John Kerry was part of Jane Fonda's crowd

[jamesb]

Ultra Liberal Sen John Kerry threw SOMEONE ELSE'S war medals over the White House fence when he teamed up with Hanoi Jane Fonda
as a radical during the Vietnam war. Granted he did some good things in Vietnam BUT he joined the looney liberal radicals when he returned to the USA - thus offering comfort and support to the enemy.
a "useful idiot" for the Viet Cong , just like Jane Fonda - kerry voted MORE liberal than Ted Kennedy while in the Senate - do not be fooled by his charade :mad:

[JB]

jamesb,

Thanks for the above post. Very interesting. Another interesting fact about Kerry is that as he's vowing to stand up to "special interests" and "big business" his campaign has actually taken more money from corporations and affluent donors than any other candidate besides John Edwards.

I also have contept for Kerry as a College Republican. Last September, he sent out a fundraising letter. Who do you think he attacked in his fundraising e-mail? Bush? Big Business? Not hardly. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE John Kerry attacked College Students at the who attended the College Republican National Convention this past summer. He attacked us on account of the "hateful" merchandise that was being sold. Folks we're talking about shirts that said things like "Keep working! Millions of Welfare depend on you!" and "The Clinton Legacy"(the picture of the wtc falling on 9-11). The fact of the matter is that these were t-shirts being sold at a political rally and it does not take a rocket scientist to recognize that one may see and hear things like this at a political rally. :rolleyes:

I have the e-mail if any of y'all want to look at it. Let this be a reminder as to the pathetic level that the Democratic candidates have sunk!

[Hawkman]

http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/Fonda_Kerry_arrow.jpgJane Fonda and John Kerry at an anti-war rally in Valley Forge, Pa. (Corbis Images)


A photo seemingly showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry protesting the Vietnam War with anti-American actress "Hanoi Jane" Fonda - the photo Dems fear most - exists, and has been obtained by NewsMax.com.

On Labor Day weekend 1970, Kerry - then a rising star with Vietnam Veteran Against the War - teamed up with Fonda as the two headlined an ugly anti-war in rally in Valley Forge, Pa., railing against U.S. policy in Southeast Asia from the back of the same flatbed truck.

The photo shows "Hanoi Jane" listening raptly as speakers denounced American soldiers for committing "genocide" in Vietnam and accusing the U.S. of "international racism."

Three rows behind 'Hanoi Jane" sits a man who bears a striking resemblance to the Democratic presidential front-runner.

According to Corbis Images, which owns the image, the photo was taken at the same 1970 Valley Forge protest that turned Sen. Kerry into an anti-war star.

Douglas Brinkley's biography "Tour of Duty" chronicles Kerry's exploits at Valley Forge, where he reportedly followed Fonda onto the back of that pick-up truck to deliver his own diatribe against the war in Vietnam.

"We are here because we above all others have earned the right to criticize the war on Southeast Asia," Kerry shouted into the microphone, as Fonda and the crowd cheered wildly.

"By the time [Kerry] hopped off that pick-up truck to thunderous applause," writes Brinkley, "he was the new leader of the VVAW by popular default."

The Massachusetts Democrat's speech also cemented his alliance with Fonda, and the two traveled to Detroit to organize a January 1971 event they called the "Winter Soldier Investigation."

At a Detroit motel, Kerry and Fonda assembled a myriad of disgruntled witnesses claiming to be Vietnam vets, each with his own story of American atrocities.

According to Jug Burkett, whose landmark Vietnam war history "Stolen Valor" chronicles some of Kerry's anti-war misadventures, Fonda played a key role at the Detroit event.

"There's no doubt that Jane Fonda financed the Winter Soldier hearings," Burkett told NewsMax on Monday.

He said that several of the witnesses who testified at the protest's "hearings" later turned out to be complete impostors.

The event prompted "Hanoi Jane" to "adopt" Kerry's group "as her leading cause," writes Brinkley. It was at Kerry's Winter Soldier protest that the anti-American actress met her future husband, Students for a Democratic Society radical Tom Hayden.

The next year Fonda was off to Hanoi, where she mounted an anti-aircraft battery and pretended to shoot down American pilots.

Of Kerry, Burkett told NewsMax, "Any Vietnam veteran who knows what Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam is definitely not a fan of John Kerry

[PC August]

Big deal. So what?

I mean, I find a lot of the things Jane Fonda said and did to be reprehensible, and I respect the guys that went over there, but why is Kerry evil incarnate for criticizing government foreign policy? There are plenty of vets who don't think America's involvement in Vietnam was such a s**t hot idea.

Does Kerry not have the same rights as other Americans in questioning his government's actions? In exercising his right to free speech?

I have an issue with people who criticize the troops who fought over there, to be sure, but I have no issue with someone exercising their right to disagree with government policy.

[retired]

I for one think the Vietnam war was a mistake. It doesn't make me a bad American because I don't believe in it.

John Kerry has the same right.

[PC August]

Exactly! I'm neither for or against Kerry, but to suggest that Kerry is somehow not a "real American" or unfit to run for President simply because he was critical of a war he served in is absurd and reeks of desperation.

[jamesb]

i'm a police officer in massachusetts and can tell you with certainty that kerry is more liberal and more anti cop than teddy kennedy - do not fall for his new facade - kerry is a high tax loving, criminal pandering liberal who would appoint ultra liberals to the supreme court. this guy married a south african who married a rich senator that owned the Heinz corporation. now both of them are millionaires several times over. kerry gave only one hundred dollars to charity a few years ago but at his request had a city of Boston fre hydrant moved from the municipal sidewalk in front of his mansion so he could park his foreign made motorcycle, sports car and s.u.v there. now the fire hydrant sits in front of a common person's home. could'nt the money spent moving this fire hydrant have been better spent on charity !!!!???. kerry is widely known as being an aloof, liberal with an attitude. now he is fooling people as he campaigns. do not be a sucker and vote for this anti cop liberal democ rat. the photo of him with jane fonda speaks volumes - the communists called people like kerry and fonda "useful idiots" - in my opinion, if you vote for kerry, you are a misguided liberal

[jarhead6073]

Kerry has done much more than simply "disagree with government policy". He personally slandered every American veteran of the Vietnam war. Apparently his four months on a river boat and a Silver Star that he wrote himself up for qualifies him to speak as if he personally witnessed the entire war. He's a fake, a fool, an an idiot. Everything about him is contrived.

http://www.usnewslink.com/johnkerryvietnam.htm

[retired]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about Kerry and any politician.

However if you are going to make accusations, how about providing the source for the allegations.

[jarhead6073]

Such as?

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
Such as?


"He's a fake, a fool, an an idiot. Everything about him is contrived."

I don't care for Kerry, but I guess his wounds from Vietnam weren't really wounds, were they?

