Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Kerry needs two different threads at all times. (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Kerry needs two different threads at all times.
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dennis Roddy, a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, tells the story of how one of Kerry's colleagues gave a speech in which he mocked Kerry.

quote:
It happened at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner of the Allegheny County Republican Party, March 20, 1991, at the William Penn Hotel.

At the time the first George Bush was still flush with victory in the Persian Gulf, and dinnergoers chortled over a videotaped presentation of assorted senate Democrats backpedaling in the wake of a war they'd opposed. Ted Kennedy was shown. News clips were shown. But for Kerry, the speaker simply read the two letters, to everyone's amazement.

[A pair of letters Kerry wrote to constituent Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Mass. Carter faxed his letter to the office of John Kerry and, just to be sure, sent it along by regular mail as well. He got two replies:]

Jan. 22, 1991: "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition . . . to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

Jan. 31, 1991: "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

"It's like those before-and-after pictures they print in the papers," the speaker said. "If they didn't tell you so themselves, you'd think they were different people."

Kerry has to remember that one. The speaker was Sen. John Heinz. Two weeks later, he would die in a plane crash. Four years after that, Kerry would marry his widow.


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I posted this - I heard Rush Limbaugh mention this very incident. Is Rush lurking on Ornery?
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are all you Bushies ready to admit that Kerry is not "about to take the Big Dive" yet?

Just wait 'til November if you still think so.

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Musket, apparently the Democratic Party has chosen to take the big dive. Kerry is absolutely the worst candidate for U.S. president in history, the most unworthy person ever to seek the office, and Democrats deserve to be swept at the polls for their utter stupidity and willful blindness in annointing Kerry to be their nominee. I will never vote Democrat again.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd actually say what lambert said... except, about bush in 2004...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geez Ron, and we were counting on your vote. Far from the big dive, the democratic party is going to retake the White House. Which we should still have. And no, I'm not talking about Florida, but about Nader.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Ev, I've never actively disliked a president before now. But even though I dislike the president I respect the office, which is why you haven't seen me bad mouthing Bush as the right did with Clinton.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We're gonna win!"

"No, WE'RE gonna win!"

"Sez you!"

"You're mama!"

Just take a deep breath and hold it 'til November, everyone...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are all you Bushies ready to admit that Kerry is not "about to take the Big Dive" yet? ---musket
Thank G-d, he would not. I was worried that Edwards or some other relatively clean candidate would somehow displace Kerry.

Now, we can finally get the answer to the real question: how well can the worst candidate in history do?

Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DonD, let's leave moms out of it. [Wink]

[ March 03, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But even though I dislike the president I respect the office, which is why you haven't seen me bad mouthing Bush as the right did with Clinton.
And I respect you for that, KE. I wish that OSC would let up on Clinton already. OSC alienates pro-traditional marriage people from his cause by using "Clintonesque" as an adjective for all that is evil. I wish he'd give that up already.

Clinton was a flawed president, but we've had worse. I'm hard pressed to identify anything that Clinton did that was worse than anything than his two predecessors did.

Even when you dispise the man, you should honor the office. I was not fond of President Clinton, but when Jesse Helms started mouthing off and suggesting that a US soldier should take a shot at him when Clinton visited a military base, I said on this board that Helms should be arrested for sedition. Some things you just don't say and do however you might dislike the person who sits in the office.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see musket was unable to cope with Kerry's own actions and had to try to divert attention by Bush-bashing. I guess his two letters to Wallace Carter were not anything worth commenting on by his sychophants. Could it be they are unable to come up with any response to his duplicity? Isn't it interesting that it was his wife's former husband who tried to rip Kerry's heart out in front of their fellows?

What a great testimony to character this makes. How wil Kerry respond to this during his campaign. You know it will become another issue for him to explain away. When he was named the number one liberal in the Senate, he replied that he voted for a certain bill - as if that would erase his record. Any follow-up on that bill would've shown it was not a non-liberal vote, and follow-ups will begin coming now that he is a nominee and no longer just a candidate. How does he explain the Carter duplicity? Blame his staff?

