Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Open Secrets Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:....and by the way, if he is elected, I don't give a damn if he IS president. I do NOT respect that SOB. I think I have clearly stated my reasons.

Why the bitterness? :bang:

Damn OS, you haven't been reading? The man, in my eyes and most all other military members, is a traitor.

Speak for yourself. Don't try to speak for everyone in uniform.

That's why I said most. It's called reading comprehension. Try it.

RebelKev Wrote:Should we get the UN's approval before we protect ourselves? That's Kerry's main point....if you read between the lines, not what he says to a certain group.

No, it isn't.

Kerry has rebutted this notion again and again. He did so very explicitly in the very first debate -- only to see Bush lie about what Kerry actually said.

Now, I would forefully argue that waiting for UN approval to take military action in Iraq does not amount seeking UN approval to "protect ourselves" because Iraq never posed an imminent threat to our national security.

Thus, if Iraq was never an imminent threat, the question of invading Iraq was no longer about protecting ourselves. Indeed, many believe we are no less safe because of our invasion of Iraq.

But this does not appear to be Kerry's view.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:....and he is NOT serious about fighting terror and will subjugate our national security to the United Nations, to whom he is a BIG supporter.

Kerry has said precisely the opposite again and again.

So you buy what he says when debating Bush. I tend to believe what he says to his base.

RebelKev Wrote:How about this:

UBL and most of the other terrorists that have spoke out, as well as other countries that are on record as being polled that they wish to see a weaker USA, want Kerry in office.

The most explicit endorsement I've ever seen by a terrorst was for Bush.

I posted it the other day.

rickheel Wrote:Yeah, go ahead and vote for the man who wants to make an issue out of the VP's daughters sexual preference.

How did he make it an issue?

Fact is, the Cheneys are embarassed because they'd prefer that their conservative Christian base not know about their daughter. That's why they were "offended."

Whatever.

BTW, Kerry stated to Frank Cesno that sending he supports sending troops in with the UN, but if it is a unilateral action by the US, he doesn't support it. That right there should disqualify ANYONE from holding the highest office in this country.

Oh, and it's not my fault that you are left defending someone you didn't support in the primaries anyway.

RebelKev Wrote:BTW, Kerry stated to Frank Cesno that sending he supports sending troops in with the UN, but if it is a unilateral action by the US, he doesn't support it.

I don't know who Frank Cesno is or what you are talking about.

Quote:Oh, and it's not my fault that you are left defending someone you didn't support in the primaries anyway.

If Bush II were running against Bush I and there were no Democrat on the ballot, I would be contributing both time and treasure to the Bush I campaign.

Bush II is a disgrace. He makes us less safe. He needs to go.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:BTW, Kerry stated to Frank Cesno that sending he supports sending troops in with the UN, but if it is a unilateral action by the US, he doesn't support it.

I don't know who Frank Cesno is or what you are talking about.

Quote:Oh, and it's not my fault that you are left defending someone you didn't support in the primaries anyway.

If Bush II were running against Bush I and there were no Democrat on the ballot, I would be contributing both time and treasure to the Bush I campaign.

Bush II is a disgrace. He makes us less safe. He needs to go.

Quote:"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." ---John Kerry, 1994

<a href='http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10/kerry_to_troops.html' target='_blank'>http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/10..._to_troops.html</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:Yeah, go ahead and vote for the man who wants to make an issue out of the VP's daughters sexual preference.

How did he make it an issue?

Fact is, the Cheneys are embarassed because they'd prefer that their conservative Christian base not know about their daughter. That's why they were "offended."

Whatever.

He made it an issue by bringing it up. Farily simple if you ask me. How do you know what they prefer?

Open

Horrible way to make a decision, but whatever works for you.

Taking off your hat is NOT something related to being conservative. Hopefully you will understand that manners are not qualities defined by ones political leanings.

Hencat Wrote:Open

Horrible way to make a decision, but whatever works for you.

Taking off your hat is NOT something related to being conservative. Hopefully you will understand that manners are not qualities defined by ones political leanings.

That's a vital misconception. Qualities like respect and manners are exactly what politics should be about. The problem in this country is that it is not "Who is the more respectable candidate?" but "Who will push my agenda further?". People are too focused on getting their agendas passed that they are overlooking quality people, who, just maybe, might make quality policy decisions.

And I really wish some people would take reading comp 101.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:Yeah, go ahead and vote for the man who wants to make an issue out of the VP's daughters sexual preference.

How did he make it an issue?

Fact is, the Cheneys are embarassed because they'd prefer that their conservative Christian base not know about their daughter. That's why they were "offended."

Whatever.

They brought her up to use her as a wedge issue. I'm sure you won't take my word for it, so here's a wonderful explanation from Camille Paglia.

Quote:I was absolutely sickened by the use of Mary Cheney as a political gambit by both Kerry and Edwards. My partner disagreed -- she thought it was fine. Many of our friends also thought it was OK. I did not. I found it utterly offensive and manipulative. I don't care whether Mary Cheney worked for Coors as a gay liaison. I don't care that she works for her father's campaign office. Mary Cheney has made her own rules and has not thrust herself into the national spotlight to speak publicly. It is unethical and grotesque to tag and stereotype her as "the lesbian" of this presidential campaign.

What gets me is that this was so clearly a Democratic strategy to avoid actually confronting Dick Cheney head-on. What rank cowardice! Come on! This shows you what's happened to the Democrats -- everything is I-feel-your-pain psychology; everything is melting emotion and ostentatious empathy. What the hell do you know, John Edwards, about what's going on in that family? Oh, the wise father so loves the gay daughter: What is this-- Betty Crocker, "Father Knows Best" politics? We're back in the 1950s?