Let's see, a cop gets wounded n his first 4 months on the job, so they don't count.
:rolleyes:

[PC August]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
Kerry has done much more than simply "disagree with government policy". He personally slandered every American veteran of the Vietnam war. Apparently his four months on a river boat and a Silver Star that he wrote himself up for qualifies him to speak as if he personally witnessed the entire war. He's a fake, a fool, an an idiot. Everything about him is contrived.

http://www.usnewslink.com/johnkerryvietnam.htm

Again, plenty of vets spoke out against the war.

Funny-Bush spends Vietnam stateside in the Air National Guard and is a hero. Kerry goes to Vietnam and is decorated and is a fake and a fool. Perhaps if Kerry wasn't a democrat he's be a hero too. Apparently the requirement is not simply to serve your counrty in the armed services but to become a republican as well.

ALL politicians are fake and contrived, some more than others. But speaking out against the Vietnam War does not automatically make one a traitorous commie.

[PC August]

Originally posted by jamesb
the photo of him with jane fonda speaks volumes - the communists called people like kerry and fonda "useful idiots" - in my opinion, if you vote for kerry, you are a misguided liberal

It speaks volumes to you, to me all it says to me is that he was once in the vicinity of Jane Fonda.


As for your opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

[Chief Wiggum]

Originally posted by jamesb
i'm a police officer in massachusetts and can tell you with certainty that kerry is more liberal and more anti cop than teddy kennedy - do not fall for his new facade - kerry is a high tax loving, criminal pandering liberal who would appoint ultra liberals to the supreme court. this guy married a south african who married a rich senator that owned the Heinz corporation. now both of them are millionaires several times over. kerry gave only one hundred dollars to charity a few years ago but at his request had a city of Boston fre hydrant moved from the municipal sidewalk in front of his mansion so he could park his foreign made motorcycle, sports car and s.u.v there. now the fire hydrant sits in front of a common person's home. could'nt the money spent moving this fire hydrant have been better spent on charity !!!!???. kerry is widely known as being an aloof, liberal with an attitude. now he is fooling people as he campaigns. do not be a sucker and vote for this anti cop liberal democ rat. the photo of him with jane fonda speaks volumes - the communists called people like kerry and fonda "useful idiots" - in my opinion, if you vote for kerry, you are a misguided liberal

How many times are you going to put this same post in a thread? Enough already.:rolleyes:

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by retired
"He's a fake, a fool, an an idiot. Everything about him is contrived."

I don't care for Kerry, but I guess his wounds from Vietnam weren't really wounds, were they?

Let's see, a cop gets wounded n his first 4 months on the job, so they don't count.
:rolleyes:

It seems to me that one only has to look at his record to see that he has been on both sides of nearly every issue. Including my commentary here's John Kerry in a nutshell:

Extremely privledged upbringing and attended Yale; Is now running a man-of-the-people populous campaign and attacks Bush for having a privlidged upbringing.

Went to Vietnam, killed an already wounded Vietnamese soldier and wrote himself up for a silver star. Has three minor wounds (he only missed two days of duty) and requests to get transferred out of Vietnam early to be an Admiral's aide; Become's a huge anti-war protester (gee, in eastern Mass where he runs for political office, do you think it's better to be a hippie or a decorated "war hero") and slanders every single Vietnam vet. Now running for president he casts himself as 'Vietnam-war-hero-Kerry', not the 'anti-war-hippie-Kerry' he used to first get elected to office.

Voting record in the Senate is more liberal than Ted Kennedy; running campaign as more mainstream than Howard Dean when if fact Dean's record is more centrist than Kerry's.

Calls for President Bush to "internationalize" the war in Iraq but voted against the first Gulf War when the venerable U.N. ok'd it. Voted for this Gulf War with no U.N., then voted against the $87B funding, like that wasn't completely politically motivated.

Then there's the votes to gut the CIA budget by $1.5B, voted against every new weapons program since he's been in office, and consistently voted to reduce the military; Now's he's wondering why our intelligence in Iraq wasn't better.

Oh we can't forget about his anti-special interest mantra when only John Edwards has more special interest money then him, and his hook up of a Mass real estate company with Vietnam in the early 90's...(never mind that the entire Democrat party is a coalition of special interests so all money given to Democrats is special interest money), and his recent gay marriage flip flop.

I'm sure there's more to be said about him but I've only been looking into his past for a couple days now.

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by PC August
Again, plenty of vets spoke out against the war.

Funny-Bush spends Vietnam stateside in the Air National Guard and is a hero. Kerry goes to Vietnam and is decorated and is a fake and a fool. Perhaps if Kerry wasn't a democrat he's be a hero too. Apparently the requirement is not simply to serve your counrty in the armed services but to become a republican as well.

ALL politicians are fake and contrived, some more than others. But speaking out against the Vietnam War does not automatically make one a traitorous commie.

I realize that you are nothing more than a petty instigator so I won't spend much time replying to you. I will note however that I never said that Bush was a hero. I never said that only Repbulicans can be war hero's. In fact, being from Ohio, I rather like John Glenn. Having been active duty myself, and going to be again, I never had alot of respect for the Guard. I have always thought that some service is better than no service so the Guard was better than Clinton.

Perhaps you agreed with DNC chairman Terry Mcaulife when he said that the Guard isn't even the Military.

[retired]

Jarhead,

I don't care for either Kerry or Bush. I think they are both lying self-serving polticians and nothing more. Kerry jusy has a better military record than Bush, if that means anything. Hell, Kerry has a better military record than I do. I was never wounded in combat. In fact I never served in combat.

Republican or democrat, both will eventually destroy the country.:( :(

[PC August]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
I realize that you are nothing more than a petty instigator so I won't spend much time replying to you.

Gee, tough guy, you're breakin' my heart. :rolleyes:

I'm neither a petty instigator nor a banner-waving fool with blind allegiance to any one politician. I'm just some guy who has the ability to think for himself and not swallow a mouthful of crappy diatribe like, "Kerry was once photographed with Hanoi Jane so he must be evil!" Maybe you're not that guy either, others on this thread are.

And I'm no fan of Kerry, for the record.

[nickg]

the liberals insult ALL men and women who have and currently serve in the guard and reserves because they think they aren't REAL SOLDIERS unless they went to vietnam. what a bunch of BS!!!

all the while they fail to mention slick willie scampering off to england to avoid the draft. but that's ALL TOGETHER different isn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Chief Wiggum]

Originally posted by nickg
the liberals insult ALL men and women who have and currently serve in the guard and reserves because they think they aren't REAL SOLDIERS unless they went to vietnam. what a bunch of BS!!!

all the while they fail to mention slick willie scampering off to england to avoid the draft. but that's ALL TOGETHER different isn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

All liberals think this way? Are you sure? Have you spoken to all liberals?

I personally know a couple of "liberals" who are or were in the Guard. They don't think this way.

