Judge, did those who voted for the Patriot Act but now disavow it actually READ the statute before they voted yes to it?
At best they are hypocrites and opportunists, at worst they are idiots who vote on important matters with actually considering them.
Yes John Kerry, I am referring to you.
At best they are hypocrites and opportunists, at worst they are idiots who vote on important matters with actually considering them.
Yes John Kerry, I am referring to you.
"don't know for sure,but it is my understanding they were not allowed to read the entire act."
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
Prove that one my friend. Robert Byrd certainly read the Act before voting on it.
Besides, what kind of idiot would vote YES on something they weren't allowed to read!!! You are making my point for me.
So they were afraid of being called un-American and voted yes? That makes them cowards who are afraid of their own convictions and are unfit to lead.
[This message was edited by Floyd Gondolli on February 25, 2004 at 09:05 PM.]
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
Prove that one my friend. Robert Byrd certainly read the Act before voting on it.
Besides, what kind of idiot would vote YES on something they weren't allowed to read!!! You are making my point for me.
So they were afraid of being called un-American and voted yes? That makes them cowards who are afraid of their own convictions and are unfit to lead.
[This message was edited by Floyd Gondolli on February 25, 2004 at 09:05 PM.]
"So they were afraid of being called un-American and voted yes? That makes them cowards who are afraid of their own convictions and are unfit to lead."
Absolutely, but I think it also speaks immense volumes regarding the "my way or the highway" unpresidential attitude of appointee Bush.
Odd how your posts only spin towards Bushville
Absolutely, but I think it also speaks immense volumes regarding the "my way or the highway" unpresidential attitude of appointee Bush.
Odd how your posts only spin towards Bushville
Whether you think they are right or wrong, Bush clearly has strong convictions on issues and stands by them. You have to respect that.
John Kerry appears to have no convictions and views issues only in the context of how they will get him ahead. Keery has been doing that fro 30+ years. That is pitiful.
And spare me the "apointee" crap. Bush won 271 Electoral College votes. That makes him the ELECTED President.
John Kerry appears to have no convictions and views issues only in the context of how they will get him ahead. Keery has been doing that fro 30+ years. That is pitiful.
And spare me the "apointee" crap. Bush won 271 Electoral College votes. That makes him the ELECTED President.
"Odd how your posts only spin towards Bushville"
I call things as I see them and when it comes to comparing George Bush to John Kerry I agree with Bush's poistions far more often (though certainly not always).
I respect Dennis Kucinich far more than Kerry. Kucinich took a stand and is living (dying really) by it. Though I disagree with his positions, I respect his consistency and his strength of conviction.
Kerry is a classic politician who believes in nothing but his own career.
I call things as I see them and when it comes to comparing George Bush to John Kerry I agree with Bush's poistions far more often (though certainly not always).
I respect Dennis Kucinich far more than Kerry. Kucinich took a stand and is living (dying really) by it. Though I disagree with his positions, I respect his consistency and his strength of conviction.
Kerry is a classic politician who believes in nothing but his own career.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> think alot of people who voted for the Patriot Act are having 2nd thoughts.At least I hope so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
judge they will have to vote on it again at some point...we'll see who's who come nut cuttin time....the whole thing is a bumper sticker issue...ACLU hasn't even had any complaints filed that I know due to the Patriot act...I will submit to you it is a slippery slope.
judge they will have to vote on it again at some point...we'll see who's who come nut cuttin time....the whole thing is a bumper sticker issue...ACLU hasn't even had any complaints filed that I know due to the Patriot act...I will submit to you it is a slippery slope.
People bitch and bitch about this Patriot Act but when I asked how it effected them only Lander came up with a reasonable example. Nobody else could think of one way they were effected by the Act.
Just goes to show you that most liberals couldn't care less about the country. They just want a Democrtic President. Nobody can even give me a good reason Kerry would make a good president. They have serious mental problems.
Just goes to show you that most liberals couldn't care less about the country. They just want a Democrtic President. Nobody can even give me a good reason Kerry would make a good president. They have serious mental problems.
Angus -
1) I'm all for getting along with everyone. What should Kerry do that Bush is not doing to repair relations?
2.) ANGUS - WE HAD CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL HAPPEN TO THE US!!!!!!!!!! We had to spend money!!!!!! I know that you would have rather given 80% of your paycheck to the government to pay for all of these problems but not everybody wants to give their money to the government when there are other ways to do it!
3.) Prove Iraq wasn't involved! Prove they didn't have WMD!
4.) You are hating Bush for standing up for what he believes. That's not very Catholic like.
5.) Once again, a liberal is complaining about personal liberty yet they could care less about the innocent people in Iraq getting slaughtered. Talk about hypocritical!
1) I'm all for getting along with everyone. What should Kerry do that Bush is not doing to repair relations?
2.) ANGUS - WE HAD CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL HAPPEN TO THE US!!!!!!!!!! We had to spend money!!!!!! I know that you would have rather given 80% of your paycheck to the government to pay for all of these problems but not everybody wants to give their money to the government when there are other ways to do it!