And for Kerry to glibly invoke Mary Cheney as the archetypal lesbian in a nature-vs.-nurture dispute when he had other ready examples on his political side -- Dick Gephardt's daughter or Barney Frank -- just makes the whole thing look obviously calculating. And then the idiocy of that as a tactic at the climactic third debate -- in the following days, instead of all the media attention being focused on Bush's failings, air space was sucked up by this dopey soap opera.

And as a lesbian, I strongly object to the Democrats' amoral use of sexual orientation as a wedge issue. The Democrats are supposed to be pro-gay, and yet they're using an assertion of gayness to unsettle the Evangelical followers of the Republicans. They're deliberately fomenting and reinforcing hostility to gays! What the hell's the matter with the Democratic consultants? I'd like to kick their asses up and down the Eastern seaboard for this Mickey Mouse episode.

<a href='http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/10/30/paglia/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/10/3...glia/index.html</a>

Open Secrets Wrote:

Hencat Wrote:Open

Horrible way to make a decision, but whatever works for you.

Taking off your hat is NOT something related to being conservative.&nbsp; Hopefully you will understand that manners are not qualities defined by ones political leanings.

That's a vital misconception. Qualities like respect and manners are exactly what politics should be about. The problem in this country is that it is not "Who is the more respectable candidate?" but "Who will push my agenda further?". People are too focused on getting their agendas passed that they are overlooking quality people, who, just maybe, might make quality policy decisions.

And I really wish some people would take reading comp 101.

You think it was wong for him to tell you to take off your hat?

Whether it was the people here who made you vote for Kerry or reminded you of why you should vote for Kerry makes no difference. I doubt very much that you were as undecided as you initially indicated. Thanks for wasting our time.

Hencat Wrote:

Open Secrets Wrote:

Hencat Wrote:Open

Horrible way to make a decision, but whatever works for you.

Taking off your hat is NOT something related to being conservative.  Hopefully you will understand that manners are not qualities defined by ones political leanings.

That's a vital misconception. Qualities like respect and manners are exactly what politics should be about. The problem in this country is that it is not "Who is the more respectable candidate?" but "Who will push my agenda further?". People are too focused on getting their agendas passed that they are overlooking quality people, who, just maybe, might make quality policy decisions.

And I really wish some people would take reading comp 101.

You think it was wong for him to tell you to take off your hat?

Whether it was the people here who made you vote for Kerry or reminded you of why you should vote for Kerry makes no difference. I doubt very much that you were as undecided as you initially indicated. Thanks for wasting our time.

No, I thought it was great that he reminded me to take off my hat. It's little things like taking your hat off before going into a building that develop solid moral character.

You're welcome for wasting your precious time that you otherwise would have spent reading thoughtless diatribes against out potential President. :rolleyes:

Open Secrets Wrote:That's a vital misconception. Qualities like respect and manners are exactly what politics should be about. The problem in this country is that it is not "Who is the more respectable candidate?" but "Who will push my agenda further?". People are too focused on getting their agendas passed that they are overlooking quality people, who, just maybe, might make quality policy decisions.

And I really wish some people would take reading comp 101.

maybe you should give that respect and manners speech to the guy mako thought was so hilarious:

<a href='http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=31&t=14530' target='_blank'>http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invisio...ST&f=31&t=14530</a>

rickheel Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:Yeah, go ahead and vote for the man who wants to make an issue out of the VP's daughters sexual preference.

How did he make it an issue?

Fact is, the Cheneys are embarassed because they'd prefer that their conservative Christian base not know about their daughter. That's why they were "offended."

Whatever.

He made it an issue by bringing it up. Farily simple if you ask me. How do you know what they prefer?

Because if they didn't care if anyone knew their daughter was lesbian, why would they be offended that Kerry mentioned their daughter was lesbian?

The question was asked: Do people choose to be gay or are they born that way.

Bush said he didn't know.

Kerry brought up Mary Cheney of an example of a lesbian who is who she is -- because it drives home the fact that Bush is a hypocrite.

Here is the question Kerry artfully raised:

Would Bush would *dare* suggest to Mary Cheney that she should get help for her lesbianism?

No matter how you answer that question, it makes Bush out to be a scumbag.

And that was Kerry's point.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:Yeah, go ahead and vote for the man who wants to make an issue out of the VP's daughters sexual preference.

How did he make it an issue?

Fact is, the Cheneys are embarassed because they'd prefer that their conservative Christian base not know about their daughter. That's why they were "offended."

Whatever.

He made it an issue by bringing it up. Farily simple if you ask me. How do you know what they prefer?

Because if they didn't care if anyone knew their daughter was lesbian, why would they be offended that Kerry mentioned their daughter was lesbian?

Because he USED her damnit.

So he used her. Big deal. She's going to hell anyway because god hates homosexuals. It's in the bible.

MAKO Wrote:She's going to hell anyway because god hates homosexuals. It's in the bible.

Wrong!

gruehls Wrote:

Open Secrets Wrote:That's a vital misconception. Qualities like respect and manners are exactly what politics should be about. The problem in this country is that it is not "Who is the more respectable candidate?" but "Who will push my agenda further?". People are too focused on getting their agendas passed that they are overlooking quality people, who, just maybe, might make quality policy decisions.

And I really wish some people would take reading comp 101.

maybe you should give that respect and manners speech to the guy mako thought was so hilarious:

<a href='http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invision/index.php?act=ST&f=31&t=14530' target='_blank'>http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/ncaa/invisio...ST&f=31&t=14530</a>

You seem to think I'm a liberal or something. I think what that guy did is disgusting and should be severely admonished.

It works both ways.