[retired]

Originally posted by nickg
the liberals insult ALL men and women who have and currently serve in the guard and reserves because they think they aren't REAL SOLDIERS unless they went to vietnam. what a bunch of BS!!!

all the while they fail to mention slick willie scampering off to england to avoid the draft. but that's ALL TOGETHER different isn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Come on nickg, try a different tune. How many liberal cops did you work with that were damn good cops? You blame the evils of the world on liberals. That is narrow-minded to say the least. Many of the biker gang members we encountered were considered conservatives, does that make them good?

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by nickg
the liberals insult ALL men and women who have and currently serve in the guard and reserves because they think they aren't REAL SOLDIERS unless they went to vietnam. what a bunch of BS!!!

all the while they fail to mention slick willie scampering off to england to avoid the draft. but that's ALL TOGETHER different isn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh bull*****. I'm not liberal by any stretch, but that's an ignorant comment. What's Vietnam got to do with anything in this discussion? Radicals are radicals no matter what. I was spit on when I got back from Vietnam, but not everybody that was against the war were against the soldiers. Same with the current situation. There are a lot of people against the war in Iraq that aren't anti the guys over there, either regular active, guard or reserve. There are a lot of people that are liberal, but not radical. That's like painting all conservatives as white supremicists and nazi's.

[jarhead6073]

John Kerry, man of conviction? Yes, er, no, well he was but he's not anymore... or he is now but wasn't then, oh wait... what he meant to say is...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/12/john_kerrys_shifting_stands/

[nickg]

what's funny though is the fact that the liberals who are telling us NOW what a hero kerry is for serving in vietnam are the same people who were protesting the war back then and spitting on soldiers when they returned home calling them child killers, etc.

i guess it's ok as long as it benefits them to now make kerry's service part of the campaign against bush. whatever it takes, right?

:rolleyes:

[PC August]

Originally posted by nickg
what's funny though is the fact that the liberals who are telling us NOW what a hero kerry is for serving in vietnam are the same people who were protesting the war back then and spitting on soldiers when they returned home calling them child killers, etc.



Really? They're all the same people are they? You know this for a fact?

I'm impressed.

:rolleyes:

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by nickg
what's funny though is the fact that the liberals who are telling us NOW what a hero kerry is for serving in vietnam are the same people who were protesting the war back then and spitting on soldiers when they returned home calling them child killers, etc.

i guess it's ok as long as it benefits them to now make kerry's service part of the campaign against bush. whatever it takes, right?

:rolleyes:

Again, bull*****. I'm no Kerry fan, but to lump all liberals into the catagory of the radicals that spit on us is like saying all conservatives wear white robes and burn crosses... Either statement is equally biased and dumb. Well, I can't speak for you, but no conservatives I know do that.

I know a lot of really decent people who hate Bush for whatever reason and will probably vote for just about any Democrat. And none of them would ever think of spitting on anybody. Political leanings doesn't define decency, no matter what you think.

Kerry isn't the only liberal who was a war hero, so was George McGovern. He was a highly decorated bomber pilot during WWII. He just had the class not to beat it into the ground like Kerry. Bravery under fire doesn't follow ideology, although some like to pretend it does. After I got back, I wasn't all that choked up about the war either. I didn't join any war protests, but even today I would gladly spit on Lyndon Johnson's grave if given the chance. McNamara has blood on his hands too. Not for sending us there, but the way he made us fight the war, he got thousands killed needlessly. Just because you're a veteran, doesn't mean you don't think.

Bush did join the Air Guard to beat the draft. And no doubt old George set it up for him. The chances of a guard unit going active back then was nil. He dodged the draft just like Clinton, but he at least did guard time although that doesn't mean he wasn't a draft dodger. But that has nothing to do with what kind of president he's been either. And Kerry's war record is equally immaterial to what kind of president he would be. Personally, I'll vote for Bush, but I don't idolize him either.

If think Kerry is playing dirty, just wait until the RNC gets going on him. You ain't seen nothing yet! It's the nature of the beast. No use getting mad at the Democrats for doing the same thing the Republicans do.

[nickg]

yeah...i was WAY outta line with my comment.

i guess none of that ever happened. :rolleyes:

[retired]

Originally posted by nickg
yeah...i was WAY outta line with my comment.

i guess none of that ever happened. :rolleyes:

And don't let it happen again!:p :p

[jarhead6073]

If think Kerry is playing dirty, just wait until the RNC gets going on him. You ain't seen nothing yet! It's the nature of the beast. No use getting mad at the Democrats for doing the same thing the Republicans do

What I find ammusing is that Terry Mcaulife and John Kerry are saying "when the Republicans come after me I'm gonna fight back", all the while they're the ones doing the attacking. Only this weekend did the first Bush/Cheney internet ad come out and the dems have been going at Bush for months. I guess they're taking the preemption doctrine one step further, preemptive defensive attacks.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
What I find ammusing is that Terry Mcaulife and John Kerry are saying "when the Republicans come after me I'm gonna fight back", all the while they're the ones doing the attacking. Only this weekend did the first Bush/Cheney internet ad come out and the dems have been going at Bush for months. I guess they're taking the preemption doctrine one step further, preemptive defensive attacks.

I think they're whistling in the dark... Kerry has too much stuff in his background that will bite him later. I suspect the RNC will wait until closer to the election. I hope so. If they do it now, the public may be starting to forgive him by election time. Let Kerry and McAulife talk all they want now. It's Sept. and Oct. that will count. The American public has too short an attention span to do much right now.

[Stryker]

The American public has too short an attention span to do much right now.

lol Too true, too true. I'm not fond of either political party since to me contemporary politics seems to revolved around $$$ and hypocritical windbags that can somehow pull off the feat of saying nothing for a half hour straight. I'm not voting against Bush in this election I'm voting against Ashcroft and other ultra right wing religious fanatics that prove the emptiness of the Republican "tradition" of limited government.

I'm pretty sure Kerry wiil get the Dems nomination but unless something really bad happens with the military or the economy between now and November Bush will probably win but not by much of a margin. Unless of course they find some super nasty dirt on Kerry. Everbody compares him to Dukakis but I'm more inclined to compare him to Dole. He's got the boring old cautious senator problem.

[retdetsgt]

I think they were thinking of Dean when they spoke of Dukakis. Kerry will give Bush a much better run than Dean would have.

I don't think Kerry will be beat by much either, if he is. But he needs to get some better issues than the economy. The recession started on Clinton's watch, but as soon as Bush took office it became his. The economy is getting better everyday. Jobs are still a problem, but they historically follow everything else. By November, it may not be a problem.

Iraq is what may bite Bush. A lot is going to depend on how well he can get out from under that. If he pulls out to early and it becomes another Iran, then he's going to get a lot of heat from people, including Republicans. If he can't get a handle on it, there could be some problems there too. He's really got a snake by the tail. He needs to curb spending too. Even conservatives are getting sick of his big budget.