3.) Prove Iraq wasn't involved! Prove they didn't have WMD!
4.) You are hating Bush for standing up for what he believes. That's not very Catholic like.
5.) Once again, a liberal is complaining about personal liberty yet they could care less about the innocent people in Iraq getting slaughtered. Talk about hypocritical!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
3.) Prove Iraq wasn't involved! Prove they didn't have WMD!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The onus is not on the citizens of the US to prove that Iraq was innocent with regard to 9/11 or that he was building/had WMDs or nukes ... the onus is on your state to prove Hussein's guilt.
Response -- 'he had three months to hide them.'
Objection -- speculative.
None of the administration's (or your) arguments would ever hold up in a court of law in your own country. THAT is what is hypocritical.
3.) Prove Iraq wasn't involved! Prove they didn't have WMD!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The onus is not on the citizens of the US to prove that Iraq was innocent with regard to 9/11 or that he was building/had WMDs or nukes ... the onus is on your state to prove Hussein's guilt.
Response -- 'he had three months to hide them.'
Objection -- speculative.
None of the administration's (or your) arguments would ever hold up in a court of law in your own country. THAT is what is hypocritical.
xpanda - Now for the facts!
Saddam had 17 resolutions to comply with the UN - He didn't. There were thousands of liters of chemical weapons that the UN knows Saddam had which he cannot account for. He had the weapons and chose not to tell us what he did with them therefor he suffered the consequesnces.
Why is that so hard for people to understand? He had them, he's didn't tell the UN where they were, he paid the price!
2+2 = 4
Saddam had 17 resolutions to comply with the UN - He didn't. There were thousands of liters of chemical weapons that the UN knows Saddam had which he cannot account for. He had the weapons and chose not to tell us what he did with them therefor he suffered the consequesnces.
Why is that so hard for people to understand? He had them, he's didn't tell the UN where they were, he paid the price!
2+2 = 4
Does anyone else have any suggestions/ideas of why John kerry will make a good president?
So far Angus has provided some vague things that Kerry needs to do to be successful. (Who knows how Kerry is going to do that)
D2bets provided his "Anybody but Bush" reason.
and
xpanda says that having a person in charge who doesn't make decisions is better than having someone who does.
Maybe I am not being clear.......I a looking for some specific things that Kerry will do that will make him successful in the Oval office.
How will Kerry fix the economy? How will he fix medicare? How will he fix Social Security? etc....
Does everyone understand?
Thanks,
Kyle
So far Angus has provided some vague things that Kerry needs to do to be successful. (Who knows how Kerry is going to do that)
D2bets provided his "Anybody but Bush" reason.
and
xpanda says that having a person in charge who doesn't make decisions is better than having someone who does.
Maybe I am not being clear.......I a looking for some specific things that Kerry will do that will make him successful in the Oval office.
How will Kerry fix the economy? How will he fix medicare? How will he fix Social Security? etc....
Does everyone understand?
Thanks,
Kyle
great job kman, i think you hit it right on the head. the majority of this election will be about what you think about george bush. if i go to the polls it wont be because john kerry inspires me but because of all my negative feeling towards george. and right now it is too early to tell, but the signs are pointing to a very close election and that means alot of negativity is going to start soon which turns me off even more from voting. the only person i really wanted to vote for was wes clark and if he was going to be the nominee i would answer your question from above.
I really don't understand the fact that people hated Bush the moment he was elected......They had no idea how he was going to handle the country yet people already knew they hated him.
People have no clue what Kerry stands for yet they would rather have him in office instead of someone who has, created jobs, improved the economy, gievn money back to every tax payer, prevented more terrorist acts on US soil and ridded the world of a murderous dictator. It's as if the liberals in this country want the country to cease to exist. They would rather have dictatorship than a democracy. Strange.
People have no clue what Kerry stands for yet they would rather have him in office instead of someone who has, created jobs, improved the economy, gievn money back to every tax payer, prevented more terrorist acts on US soil and ridded the world of a murderous dictator. It's as if the liberals in this country want the country to cease to exist. They would rather have dictatorship than a democracy. Strange.
i gotta run so i have to be quicker than i wanted to but my problem with bush is probably the opposite of what you think. i dont believe he did enough to stop the first terrorist attack based on all the intelligence that was available at the time and i dont think he is doing what is neccessary to stop the next one by tying up to many resources in iraq and not hitting these bastards all over the world on a daily basis. the problem im having is kerry doesnt strike me as the guy to get the job done either because he is too entwined in the political machine and special interests to fight for what is truly great about this country.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
xpanda says that having a person in charge who doesn't make decisions is better than having someone who does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every time you make a statement about liberals twisting stuff around to suit their own ends, I am going to quote this thread.
That is NOT what I said.
xpanda says that having a person in charge who doesn't make decisions is better than having someone who does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every time you make a statement about liberals twisting stuff around to suit their own ends, I am going to quote this thread.
That is NOT what I said.
xpanda - This is what you said.
