Finally, a comprehensive video of John Kerry's stance on the issues.
Headlines John Kerry speaks out...
- Thread starter GottaHurt
- Start date
that was.......very informativeGottaHurt said:
Wow, that really was boring. Who really gives a fuck about John Kerry!
Well, I don't know about Kerry anymore I have heard many things about him. I am not quite sure where he stands as of right now, but he does want to fund more to the troops and finish the war. It has been said that he is very similar to Bush but smarter. So whatever you hate about Bush, or you don't want him to do, Kerry might have the brain power to do it. But on the other hand, Kerry is also interested in education and the economy. We have already seen what meager efforts Bush has put forth in that area, so maybe Kerry is the better man. And I hate Bush, so I feel like I have to vote for him. I don't want to vote for Nader, because I vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and ABB. Hopefully, Kerry will make himself better known and will come out with something we can all hope for. It's too early in the race.
I think Kerry would give the U.S.A a bad name.
cuddlemuffin said:
you do?
interesting.
do you find it at all odd that we have the worst international popularity in OUR OWN NATION'S HISTORY, VASTLY due to the current president?
or are you just parroting your parents?
~ dan ~
or do you have some alternative definition of the phrase, "a bad name?"
i agree with morelos....in most threads most bush leaning opinions are weak....they say ..."go bush!" and thats it...no backing information..no facts...a mearly weak ..poorly written post....give me facts..give me figures...give me personal ideas why bush should win....none of this ..."cus im a patriot" crap....tell my why voting for this man would benefit the country..as it "did" these last four years....
worse yet, marius:
EVERY SINGLE TIME i have demanded that anyone substantiate a pro-bush (or pro-anything, for that matter) claim they make on this forum, they stfu and fade into the background instead of actually substantiating the claim.
isn't that an odd coincidence?
listen to the mp3 i received in e-mail. ahahahah....
~ dan ~
EVERY SINGLE TIME i have demanded that anyone substantiate a pro-bush (or pro-anything, for that matter) claim they make on this forum, they stfu and fade into the background instead of actually substantiating the claim.
isn't that an odd coincidence?
listen to the mp3 i received in e-mail. ahahahah....
~ dan ~
morelos said:
holy crap, man!....bush..what a dolt...and ive seen that with the ppl who just fade into the background....they got called on their propaganda ride..and they cant seem to explain how they got there....the only person who ever really comes out and backs his shit is DanGeo23.....anyway..thanks for the audiofile....made me laugh really hard...
I know this isnt bait and tackle...but maybe there should be an "Incoherent Idiots" section??? so when posts like these:
appear, can be moved there.....totally off topic..unrelated...thoughtless posts...SurferGirl20 said:
Thanx MTG...
I like GWB because he is the best option for the country... he was handed a shit sandwich and I'm not sure any other Prez coulda handled the situation better... hindsight is always 20/20... its easy to say well that didn't work maybe we shoulda done this instead... I feel he gets a bad rap by the media... any issue or opinion that you agree with from a politician can be twisted and make you look like an idiot... as long as the person twisting is good... I am a Conservative on most issues.. so why wouldn't I vote for Bush... because he slips in speaches... because someone calls him an idiot... of the canidates he best represents me and my opinions on issues.. I feel that people should make a list of their top issues and should evaluate their stance on each and see which political party they best align with... not which is more popular... which has the best hair... which is richest.... which was the best soldier... that is why we elect people... to represent us.. so pick the person that will stand up for what you feel is right..
Dan G
I like GWB because he is the best option for the country... he was handed a shit sandwich and I'm not sure any other Prez coulda handled the situation better... hindsight is always 20/20... its easy to say well that didn't work maybe we shoulda done this instead... I feel he gets a bad rap by the media... any issue or opinion that you agree with from a politician can be twisted and make you look like an idiot... as long as the person twisting is good... I am a Conservative on most issues.. so why wouldn't I vote for Bush... because he slips in speaches... because someone calls him an idiot... of the canidates he best represents me and my opinions on issues.. I feel that people should make a list of their top issues and should evaluate their stance on each and see which political party they best align with... not which is more popular... which has the best hair... which is richest.... which was the best soldier... that is why we elect people... to represent us.. so pick the person that will stand up for what you feel is right..