Kerry is really vulnerable because of his voting record and taking money from special interests. That's the one thing he can't take Republicans to task for, being the slaves to special interest since he's taken more money from them than anyone in the Senate. The war thing had better go away too pretty soon. He's got a 1992 speech where he told the Senate that military service shouldn't be a factor in choosing a president. Of course he was speaking of Clinton. If he keeps harping on his record, that will be all over the television and radio soon.

I dislike Ashcroft too. He is too rightwing for me also. Oregon passed an assisted suicide law that allows MD's to prescribe fatal doses of barbituates to people who fit a very narrow criteria. It was passed by the voters here by a big margin. Ashcroft and crew have taken the state to court, saying they will take the licenses of any doctors who prescribe them. This is really none of the federal governments business. He's pushing his own religious beliefs.

I'm afraid for a lot of Americans, this election is going to be like many. People aren't going to be voting for someone, but against someone else.

[retired]

Retdetsgt,

I agree withyou that Ashcroft is too extreme. I never thought I would say that about a republican, but I think he would give Hilter a run for his money. I think the man is mentally unbalanced.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by retired
Retdetsgt,

I agree withyou that Ashcroft is too extreme. I never thought I would say that about a republican, but I think he would give Hilter a run for his money. I think the man is mentally unbalanced.

Yeah, Ashcroft is a nutcase. How long did it take for the FBI to start using Patriot Act powers on other stuff? About two months? The FBI is the only LE agency I have zero faith in their crediblity or moral culture. I've worked with them too many times on cases and am fully aware of what they're capable of. Technically and morally, they are a very dangerous agency.

What bothers me about American politics is the lack of moderation in anything. What ever happened to the Eisenhower Republicans and the JFK Democrats?

Oregon is a great example of extreme politics. The Democratic Party here is so far left that they seemed to have lost touch with reality. The Republicans are so draconian in their politics and seem to be willing to shut down the state. There's no longer any common sense displayed by anyone. They never compromise on anything. Who ever has the most votes wins and their policies take effect.

[jarhead6073]

They were/are referring to Kerry when they compare him to Dukakis. Far left Massachusettes liberal. Impossibly Kerry has been on three sides of every issue. Even his home town Boston papers have editorialized on that. Now that they've been able to attack Bush with AWOL and deserter charges for a week they want to drop all Vietnam era talk. Gee what a suprise. Not to mention that since Bush had performance evaluations calling him an "exceptional young officer" in the records that they were demanding to see they don't want to see those records any more.

retdetsgt,

Actually, I think Bush is very moderate. And he was when he campaigned with his "compassionate conservativism". Yes he's anti-abortion, with a few exceptions, and he's a defense hawk, but other than that he really hasn't done anything real right wing. I think the attacks on him for being a right wing extremist are ludicris. He hasn't cut funding for any liberal causes, hell even the NEA got a funding increase.

By and large though I think you're right. There does seem to be a wide gap between left and right today. I think that is partially due to how far left the contry has gone since FDR and conservatives have essentially gone along for the ride and now they are trying to over correct. I think they're pushing to much too soon, but hey, what do I know.

[retdetsgt]

I dunno, Jarhead. Dukakis came up when Dean was ahead and I think the Republicans were looking for defeat ala Reagan. That won't happen with Kerry, I don't think. The Democratic establishment was afraid Dean might get it, that's why they threw Clark on the ring. Fortunately, that idiot is gone too. But who knows.

Bush is moderate, but so was Clinton. But like Clinton, I'm not choked up about some of the people around him. Ashcroft is bothersome. I do think he's a religous zealot. I don't care about that as long as he doesn't practice his religion in his work and that's what he's doing.

Bush's spending bothers me too. Sending 15 billion to Africa for AIDS is a nice gesture that liberals like, but I don't know if that was a good idea when we have such a deficit. Granted, Democrats never met a deficit they didn't like until Bush ran up one, but he's as bad as they are in some spending areas.

I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch and I like his forest cleanup plan, but on environmental issues, he's kind of a dud. If he going to give tax breaks, some breaks for industry to clean up their act would be nice. Instead, he gave them a free ride.

But none of that is enough to make me even think of voting for Kerry (ugh).

[jarhead6073]

I know what you're saying. I have these conversations every Tuesday while I'm volunteering with a bunch of old time vets. These guys are mostly WWII and Korea, with about 3 or 4 Vietnam era guys. I'm the youngest one there by about 25-30 years. Some of them are hard line conservatives and say many of the same things we're saying. There are some moderates who are iffy on Bush. And a couple lefties who fit right in with Ted Kennedy and Kerry. Those far left guys are a trip. When they talk about politics it's like they're in a different world. One of them thinks that Norm Coleman killed Paul Wellstone. For those who don't know, Wellstone was quite possibly farther left than Kennedy, and Coleman is a Republican. Coleman won the 2002 election after Wellstone's plane crashed. He also thinks that if Bush is reelected that he's turn into a hardline Nazi. He already thinks that Republicans are Nazi's anyway though, so that's not suprising. The political debates there are pretty interesting sometimes. I didn't think old guys got that worked up.

[retired]

I can't bring myself to vote for Bush again, no matter who the democratic opponent is. I might even vote for Sharpton. Ashcroft is a religious zealot, Rumsfeld wants war, and the rest of his administration wants to abolish the constitution.

It will be my first time ever to not vote for a republican for President.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by retired
I can't bring myself to vote for Bush again, no matter who the democratic opponent is. I might even vote for Sharpton. Ashcroft is a religious zealot, Rumsfeld wants war, and the rest of his administration wants to abolish the constitution.

It will be my first time ever to not vote for a republican for President.

On one of the debates, they asked Sharpton what his economic policy would be. Caught him totally flat footed! He didn't have a clue so he started bad mouthing Bush. The moderator called him on it and asked him again what HIS economic policy would be. He came up with some vague response so they moved on.

I do like Bush's economic moves. The tax cut, that the liberals hate did start CPR on the economy, I think. Democrats conveniently forget that the recession started 8 months before Clinton left office. No Democrat would have dared cut taxes like Bush did and we'd still be floundering. Again, it showed that the economists of academia haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

I kinda like Edwards. I never thought I'd say that about a lawyer, but I read his web page and he makes more sense by far than any of the other Democratic candidates. He even talks about tort reform, something Democrats have fought tooth and nail since their largest single contributor is the Trial Lawyers Assn.

I can't see voting for Kerry under any circumstances. He has no moral courage that I've seen. In fact, he says very little about what he does stand for. Most of his speeches are just badmouthing Bush.

