and needs to earn money in the private sector to put his teenage children through college, officials said.
needs to earn money in the private sector to put his teenage children through college
Diablos said:I thought it was U2's 'Beautiful Day'
Contrary to what the spinpoint would have you believe, there are different ways to send 87 billion to troops in Iraq... such as where the money is going to come from. Not only did Kerry support a different funding plan, Bush had threatened to VETO a measure he didn't like. It's very much like saying "if you oppose the patriot act, you're supporting terrorism"... when anyone with a brain knows that the patriot act is more than its one-line summary.The only slip up I think he made was when he said that he would provide the latest equipment to the troops. Theres nothing wrong with what he said but the republicans are going to ask him that if he felt that way then why did he vote against the 87 billion dollars. The comment could come back and bite him but if he stays on message he will be alright.
MSW said:Newsflash: The mere fact that you served in Vietnam doesn't mean you should be President.
Newsflash: Just because your daddy was president doesn't mean you should be president.
Both of these Newsflash things aren't convincing arguments, and believe or not, he is trying to sell image. Unfortunatly, thats one of the major factors nowdays in elections.
MSW said:That might have worked in the 2000 election seeing as GWB had nothing to run on but it doesnt wash this election. Bush is going to run on his record over the past 4 years unlike Kerry.
MSW said:That might have worked in the 2000 election seeing as GWB had nothing to run on but it doesnt wash this election. Bush is going to run on his record over the past 4 years unlike Kerry.
I understand selling image but shouldnt it be an image of who you are and what youve done. Kerry is a war hero and everyone commends him for his service but he did jack shit in the senate for the past 19 years. I think it is a valid point that cant be concealed with imagery and rhetoric.
Well, I wasn't offering my own position on the matter, just saying why Kerry's not about to either. The problem with Israel is that if you publicly say they are indeed overstepping their bounds and need to be kept in check, you instantly make lots of enemies and open yourself to charges of not only antisemitism, but also supporting terrorists or "giving in" to terrorists... as baseless as they may actually be. It's just far more trouble than its worth to bring it up during a campaign.Father_Brain said:I have two questions for Hitokage and ErasureAcer: What do you think US policy toward Israel should be? What would you want to see happen in Israel?
Man, take off the Little Mr. Conservative Goggles, buddy. If you think that Bush's record the past four years is a strong point, you are on fucking crack. Put it this way, imagine all the shit that has happened the past four years happened under Democratic President- huge terrorist attack, billions and billions being spent on war which President goaded us into b/c he was allegedly "misinformed," economy in the absolute shitter, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Jesus Christ, you would probably be making a post every minute about how terrible the President is.
Boy, this post is so full of little hypocrasies that I lost count. So it was okay for Bush to run on nothing in 2000 but its not okay for Kerry to do the same thing in 2004 (even though he's not doing that)? Please.
Wow! What a spot on analysis.And lets talk about what each of them has done what with their lives. Both men came from afluent families. Bush spent most of his life as a drunk rich boy. Kerry has spent most of his life serving the country. Bush entered the national guard to dodge the draft. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. Bush spent the past 3 years pissing off our allies. Kerry spent much of the late 80's and early 90's working with other Vietnam vets in congress trying to ease tensions with the Vietnamese government so that we could locate and return our POWs. Bush wants to limit the number of stem cell lines to please a bunch of totally right wing nut jobs. Kerry wants to increase the number of cell lines that are readily available so that more people, some of whom might discover a cure for a disease or two, have access to them.
He got us involved in a war that we did not have to fight.
He turned a record surplus into a record deficit.
Millions of americans have lost their jobs under his watch. He is the first president in decades to end a term with fewer jobs than when he started it.
His foreign policy has damaged America's reputation in the world.
Kerry is running on a lifetime of service to the country. And to say that Kerry spent 19 years in the senate doing "jack shit" just shows how completely ignorant you are about his record. Either that, or you are only interested in what the republican party wants to tell you about it.
Wow, some truth goggles you have there. Kerry was a Lt. Governor, and Bush has changed his mind as soon as it became politically expedient on more than one occasion.He was Governor of the 3rd largest state in the union. He also had experience as an executive unlike a certain Massachusetts senator. Bush also didn't have a records of changing his mind on important issues every few years.