Dan G
dangeo23 said:
he is? i hope to discover how through some substantiation of this VERY LARGE CLAIM somewhere in the rest of your post. oops. not there. how convenient.
to this day the question isn't how he handled 9/11; it's how everything unrelated to 9/11 has been handled.
this is true. after nearly four years of doing the same thing and saying, "well that didn't work," you'd think they'd have gotten the hint, wouldn't you? i'm not going to back someone who throws the same ball at the same wall over and over again, just hoping for that one time it'll break through. i just figured out what "faith-based initiative" means: "ooh; maybe THIS time the same old shit will work!"
he gives himself all his bad press; he would look BETTER to the public if he were shaded from view by the media as kerry is.
these are two different things. twisting an issue is usually an issue of dodging the meat of the issue. making you look like an idiot is an endgame for some personal amusement. sadly, both are considered 'acceptable strategies' for political discussion here in america. i'm in a particularly "no-bullshit" mood right now, so that's why i'm dissecting the living fuck out of your 'argument.'
i will point out that right now you are 'twisting the issue and / or opinion' into a discussion about bush to avoid answering to the key issues kerry discussed. to me, that says you couldn't find enough to disagree with to really complain about his speech.
what makes a person 'good' at 'twisting issues?' what is a 'good twisting' as opposed to a 'bad' one?
because bush is not a conservative? SAYING you are something and BEING it are two SEPARATE concepts. bush SAYING he's a conservative republican is absolutely insane to me. we have the biggest government, the biggest military, the most government spending EVER (read: LIBERAL spending) and you're claiming by implication here that bush is "conservative," and therefore like you. L fucking O L.
is that blundering idiot the person you want calling the shots? no chance. he doesn't represent you and he never will. he represents himself and his favorite ways of making money and/or getting votes. if claiming to "represent" you will buy you his vote, he'll claim it. so will kerry. don't ever forget that.
why? so we take like one of those www.thespark.com tests? "how republican are you?" "how democratic are you?"
how about "how fucking mindless are you?" "how sheepish are you?"
being a good soldier is part of being a good commander-in-chief (a.k.a. highest ranking soldier in the military). you've heard my personal belief that the military should not be led by the president, but as it is, it is. i don't want an ex-cokehead recovering alcoholic who can't even speak right telling hundreds of thousands of people who gets to live and who gets to die today. no matter how his hair looks or how popular he is, he's still got a track record of abuse: of cocaine, of alcohol, of power.
we do? i thought it was so we could get tax cuts!
you can't spell bush without
now can you? and that's what i see. just bs.your response gets a C-. full of heart, entirely lacking in brain.
and this is the problem with most self-labelled "conservatives" who plan on voting for bush. you are taking a thinking, analytic task: "choose the best man for the job" and you are FEELING your way through it, using emotions.
turn off the feel and turn on the think.
~ dan f ~
THAT IS CORRECT. WE HAVE NEEDED SOMEONE TO SAY THAT ALL ALONG.morelos said:he is? i hope to discover how through some substantiation of this VERY LARGE CLAIM somewhere in the rest of your post. oops. not there. how convenient.
to this day the question isn't how he handled 9/11; it's how everything unrelated to 9/11 has been handled.
this is true. after nearly four years of doing the same thing and saying, "well that didn't work," you'd think they'd have gotten the hint, wouldn't you? i'm not going to back someone who throws the same ball at the same wall over and over again, just hoping for that one time it'll break through. i just figured out what "faith-based initiative" means: "ooh; maybe THIS time the same old shit will work!"