[nickg]

Originally posted by retired

It will be my first time ever to not vote for a republican for President.

did i read that right? you've always voted for republicans before?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

i thought if you leaned any further left you'd fall down!! :D

c'mon retired, just place a "D" next to your name and end it now. :D

[retired]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
On one of the debates, they asked Sharpton what his economic policy would be. Caught him totally flat footed! He didn't have a clue so he started bad mouthing Bush. The moderator called him on it and asked him again what HIS economic policy would be. He came up with some vague response so they moved on.

I do like Bush's economic moves. The tax cut, that the liberals hate did start CPR on the economy, I think. Democrats conveniently forget that the recession started 8 months before Clinton left office. No Democrat would have dared cut taxes like Bush did and we'd still be floundering. Again, it showed that the economists of academia haven't got a clue what they're talking about.

I kinda like Edwards. I never thought I'd say that about a lawyer, but I read his web page and he makes more sense by far than any of the other Democratic candidates. He even talks about tort reform, something Democrats have fought tooth and nail since their largest single contributor is the Trial Lawyers Assn.

I can't see voting for Kerry under any circumstances. He has no moral courage that I've seen. In fact, he says very little about what he does stand for. Most of his speeches are just badmouthing Bush.

Actually I was joking about Sharpton, I just forgot to place the joke icon after that comment.

But like you, my candidate of choice at this point is John Edwards. I like his positions in many areas.

[retired]

Originally posted by nickg
did i read that right? you've always voted for republicans before?

:eek: :eek: :eek:

i thought if you leaned any further left you'd fall down!! :D

c'mon retired, just place a "D" next to your name and end it now. :D

Just goes to show nickg that you realy don't know anything about me, and base your opinions on a few comments I posted in this forum. I'm just not as narrow minded as you are.

At work I was considered to the right of Ghenghis Khan with my political philosophies.:eek: :eek:

[jarhead6073]

The only thing I know about Edwards, other than he looks younger than me, is that he proposed to subsidize poor peoples savings accounts directly with tax dollars. His demeanor also bugs me. His smugness that, "well I have a southern accent so those fools in the south will vote for me", kind of attitude.

[retired]

Jarhead,

Edwards positions on crime:

John Edwards on Crime

Q: Do you support the death penalty?
A: I believe the death penalty is the most fitting punishment for the most heinous crimes, and I support it. But we need reforms in the death penalty to ensure that defendants receive fair trials, with zealous and competent lawyers, and with full access to DNA testing.
Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Death Penalty" Jan 25, 2004

Supports the death penalty
I support greater emphasis on drug treatment and elimination of mandatory minimums for certain non-violent crimes. I also support the death penalty and reform of our probation and parole systems to provide more support and supervision.
Source: Vote-Smart Presidential National Political Awareness Test Jan 8, 2004

More DNA testing to reduce wrongful capital convictions
Edwards supports bringing DNA technology to smaller police departments, to lower-level crimes, and to cold cases. He also believes we should clear the backlog of untested rape kits in unsolved cases, and make DNA testing more available to death penalty defendants to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. He will accompany increased DNA testing with strong protections to safeguard our civil liberties.
Source: Campaign website, JohnEdwards.com, "Real Solutions" Jan 1, 2004

Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program.
Vote on an amendment to authorize $1.15 billion per year from 2000 through 2005 to continue and expand the Community Oriented Policing Services program. $600 million of the annual funding is marked for hiring additional officers [up to 50,000]
Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-139 on May 20, 1999

More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes.
Edwards sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act:
Title: To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes.

Summary: Provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any violent crime that is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of hate crime laws.


Award grants to assist State and local law enforcement officials with extraordinary expenses for interstate hate crimes.

Award grants to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

Prohibit specified offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Increase criminal sentencing for adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.

Collect and publish data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR1343 on Apr 3, 2001

Require DNA testing for all federal executions.
Edwards sponsored the Innocence Protection Act:
Title: To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed.

Summary: Authorizes a person convicted of a Federal crime to apply for DNA testing to support a claim that the person did not commit:

the Federal crime of which the person was convicted; or

any other offense that a sentencing authority may have relied upon when it sentenced the person with respect to such crime.

Prohibits a State from denying an application for DNA testing made by a prisoner in State custody who is under sentence of death if specified conditions apply.

Provides grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.

Establishes the National Commission on Capital Representation.

Withholds funds from States not complying with standards for capital representation.

Provides for capital defense incentive grants and resource grants.

Increases compensation in Federal cases, and sets forth provisions regarding compensation in State cases, where an individual is unjustly sentenced to death.

Adds a certification requirement in Federal death penalty prosecutions.

Expresses the sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded.

[retdetsgt]

I was surprised to read his ideas on health care costs. He wants to limit malpractice lawsuits and punish lawyers who continually file frivolous ones. That's strange coming from an attorney!

I would like to see him get the nomination. For one, he's the only one not waging a negative campaign. If Kerry was out of the way, we could at least listen to what he says... Now you can't hear him for Kerry's screaming...

[retired]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
I was surprised to read his ideas on health care costs. He wants to limit malpractice lawsuits and punish lawyers who continually file frivolous ones. That's strange coming from an attorney!

I would like to see him get the nomination. For one, he's the only one not waging a negative campaign. If Kerry was out of the way, we could at least listen to what he says... Now you can't hear him for Kerry's screaming...

I like the guy better than Bush!:eek:

John Edwards on Health Care

Bush's Rx plan helps HMOs-help seniors instead

Q: How, if at all, would you change the new prescription drug benefit for the elderly?

A: When I am president, we will write a prescription drug bill for the American people -- a law that benefits seniors not the HMOs and insurance companies. We will bring drug costs down by allowing reimportation, stopping wasteful and misleading drug advertising, and using the government's purchasing power. And we will give seniors a better, more secure drug benefit.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Medicare" Jan 25, 2004

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by retired
I like the guy better than Bush!:eek:



I'll wait on that one. But I doubt it'll be a choice between those two. The money's on Kerry right now. It's his to lose.

[retired]

Edwards on gun control:

John Edwards on Gun Control

Hunting is fine, but criminals & kids should have limits

Q: How will your gun stance play among Southern voters?

EDWARDS: I grew up in the rural South. Everyone around me hunted, everyone had guns. I respect and believe in people's Second Amendment rights. That does not, however, mean that somebody needs an AK-47 to hunt. It does not mean that somebody who's been convicted of a violent crime should be able to walk out of prison, walk across the street and buy a gun. It does not mean that we shouldn't take every step that we can take to keep guns safe and keep guns out of the hands of kids. So, my belief is, first, I defend people's Second Amendment rights, but I don't think it's without limit.

Q: What federal gun control measures you would propose?

EDWARDS: I think we should extend the Brady Bill, which is set to expire. I think that we need to close forever the gun-show loophole, [to avoid criminals] buying a gun. I think it does make sense to have trigger locks for the purpose of keeping guns safe from children.

Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004

Leading Dems distance themselves from divisive gun debate
Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favor of federal regulation of firearms.
Howard Dean proudly tells audiences that the NRA endorsed him as governor of Vermont, and that he would leave most gun laws to the states. Dick Gephardt, a longtime gun control advocate, is careful to highlight his support for law-abiding gun owners. John Edwards says, "Guns are about independence. They don't want people messing with that."

As a result, Democratic strategists predict the debate over gun laws in this campaign will be less divisive. Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain, they said, yet voters are likely to hear as much about enforcing existing gun laws as creating new ones-a position Republicans and the NRA have pushed for years.

Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A1 Oct 26, 2003

Guns are about independence-don't mess with that
"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said John Edwards. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A1 Oct 26, 2003

[retdetsgt]

The Brady Bill is a crock. Every crook I've ever known to buy a hand gun to commit a crime bought it off the street, not a gun dealer, not at a gun show. They cost too much there. Hinckly was an aberration. All it does is annoy regular people. I say that from a non gun nut perspective. I never intend to buy another gun the rest of my life.

[retired]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
The Brady Bill is a crock. Every crook I've ever known to buy a hand gun to commit a crime bought it off the street, not a gun dealer, not at a gun show. They cost too much there. Hinckly was an aberration. All it does is annoy regular people. I say that from a non gun nut perspective. I never intend to buy another gun the rest of my life.

I don't disagree with you on the Brady bill, but I like most of what Edwards says. I have read his opinions on numerous issues, and he stands out to me.

I don't really know of any bad guy that didn't purchase his weapon for illegal use from another crook or steal it.

[retired]

Edwards on immigration:

Q: Should it become easier for undocumented foreign workers in the US to gain legal immigration status?

A: We should reform the immigration system so there is a clear road map to legalization and citizenship for undocumented immigrants who work hard and follow the law. At the same time, we should work with our ally, Mexico, to better control the border and stop illegal trafficking.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Immigration" Jan 25, 2004

Differentiate terrorists from the immigrants
Q: How would you distinguish or differentiate terrorists from the immigrants and visitors?

A: The whole notion of earned citizenship is something that I strongly support. I would expand the number of legal immigrants that can get into the country, which helps relieve some of this pressure that we have right now. Our relationship with Mexico and Pres. Fox is in the worst shape that we can imagine. And the result of that is, we don't have the kind of security along our southern border that we need.

Source: Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum Jan 11, 2004

Welcome immigrants with earned legalization program

I support policies that welcome immigrants and protect our security, including an earned legalization program for those who work hard and play by the rules.

Source: Vote-Smart Presidential National Political Awareness Test Jan 8, 2004

[jarhead6073]

Like most candidate speech most of that is vague at best. Full of the typical veiled shots at Bush and "we need to work to do... better" WTF does that mean? That's one of the lamest lines politicans use. And some of it is just plain stupid and naieve. Like Mexico or Fox EVER helped enforce the southern border. Besides, I thought you didn't like Bush's new immigration plan? Which it sounds like Edwards just copied anyway.

I don't care what kind of gun he thinks I need to go hunting. That has nothing to do with what kind of gun collection I should be able to have.

His crime stuff is OK, but at this point that's not a deciding factor in who I want to be President. Besides, Bush is pro-death penalty too.

Do I think he's a better alternative to Kerry? Sure I do. Would I vote for him over Bush? Not in a million years. There's only a couple modern democrats who I could ever consider voting for and none of them are in the race. None of them could possibly get the nomination of today's democratic party. i.e. Joe Lieberman.

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
Like most candidate speech most of that is vague at best. Full of the typical veiled shots at Bush and "we need to work to do... better" WTF does that mean? That's one of the lamest lines politicans use. And some of it is just plain stupid and naieve. Like Mexico or Fox EVER helped enforce the southern border. Besides, I thought you didn't like Bush's new immigration plan? Which it sounds like Edwards just copied anyway.

I don't care what kind of gun he thinks I need to go hunting. That has nothing to do with what kind of gun collection I should be able to have.

His crime stuff is OK, but at this point that's not a deciding factor in who I want to be President. Besides, Bush is pro-death penalty too.

Do I think he's a better alternative to Kerry? Sure I do. Would I vote for him over Bush? Not in a million years. There's only a couple modern democrats who I could ever consider voting for and none of them are in the race. None of them could possibly get the nomination of today's democratic party. i.e. Joe Lieberman.

I understand! Bush isn't my candidate and I'm glad we have a choice. I would vote for almost anyone except Bush. I really dislike the man! That doesn't mean I like Kerry, but I consider him a better choice for me at this point.

[jarhead6073]

That's fine with me. I don't have a problem with people who don't want to vote for Bush. I find it odd when people say that they don't like Bush because he's not conservative enough then say they'll vote for a democarat. That I don't get. My biggest concern is that people at least be honest in their positions. We don't agree on everything but at least I think we're honest in our debates.

Are you going to vote for Kerry then, assuming he's the democrat nominee. Or would you vote for a more conservative or libertarian candidate? I ask because while I don't know anyone else who outright "really dislikes the man", I know a few people who don't really want to vote for him but still consider him the lesser of two evils and will vote for him over Kerry IF they vote at all. I think the most interesting story of this election will be voter turn out. I really wonder if the republican base will turn out to vote for Bush/against Kerry or just stay home.

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
That's fine with me. I don't have a problem with people who don't want to vote for Bush. I find it odd when people say that they don't like Bush because he's not conservative enough then say they'll vote for a democarat. That I don't get. My biggest concern is that people at least be honest in their positions. We don't agree on everything but at least I think we're honest in our debates.

Are you going to vote for Kerry then, assuming he's the democrat nominee. Or would you vote for a more conservative or libertarian candidate? I ask because while I don't know anyone else who outright "really dislikes the man", I know a few people who don't really want to vote for him but still consider him the lesser of two evils and will vote for him over Kerry IF they vote at all. I think the most interesting story of this election will be voter turn out. I really wonder if the republican base will turn out to vote for Bush/against Kerry or just stay home.

If Kerry is the democratic candidate, I will vote for him over Bush. I would much rather have a libertarian in the White House, but I'm realistic enough to know that it would be a lost vote.

When I voted for Bush in 2000, I thought he was the conservative I wanted, but I now think he is more of a tyrant than anything else. My entire family, and cadre of friends I play golf with all voted for Bush in 2000, but all have said they will go for the democrat in 2004. A real turn around for this republican family and republican friends.

[nickg]

something i read TODAY (2/18/04)......hmmmmmm, seems like SOMEONE had this same feeling a few days ago when they posted it. now who was that person anyway? :D

"In the meantime, Kerry's friends and cohorts are trying to compare George W. Bush to Benedict Arnold because he didn't serve in Vietnam. To grasp how tawdry and hypocritical this is, you simply have to recall that these are the very same people who were attacking Vietnam vets 30 years ago, calling them baby-killers and spitting on them. Now they hate the president because he didn't go to Nam?!