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the letters are true, they still aren't irreconcilable. Kerry could have been for economic sanctions being given more time and still supported the president once the invasion started. Probably Musket was doing as I, and many others I'm sure do, and ignoring half of what you write.
quote:
From the outset of the invasion,
Why is the fact that he married Heinz’s widow stated as if Kerry is guilty of something?
And I don’t think you are supposed to call people names here, even if you don’t know what the name (sycophant) you are calling them means or how to spell it.

[ March 03, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WL, you brought up incredibly damning evidence against Kerry. Don't distract from it, by making this a personal quarrel.

quote:
I see musket was unable to cope with Kerry's own actions and had to try to divert attention by Bush-bashing.
[Confused]

All Musket said on this thread is:

quote:
Are all you Bushies ready to admit that Kerry is not "about to take the Big Dive" yet?
Just wait 'til November if you still think so.

How is that Bush-bashing? I like Bush, and despise Kerry, but I don't see Musket's statement as Bush-bashing. It's wishful thinking. Musket is just wishing upon a star. Don't take it as an insult. Just emphasize the facts, until Musket snaps out of his obvious state of denial; don't let the discussion get personal.

I don't think that it's fair to label anyone here as a "syncophant" of Kerry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Kerry is anyone's first choice here. Am I mistaken? Kerry is just the the anti-Bush candidate. Someone had to take that ABB hotseat. I had to hold my nose and vote for Mr. Viagra against Clinton, and I thank all the resident lefties for not calling me a Dole "syncophant." Of course they are going to go into denial when they see that their only alternative to Bush is spineless dweeb that you've PROVEN Kerry to be.

The ABBs hate Bush with more venom and less rational thought than the most right wing member of the conspiracy ever hated Clinton. It's not fair for you to call them "syncophants" when they shut their eyes and ears and minds to Kerry's obvious failings. It's not that they love or worship Kerry. It's that they see him as their only hope for defeating Bush. They'd do the same any non-Republican who was willing to slap on a Democratic party badge and yell nasty things about Bush.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
spineless dweeb that you've PROVEN Kerry to be.

Well, I've just shown that that is not true. Next?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hardly think it's wishful thinking. A bit of rah-rah-ing, perhaps. What's wishful thinking is the notion that Bush has a lock on a second term. At this point in time, he most certainly does not.
Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The ABBs hate Bush with more venom and less rational thought than the most right wing member of the conspiracy ever hated Clinton."

Oh please. Thats a load of BS. Look at how much bashing clinton STILL gets, and he's not even president. The right-wing hated the man clinton, wheras, the democratic party hates bushes policies.

ANd quite frankly, Pete, given your list of priorities on the national stage... if you vote Bush over kerry, I hope you recognize you'll be betraying your ideologies.

Edit because of poor word choice

[ March 03, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case anybody missed it, and to expand:

Letter 1 Jan. 22, 1991
quote:
On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."
Letter 2 Jan. 31, 1991
quote:
From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
Kerry could have logically voted to give sanctions more time and still have supported Bush's response from the outset of the invasion. The worst this shows Kerry doing is putting the best face on what he’s done. It’s called politics. Amazing how y’all quibble and obsess over a letter Kerry may have written, but have no problem with the president out and out lying to us on national television.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dennis Roddy, a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
Pittsburgh? That seems random...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ANd quite frankly, Pete, given your list of priorities on the national stage...
If you are referring what I think you are, that wasn't a prioritized list. That was a specifically response to the question of what I shared with my fellow Democrats.

quote:
if you vote Bush over kerry, I hope you recognize you'll be betraying your principles.
If voting against a candidate who disagrees with you on most substantive issues is betraying your principles, than most people do this every time they cast a ballot.

If Kerry were promoting the amendment to protect the traditional family, I would probably vote for him.

The only reason that I started shopping and asking about Kerry is that Bush put off his declaration for too long.

I firmly believe that if the Goodrich ruling becomes law in America, that poverty will increase, and more people will be trapped in a permenant scavenger class, and that the only true communist unit that has ever thrived in our world -- the traditional family -- will be forgotten. Like Drewmie says, Mormons will be among the only people who continue to keep marriage alive. The rest of you will live under a system that puts the cold steel of capitalism where Americans have not felt them since slavery was abolished.