he gives himself all his bad press; he would look BETTER to the public if he were shaded from view by the media as kerry is.
these are two different things. twisting an issue is usually an issue of dodging the meat of the issue. making you look like an idiot is an endgame for some personal amusement. sadly, both are considered 'acceptable strategies' for political discussion here in america. i'm in a particularly "no-bullshit" mood right now, so that's why i'm dissecting the living fuck out of your 'argument.'
i will point out that right now you are 'twisting the issue and / or opinion' into a discussion about bush to avoid answering to the key issues kerry discussed. to me, that says you couldn't find enough to disagree with to really complain about his speech.
what makes a person 'good' at 'twisting issues?' what is a 'good twisting' as opposed to a 'bad' one?
because bush is not a conservative? SAYING you are something and BEING it are two SEPARATE concepts. bush SAYING he's a conservative republican is absolutely insane to me. we have the biggest government, the biggest military, the most government spending EVER (read: LIBERAL spending) and you're claiming by implication here that bush is "conservative," and therefore like you. L fucking O L.
is that blundering idiot the person you want calling the shots? no chance. he doesn't represent you and he never will. he represents himself and his favorite ways of making money and/or getting votes. if claiming to "represent" you will buy you his vote, he'll claim it. so will kerry. don't ever forget that.
why? so we take like one of those www.thespark.com tests? "how republican are you?" "how democratic are you?"
how about "how fucking mindless are you?" "how sheepish are you?"
being a good soldier is part of being a good commander-in-chief (a.k.a. highest ranking soldier in the military). you've heard my personal belief that the military should not be led by the president, but as it is, it is. i don't want an ex-cokehead recovering alcoholic who can't even speak right telling hundreds of thousands of people who gets to live and who gets to die today. no matter how his hair looks or how popular he is, he's still got a track record of abuse: of cocaine, of alcohol, of power.
we do? i thought it was so we could get tax cuts!
you can't spell bush without
your response gets a C-. full of heart, entirely lacking in brain.
and this is the problem with most self-labelled "conservatives" who plan on voting for bush. you are taking a thinking, analytic task: "choose the best man for the job" and you are FEELING your way through it, using emotions.
turn off the feel and turn on the think.
~ dan f ~
deusex said:
i can't believe how quickly the response came to me, too. i was downright impassioned to rip the boy's false premises up.
the problem is, the guys who say they're 'conservative' are really conservative with their attention; as in they'll only pay it to you for six seconds (hence the six-second sound byte: "mission accomplished." "let's roll." "we will never forget." "from my cold, dead hands.")
that reading requires more than six seconds, thus dangeo will not read or reply, but what hurts is that it won't get his mind moving.
actually he may be an exception. i think he'll be voting kerry, that is -- the right way to vote -- if he sticks around here long enough.
~ dan ~
MO
I'm not going to sit here and retype what I have written in other posts...
UR right that GWB hasn't acted like much of a conservative... but he more closely represents conservative ideals than JK...
i don't understand how voting for someone based on well their political stances align with yours, is a bad idea...
I get tired of the same old arguements against Republicans... they are only help the rich.. they only want oil... they they hate minorities...etc
we can all agree to disagree...
I'm not going to sit here and retype what I have written in other posts...
.BTW did you click on the link and watch the stream?
UR right that GWB hasn't acted like much of a conservative... but he more closely represents conservative ideals than JK...
i don't understand how voting for someone based on well their political stances align with yours, is a bad idea...
I get tired of the same old arguements against Republicans... they are only help the rich.. they only want oil... they they hate minorities...etc
we can all agree to disagree...
dangeo23 said:
you wouldn't be re-typing. considering i've been active longer than you here, i have read every single post of yours in this forum. i don't remember any substantial pro-bush argument. remember, 'substantial' means 'uses evidence.'
he does? find me a website that lists conservative ideals for which i cannot produce factual evidence that bush doesn't represent conservative ideals any more closely than kerry, excepting only that he CLAIMS to.
it's not, but clearly you have no understanding of how or why or to what end these people campaign. bush and kerry are both telling me they represent my ideals and agree with my political stance. they're both lying sacks of shit.
did i say that? i believe i made an argument against politicians in saying they all want money and votes. and if you disagree, try being a career senator; the first time you aren't re-elected, you're unemployed.
you don't have an opinion yet.