Can you imagine what they'd call him if he had?"


full story here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37173


retired -- i'm not narrow minded. i just don't play to the stupidity of the left. :D

besides, i can't recall seeing where you agreed with too many right leaning opinions compared to the far left. if you did i wouldn't see us having so many disagreements now would i? :p

[retired]

Originally posted by nickg
something i read TODAY (2/18/04)......hmmmmmm, seems like SOMEONE had this same feeling a few days ago when they posted it. now who was that person anyway? :D

"In the meantime, Kerry's friends and cohorts are trying to compare George W. Bush to Benedict Arnold because he didn't serve in Vietnam. To grasp how tawdry and hypocritical this is, you simply have to recall that these are the very same people who were attacking Vietnam vets 30 years ago, calling them baby-killers and spitting on them. Now they hate the president because he didn't go to Nam?!

Can you imagine what they'd call him if he had?"


full story here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37173


retired -- i'm not narrow minded. i just don't play to the stupidity of the left. :D

besides, i can't recall seeing where you agreed with too many right leaning opinions compared to the far left. if you did i wouldn't see us having so many disagreements now would i? :p

You and I would disagree on the sun rising. Do you really believe that people on the left are stupid because they have a different viewpoint than you? How arrogant!

Whether or not you think I am to the right or left is totally irrelvelant.;) ;) I know what I am, you don't!:eek:

[nickg]

Originally posted by retired
Do you really believe that people on the left are stupid because they have a different viewpoint than you? How arrogant!



yeah, and my wife says i'm "jaded" too!! :D :D

[Planetkillr]

Gee...I was kinda hoping Al Sharpton could really get things going this time around. I think where Al messed up was forgetting his roots and where he had been. I was really looking forward to a Democratic nomination celebration with Al wearing a sweat suit & hugging Tawana Brawley...As a police officer, I know that would have made me feel all warm and cozzy inside. :rolleyes:

For anyone NOT in the know about Al Sharpton and some of his past, See http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2087557

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by nickg
yeah, and my wife says i'm "jaded" too!! :D :D

For every stupid left winger out there, there's a stupid rightwinger. Political philosophy has nothing to do with how smart a person is, it's based on a person's values and experiences. I think you'd be surprised by the opinion many liberals hold of John Kerry (hint: we hate him too).

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
For every stupid left winger out there, there's a stupid rightwinger. Political philosophy has nothing to do with how smart a person is, it's based on a person's values and experiences. I think you'd be surprised by the opinion many liberals hold of John Kerry (hint: we hate him too).

AGREED! Why is Kerry doing so well then? I really don't think he can impress anybody except the most avid Bush haters... I bet the RNC is going to tear him a new one once the campaign really gets started. He's just too vulnurable in some many areas. That Vietnam cloak is going to wear down pretty soon.

Why isn't Edwards doing better? He seems like a nice guy, has a positive campaign and is no dummy.

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
AGREED! Why is Kerry doing so well then? I really don't think he can impress anybody except the most avid Bush haters... I bet the RNC is going to tear him a new one once the campaign really gets started. He's just too vulnurable in some many areas. That Vietnam cloak is going to wear down pretty soon.

Why isn't Edwards doing better? He seems like a nice guy, has a positive campaign and is no dummy.

Agreed, the democrats are hosed if Kerry gets the nomination. Between his voting record, taking too many special interest donations, constant references to his military record, and overall hypocrisy, the guy is going to have trouble beating Bush. He still has my vote, as in my opinion anything is better than four more years of Bush, but it'd be nice if he'd stop hiding behind his Vietnam service, as if it's some sort of shield and will stop people from seeing what a liar and hypocrite he is.

In my extremely unexpert opinion, Edwards isn't doing well because he doesn't really fire anyone up. Kerry talks a good fight, and isn't above mudslinging. Edwards avoids negative campaigning, for the most part, and isn't as good of a speaker. He's also a little to the right of Kerry, which doesn't help.

At least the election will be interesting if Kerry wins the nomination. He's got almost as many skeletons as Bush.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by SomeGuy


At least the election will be interesting if Kerry wins the nomination. He's got almost as many skeletons as Bush.

At least with Bush, what you see is pretty much what you get. I saw an article a few days ago where Mrs. Heinz-Kerry was blasting Wal-Mart saying it destroyed communities. The problem is she owns over a million dollars of stock in the company and has since the early 90's. Dumb stuff like that will get them fried.

[nickg]

as long as Bush is president the liberals will push for ANYONE running against him, they don't care WHO it is or WHAT their agenda is. simple as that!!

for the most part i'd say MOST democrats have NO IDEA what kerry's stance is on ANY issue. as long as it's against bush.

ask my wife. :rolleyes:

i was going to say they'd vote for marx, lenin, or stalin but then that would be playing RIGHT IN TO THEIR HANDS anyway. :D

[SomeGuy]

as long as Bush is president the liberals will push for ANYONE running against him, they don't care WHO it is or WHAT their agenda is. simple as that!!

Yes. Liberals hate Bush, because pretty much everything the guy does is completely against our beliefs. I'm sure you'd vote for anyone else if, say, Ralph Nader had gotten elected in 2000.


for the most part i'd say MOST democrats have NO IDEA what kerry's stance is on ANY issue. as long as it's against bush.


Generalize much?


i was going to say they'd vote for marx, lenin, or stalin but then that would be playing RIGHT IN TO THEIR HANDS anyway. :D

Uh, Stalin was an authoritarian. He had alot more in common with conservatives than liberals.

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
Yes. Liberals hate Bush, because pretty much everything the guy does is completely against our beliefs.



Like what? His increase in education spending? He certainly hasn't cut social programs. His amnesty for illegal aliens and opening of the boarders? Oh, I know, it must be his increase in health care spending. Still not that? Mabye his trade protectionism for the steel industry? Not that either you say... Hmmmm, I wonder what it could be then.

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
Like what? His increase in education spending? He certainly hasn't cut social programs. His amnesty for illegal aliens and opening of the boarders? Oh, I know, it must be his increase in health care spending. Still not that? Mabye his trade protectionism for the steel industry? Not that either you say... Hmmmm, I wonder what it could be then.

I'm sorry, your paper tiger is no match for you.

Liberal or conservative, you should at least know why liberals don't like Bush.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I dislike Bush for a few reasons. First, I dislike alot of his appointees, both to beurocratic positions (Ashcroft!) and to federal judgeships; far too many extreme social conservatives. Second, I dislike his blatant pro-business politics. Third, I dislike how his administration is so clearly against civil liberties; first amendment especially. Fourth, I dislike his overall handling of Iraq, both in choosing to go to war, what he said to the public about his motives for going to war, and the administration's foot dragging in appointing an independant commission with full investigative powers to look into the whole mess. Fifth, I dislike his abuse of the war on terror for political gain; national security, while important, should NOT be the only real major issue the president, and for that matter the public, is focused on. Last, I dislike his treatment of medical marijuana. Yea, it's a pretty insignificant issue. But how he's willing to throw out scientific fact, medical opinion and states rights for the purpose of arresting sick people...that just isn't right.