Innocent people will suffer because of this.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should hope that the Church of LDS will not discount its Protestan breatheren so quickly [Wink] .
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok. I gotta take a minute and figure out how the heck you get from "Not supporting national ammendment recognizing only a man and woman as married, and denying even the POSSIBILITY for gay civil union, or any of the legal benefits of civil union to gay couples" to "destroying the family"

Pete, that ammendment has more to do with sticking a knife into gay people's guts then protecting traditional marriage. You know how you protect traditional marriage in a constitutional form?

"Marriage shall be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and shall be a contract voidable only under extreme circumstances" (or something of that sort)

You know how you write an ammendment that is bigoted, hate riddled, and trying to impose christian morality on the united states?

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups."

Pete, what this ammendment does is forbid the states from granting legal benefits traditionally tied to marriage to gay couples. In fact, states wouldn't even be able to ammend their state constitutions to provide for gay civil unions.

This would be the ONLY AMMENDMENT where the states do not have the ability to grant more benefits then the federal government does, and, the constitution of the united states could no longer be said to be a document that protects the rights of the minorities from a tyrannical federal government.

If this ammendment passes, as written, I will no longer be convinced that the American people are generally people of good will. Anyone who supports this amendment, as currently written, is not a person of good will, because it is not about protecting marriage. It is about hatred, and it is about tyranny.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I should hope that the Church of LDS will not discount its Protestan breatheren so quickly .
Dismiss you quickly? No. Fear for your long-term survival? Yes. I hope that you do survive, and we'll fight for you. But you've never faced an onslaught like this before. We have. And few of you appreciate the level of importance that the scriptures place on the family. When push comes to shove, when the flames start to get hot, when you are ridiculed and persecuted, will you make a stand, or will you knuckle under? I hope and pray that you will stand with us until the very end.

Ev:
quote:
ammendment has more to do with sticking a knife into gay people's guts then protecting traditional marriage.
I'm sorry that you believe that, in spite of years of conversations with me. I can only conclude that you either did not understand what I said, or that you were not listening.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can assure you, I and many I know will be on the front lines, are on the front lines, and will always be on the front lines for Christ. We got your backs, and I'm glad to see you have ours.

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-
I do believe this. Can you explain to me why ELSE the ammendment would be written as is rather then as I suggested?

I say this after very deep consideration, Pete:
Anyone who votes for the ammendment, as it is currently written, is betraying the principles of constitutional democracy, the principles of federalism, and is betraying the constitution.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Like Drewmie says, Mormons will be among the only people who continue to keep marriage alive. The rest of you will live under a system that puts the cold steel of capitalism where Americans have not felt them since slavery was abolished.

I don't uderstand this, Pete. If your not talking about Christians then that means that most of the country will be in the same boat as you. How will this change things for everybody but the Mormons? Likewise, I don't understand what potemkyn is talking about, but you know how I feel about supporting my friends from persecution.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We’re all in the same boat, but some of us have learned how to swim because we’ve been dropped in the water before.

There’s also the question of lifejackets. Thank heavens there are Protestant groups like Focus on the Family that like the LDS church, seem to recognize the spiritual role of heterosexist marriage, and recognize that no man is complete without a woman, and that no woman is complete without a man. Unfortunately, not all Protestant groups recognize this. Some even think that marriage is just a license to have sex without sinning, or worse yet – a license that makes sex “less” of a sin. Some hold, like most Catholics, that to be truly pure and close to God, that marriage and family is a distraction. Fortunately, the fact that most US Catholics are Latinos, who seem more resistant to cultural brainwashing, and are firm in their powerful family traditions. I really worry about Non-Latino Catholics.