It seems to me that Bush and Kerry are quite similar to each other, except for the fact the Kerry is smarter. I'm not even sure who I am going to vote for now (Definitely not Bush though). California will vote democrat, so it doesn't really matter if I vote either way, but if I do vote Nader and he recieves enough % of the votes he will then be able to run next time, allowing for a third party to be involved instead of the mainstream 2 party system.
Now Nader has been in the running (if you will call it that) for a long time now, and you can say there has always been 3 parties, but Nader does need a certain % to run again. So I can vote for Nader and make the statement of being unique and more concerned about our America or I can believe a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. But, like I said, California is already voting democrat.
So back on track, I think Kerry has the potential to make America a more progressive America by allowing more research in certain areas, and he might make America's school system better by allowing more money to go through. He also might have the intelligence to actually connive us into doing something we don't really want. Right now, Bush is not smart enough to get everything past us, but he is getting a lot passed us, think of what Kerry can do.
It's a hard topic for me now because both candidates are not my ideal choice (and for those of you who have actually read most of my posts, you know that I have been for Kerry all along). But now my views have changed, and that's fine, but I am not sure anymore. My only justification for voting for Kerry is that Bush will be gone and in 4 years hopefully someone better will come along. Maybe we'll make more medical and technological advances, we'll not change the constitution to ban gay marriages, we will stop the war on choice and free will, and we will handle the war better. But maybe more money will go to the war and other areas will be neglected. With Bush, I already know that some areas are neglected and I already know what to expect. With Kerry, I pretty much know nothing.
Justification for voting for Nader: 3rd party, more choices, no splitting the country. I wish that I knew more about Kerry.
I, along with many others, will be supressed for another 4 years and another 4 years and another 4 years. Our votes and our choices in who we vote for reflect our supression. Think about that when voting.
:bonk:
Now Nader has been in the running (if you will call it that) for a long time now, and you can say there has always been 3 parties, but Nader does need a certain % to run again. So I can vote for Nader and make the statement of being unique and more concerned about our America or I can believe a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. But, like I said, California is already voting democrat.
So back on track, I think Kerry has the potential to make America a more progressive America by allowing more research in certain areas, and he might make America's school system better by allowing more money to go through. He also might have the intelligence to actually connive us into doing something we don't really want. Right now, Bush is not smart enough to get everything past us, but he is getting a lot passed us, think of what Kerry can do.
It's a hard topic for me now because both candidates are not my ideal choice (and for those of you who have actually read most of my posts, you know that I have been for Kerry all along). But now my views have changed, and that's fine, but I am not sure anymore. My only justification for voting for Kerry is that Bush will be gone and in 4 years hopefully someone better will come along. Maybe we'll make more medical and technological advances, we'll not change the constitution to ban gay marriages, we will stop the war on choice and free will, and we will handle the war better. But maybe more money will go to the war and other areas will be neglected. With Bush, I already know that some areas are neglected and I already know what to expect. With Kerry, I pretty much know nothing.
Justification for voting for Nader: 3rd party, more choices, no splitting the country. I wish that I knew more about Kerry.
I, along with many others, will be supressed for another 4 years and another 4 years and another 4 years. Our votes and our choices in who we vote for reflect our supression. Think about that when voting.
:bonk:
-
Want to get something off your chest? You've found the right place! To learn more about our site, please visit our About Us section.
Registration takes less than 30 seconds to gain access to posting, and many other hidden features available. Why not create your free account today directly or via Google, Facebook, or Twitter?