"With all of Kerry's annoying flip-flopping, at least we have the comfort in knowing that he won't likely make too many big decisions with the same kind of one-dimensional blinders that Bush uses ... instead, he will look for the support of the public, congress, the senate, and the international community. He's too chickenshit not to. I can find some comfort in that, at least."
I take that to mean that you would rather Kerry debate forever and not make any decisions than to have someone actually make a decision.
Bush waited 3 months trying to get the UN's ok. Finally we got a resolution passed that said if Saddam doesn't provide the info that the UN is looking for " There are going to be serious consequences" Well, the US provided the serious consequences because the UN was to chickenshit.
Do you realize, had President Reagan waited to get international approval when he told Russia to tear down that wall, that the Russians would still have a couple thousand nukes aimed at us.....And guess what if we go, Canada goes to.
Bush was doing what was best to protect the USA. I'm sorry if you are upset that we didn't get Canada's approval.....Wait actually according to the last resolution we did get Canada's approval.
"With all of Kerry's annoying flip-flopping, at least we have the comfort in knowing that he won't likely make too many big decisions with the same kind of one-dimensional blinders that Bush uses ... instead, he will look for the support of the public, congress, the senate, and the international community. He's too chickenshit not to. I can find some comfort in that, at least."
I take that to mean that you would rather Kerry debate forever and not make any decisions than to have someone actually make a decision.
Bush waited 3 months trying to get the UN's ok. Finally we got a resolution passed that said if Saddam doesn't provide the info that the UN is looking for " There are going to be serious consequences" Well, the US provided the serious consequences because the UN was to chickenshit.
Do you realize, had President Reagan waited to get international approval when he told Russia to tear down that wall, that the Russians would still have a couple thousand nukes aimed at us.....And guess what if we go, Canada goes to.
Bush was doing what was best to protect the USA. I'm sorry if you are upset that we didn't get Canada's approval.....Wait actually according to the last resolution we did get Canada's approval.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
xpanda - This is what you said.
"With all of Kerry's annoying flip-flopping, at least we have the comfort in knowing that he won't likely make too many big decisions with the same kind of one-dimensional blinders that Bush uses ... instead, he will look for the support of the public, congress, the senate, and the international community. He's too chickenshit not to. I can find some comfort in that, at least."
I take that to mean that you would rather Kerry debate forever and not make any decisions than to have someone actually make a decision.
Bush waited 3 months trying to get the UN's ok. Finally we got a resolution passed that said if Saddam doesn't provide the info that the UN is looking for " There are going to be serious consequences" Well, the US provided the serious consequences because the UN was to chickenshit.
Do you realize, had President Reagan waited to get international approval when he told Russia to tear down that wall, that the Russians would still have a couple thousand nukes aimed at us.....And guess what if we go, Canada goes to.
Bush was doing what was best to protect the USA. I'm sorry if you are upset that we didn't get Canada's approval.....Wait actually according to the last resolution we did get Canada's approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It does NOT mean that I hope Kerry will debate forever and not make any decisions. It means, and since we're quoting me, that he won't make decisions with one-dimensional blinders. In other words, he will listen to the people who elected him, and, if appropriate, the international community of which he is a part. If I'm still not being clear, what I mean is that he will involve himself in democratic, not fascist decision-making processes.
As for the rest of your post .... since the US has yet to prove beyond even a modicum of disbelief that Saddam had these weapons, how you can still engage in this rhetoric is beyond me.
At any rate, I still think Kerry will not make a good president despite the fact that nobody could really do worse than Bush.
xpanda - This is what you said.
"With all of Kerry's annoying flip-flopping, at least we have the comfort in knowing that he won't likely make too many big decisions with the same kind of one-dimensional blinders that Bush uses ... instead, he will look for the support of the public, congress, the senate, and the international community. He's too chickenshit not to. I can find some comfort in that, at least."
I take that to mean that you would rather Kerry debate forever and not make any decisions than to have someone actually make a decision.
Bush waited 3 months trying to get the UN's ok. Finally we got a resolution passed that said if Saddam doesn't provide the info that the UN is looking for " There are going to be serious consequences" Well, the US provided the serious consequences because the UN was to chickenshit.
Do you realize, had President Reagan waited to get international approval when he told Russia to tear down that wall, that the Russians would still have a couple thousand nukes aimed at us.....And guess what if we go, Canada goes to.
Bush was doing what was best to protect the USA. I'm sorry if you are upset that we didn't get Canada's approval.....Wait actually according to the last resolution we did get Canada's approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It does NOT mean that I hope Kerry will debate forever and not make any decisions. It means, and since we're quoting me, that he won't make decisions with one-dimensional blinders. In other words, he will listen to the people who elected him, and, if appropriate, the international community of which he is a part. If I'm still not being clear, what I mean is that he will involve himself in democratic, not fascist decision-making processes.
As for the rest of your post .... since the US has yet to prove beyond even a modicum of disbelief that Saddam had these weapons, how you can still engage in this rhetoric is beyond me.
At any rate, I still think Kerry will not make a good president despite the fact that nobody could really do worse than Bush.