It’s not just about persecution but about brainwashing and newspeak. OSC talks about it. Schools will drill children mercilessly to emphasize that same-sex couples are exactly as meaningful as traditional marriage, and will brand those that dissent as “sociopaths” (Sygy’s word). OSC lays a lot of this out in his article.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hm. I hear the sky was falling yesterday in Jersey, but they got some duct tape.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
From the outset of the invasion....
KnightEnder, you seem to have misconstrued which invasion was being referred to. If you will check the context more carefully, it was obvious Kerry was referring to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Note the very next words after the ones you bolded:
quote:
...I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.
The crisis was caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Kerry was claiming that he supported Bush's response to the crisis. That response included our military deployment in the Persian Gulf. This clearly came before the U.S. invasion of Kuwait to oust Saddam's troops.

Thus there is no denying Kerry's complete and total contradiction of himself nine days apart, saying in one response to a letter than he opposed immediate military action and even voted against it, and then in another response to a copy of the same identical letter claimed he had supported President Bush's policies and response to the crisis from the outset of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

This brings to mind the devasting ridicule President GW Bush heaped on Kerry a couple of days ago, just prior to the Super Tuesday primaries, when he said: "The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them; for Nafta and against Nafta; for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act; in favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it.--And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

[ March 03, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, I would love to take your word on this, and save myself a lot of time and study, but you Lamberts (admittedly you less than WmL) have been so partisan in your posts that it is impossible to take anything you say with less than a grain of salt. That's what happens when you lose credibility by being so unobjective. Which is why I believe most of us here strive to maintain some level of objectivity.

To show you what I mean, I found what Bush said to be funny, even if I did think it was something that should be beneath the President of the United States. To clarify, I think it should be beneath whoever is occupying the office of the POTUS, not this particular man. Let’s face it; Bush has proven that there is nothing that is beneath him if it furthers his agenda.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being duplicitous is better than being a phony stand-in.
Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder, would you mind being more specific? You say you can't take my word for something. What are you referring to? I can only guess that you are referring to my statement about which invasion Kerry was talking about. You don't have to take my word on that. I pointed out the context that conclusively proves my point. All you have to do is be able to read and analyze what you read with sound logic. You seem to expect all of us to take your word on something that is truly just a personal misconstruction evident to everyone.

Is there anyone reading this who does not recognize that Kerry was referring to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq when he said he supported the president's response to it from the outset?

Kerry is the "Flip-Flop Master of Washington." This is so abundantly evident, it is foolish for anyone even to try to deny it.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's what happens when you lose credibility by being so unobjective. Which is why I believe most of us here strive to maintain some level of objectivity.

To show you what I mean, I found what Bush said to be funny, even if I did think it was something that should be beneath the President of the United States. To clarify, I think it should be beneath whoever is occupying the office of the POTUS, not this particular man. Let’s face it; Bush has proven that there is nothing that is beneath him if it furthers his agenda.

You realize that your last statement was not particularly objective, right? [Wink]

If President Bush used that sort of language about Kerry, ("John Kerry has proven that there is nothing that is beneath him if it furthers his agenda,") I would agree that THIS sort of statement would be beneath the dignity of the office of POTUS. What Bush said was not only funny, but light-hearted and cute.

I don't think that we can reasonably expect POTUS to be totally "objective" about a candidate that is running against him. I know you weren't saying that, KE, but it's an important point to remember. You ABBs play an important role in Bush's presidency -- to keep him honest and behaving with dignity. In that light, please remember your own credibility. When you reach for harmless, cute, and completely appropriate remarks like this, and make them out to be somehow wrongful, it hurts your credibility, and maybe we won't be able to take you seriously when Bush does something really innapropriate.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK -- some of you are going to yell that I'm doing a flip-flop here, but I think that there's an reasonable argument to be made that Kerry's flip-flops are not as serious a character flaw as WL is making them out to be.

WHY AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED KERRY SUPPORTERS OUT THERE (peers at Everard) up there making this argument? Is your best counter that Bush was demeaning the dignity of his office by making a harmless joke (which was actually funny) about Kerry's waffling?

You could come back with examples of Bush doing the same. No, I'm not doing your homework for you, but I like Bush, and even I know that you can find these about him.

Better yet, you could actually step up the the plate and defend Kerry. Do you need me to tell you how to do this? [Roll Eyes] There's a viable and non-rediculous ethical argument to justify or at least mitigate this sort of waffling, given the specific circumstances.

Honestly, I'm not that surprised that you guys really do not care enough about Kerry to make this defense on his behalf.

What surprises me is that you don't seem to even hate Bush enough to stand up for Kerry.

What's up with that?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you taunting, them, Pete? [Wink]
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, I would not minimize the dire importance of Kerry's flip-flips, for two reasons:

(1) There are so many of them, involving important issues you would expect a would-be president to have settled in his mind and be consistent about.

(2) Many of them involve the major points of Kerry's political attacks against president Bush.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Pepper
Member
Member # 1291

 - posted      Profile for Dan Pepper   Email Dan Pepper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete said:
quote:
What surprises me is that you don't seem to even hate Bush enough to stand up for Kerry.
What's up with that?

I hope I can oppose Bush's policies and not vote for him without engaging in any italicised hate of the man.
The (apparently large number) of people who vote based on whether they "like" a canidate are IMO making a huge mistake.
I'd rather a slimy, devious, reprehensible person who agrees with me in office than an upright, honest, forthright person who does not.
I was presented with just this choice (although the adjectives are a bit too strong for Clinton and Dole) in 1996. Granted, I chose to vote for H. Ross Perot. But I was wrong.
I'm an issues voter. The great lie of modern political campaigns is that personality of a canidate is knowable. This is accomplished through the false intimacy of the electronic media. I don't believe I can know a canidate, even if such a thing is desireable, so I don't try to do so.
I don't feel the need to defend Kerry on this. I don't care if Kerry flips, flops, backflips, slides sideways, moonwalks or does the hustle on the First Gulf War. Even if he renigs on three-fourths of his platform, he's still going to implement more of my adgenda than Bush.

Posts: 103 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm an issues voter. The great lie of modern political campaigns is that personality of a canidate is knowable. This is accomplished through the false intimacy of the electronic media. I don't believe I can know a canidate, even if such a thing is desireable, so I don't try to do so.
I don't feel the need to defend Kerry on this. I don't care if Kerry flips, flops, backflips, slides sideways, moonwalks or does the hustle on the First Gulf War. Even if he renigs on three-fourths of his platform, he's still going to implement more of my adgenda than Bush.

Clapclapclap! Bravo, Dan. I've repeated the same principle many times here. Except for me, it's not the portion of my agenda that the candidate's going to pass, but the weighted importance. For example, if I find a candidate that I think will fix the economy, end the prison system, convince the Palestinians to love the Israelis, and convert the US to the metric system, I may still vote against that candidate if he or she wants to repeal the first amendment. One huge bad mark can outweigh lots of good marks.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Pepper
Member
Member # 1291

 - posted      Profile for Dan Pepper   Email Dan Pepper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, percentage is too impercise. Your expression is better.

On an apparent issues voter, it's interesting reading to watch Andrew Sullivan try to work out who to support, whether he votes for Bush because of his support for Bush's foreign policy or against because of support for the FMA.

Posts: 103 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home, You're correct. Musket was more wishful thinking than Bush-bashing. What I responded to was the transparent diversion off-topic. My starting post noted a newly uncovered piece of Kerry history that bears watching as a dramatic example of his duplicity. The reply was a hit against "Bushies" and how Kerry made it through the primaries inspite of them. As you said later, the appropriate response on-point was what KnightEnder did by defending the two letters as being reconcilable. They aren't because KE left off the opening of each letter: "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition..." and "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support..." Both letters went on to tell the senders that Kerry shared their philosophies - even though they were diametrically opposed. KE explained, if Kerry was merely "putting the best face on what he’s done. It’s called politics." No, it's parsing what the definition of "is" is. It's like the "side-step" dance that Charles Durning almost won an Oscar for inThe Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. First you see me here... Then I'm here!

As for the word "sycophant" I earlier posted a request not to indict me for typos - but evidently KE is too busy ignoring half of what I post to know that - and also to realize a search for the correct spelling will bring up one of my own posts, in which I spelled the word "important" wrong. I really am a good speller - but typos happen. And as for the meaning of sycophant - realize that Grima Wormtongue was a sycophant for Saruman, but a liar and deceiver for Theoden. I think my usage was apt.

[ March 04, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: WmLambert ]

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1