[nickg]

Originally posted by SomeGuy


I can't speak for anyone else, but I dislike Bush for a few reasons. First, I dislike alot of his appointees, both to beurocratic positions (Ashcroft!) and to federal judgeships; far too many extreme social conservatives. Second, I dislike his blatant pro-business politics. Third, I dislike how his administration is so clearly against civil liberties; first amendment especially. Fourth, I dislike his overall handling of Iraq, both in choosing to go to war, what he said to the public about his motives for going to war, and the administration's foot dragging in appointing an independant commission with full investigative powers to look into the whole mess. Fifth, I dislike his abuse of the war on terror for political gain; national security, while important, should NOT be the only real major issue the president, and for that matter the public, is focused on.

wow....for someone who doesn't "speak for anyone else" you sure sound like a LOT of liberals spouting the same tripe. but heaven forbid that i should "generalize" here. :rolleyes:

"..far too many extreme social conservatives" -- not enough bleeding hearts for ya, huh?

"..blatant pro-business politics" -- gee, i thought being "pro business" helps with BUSINESSES being able to provide JOBS for people. i guess you must me more "pro welfare" then. like the joke goes "Vote Democrat, it's easier than working!!"

"..against civil liberties"??? -- what, is that the Gestapo i hear breaking down my door? ? ? damn brown shirt thugs!!!!

"...handling of Iraq" -- bush bombing Iraq and removing a cruel murderer of his own people = bad, klinton bombing an aspirin factory to take the country's mind off of a c*um stain = good. :confused:

"...abuse of the war on terror" -- actually the administration has been too lenient on a lot of groups and organizations all at the behest of being too frikkin' politically correct. and THAT is a crock of s#!t.

but i'm sure your man Kerry will rally the country to greatness in no time and we will be at peace with EVERYONE in the world and we will all have wads of cash in our pockets, even AFTER he RAISES our taxes and doles out for more government programs.

no wonder the democrats chose the jackass for it's representation of the party.

[SomeGuy]

Did I ever say I support Kerry? No, I didn't, so don't put words into my mouth...

As for the rest of it...you can frame my opinions however you want, and make them look as negative as possible if you want. I could do the same to your opinions. We could probably fill up the next ten or so pages going back and forth, even. But you know what? I don't really feel like it. You have your opinions, I'll have mine. But if you want to be taken seriously by people with different opinions, it would probably be a good idea to try to understand what they are saying, instead of framing their opinions in the most negative way possible and dismissing them as jackasses. If you do that, you, not the person you're arguing with, are the ignorant one.

[nickg]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
Did I ever say I support Kerry? No, I didn't, so don't put words into my mouth...


well with the field being pretty narrowed down to bush (who you obviously don't support), kerry (who you say you didn't SAY you support), and (ahem) nader i'd say your pickins are pretty slim as to whom you DO support then. unless sharpton is your "write in" guy you don't have too many choices i'd say.

but the one good thing about kerry, if you don't like his point of view on an issue you can alway agree with his OTHER point of view on the same issue. :rolleyes:

[Planetkillr]

Ok, Nickg, you have gone too far!! "To Far" I say!! Al Sharpton is a major political figure in the upcoming presidentual race. You cannot just throw his name around like he's a nobody. I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU to make light of a great .....ummmmmmmm ???? He's a real ..... ahhhhhhhh ????? Al Sharpton is a man of .......weeeeeeell ?????? I just won't stand for it!! I won't :mad: !! I'll call Tawanna Brawley, put on my sweat suit and hunt you down!! "Hunt you down I say"!! :mad:

If it was'nt for Al Sharpton the other candidates might feel as though they were not professional enough, smart enough, dressed good enough to be in the race for the democratic nomination for president. Oh, I've heard it all before :mad: "Al Sharpton is a buffon. Al Sharpton is morally bankrupt. Al Sharpton has absolutely no chance of even being mentioned in the same breath as the word PRESIDENT, muchless being elected as one." I've heard all ya'll smarty pant comments about Al just making up words that Rhyme, to go along with other words that in the end make no sense at all...I'll not rest until Al Sharpton is president!! I won't !!! I'll come to each and every one of your homes and explain why Al Sharpton is the man who can make a real different in the country. Even if the only real reason is to help him forget about all that Tawanna Brawley mess and to make sure that evey man, woman and child in this country has at least two sweat suits in its closet and that the people are wearing them too....
:rolleyes:

[SomeGuy]

Do I need to even post? You guys are stating my opinion for me :rolleyes: If I didn't know better, I'd say you could read minds :rolleyes:

[Planetkillr]

OH NO :eek: He called us "losers" :( Coming from a guy who still lives with his parents, that comment means sooooo much. Thanks :rolleyes:

[nickg]

Originally posted by Planetkillr
Ok, Nickg, you have gone too far!! "To Far" I say!! Al Sharpton is a major political figure in the upcoming presidentual race. You cannot just throw his name around like he's a nobody. I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU to make light of a great .....ummmmmmmm ???? He's a real ..... ahhhhhhhh ????? Al Sharpton is a man of .......weeeeeeell ?????? I just won't stand for it!! I won't :mad: !! I'll call Tawanna Brawley, put on my sweat suit and hunt you down!! "Hunt you down I say"!! :mad:

If it was'nt for Al Sharpton the other candidates might feel as though they were not professional enough, smart enough, dressed good enough to be in the race for the democratic nomination for president. Oh, I've heard it all before :mad: "Al Sharpton is a buffon. Al Sharpton is morally bankrupt. Al Sharpton has absolutely no chance of even being mentioned in the same breath as the word PRESIDENT, muchless being elected as one." I've heard all ya'll smarty pant comments about Al just making up words that Rhyme, to go along with other words that in the end make no sense at all...I'll not rest until Al Sharpton is president!! I won't !!! I'll come to each and every one of your homes and explain why Al Sharpton is the man who can make a real different in the country. Even if the only real reason is to help him forget about all that Tawanna Brawley mess and to make sure that evey man, woman and child in this country has at least two sweat suits in its closet and that the people are wearing them too....
:rolleyes:

that does it!! AL FOR PRESIDENT!! AL FOR PRESIDENT!! cmon gang, let's get this movement going!!

i will give al credit though for at least stating what's on his mind regardless of right or wrong. that's more than i can say for a lot of other politicians who only say what they think the sheeple they are addressing want to hear.

just once i'd like to hear a politico say "you know what Sen. So-n- So, you really are an *********." instead of "well, as i may disagree with my esteemed friend and colleague and great senator from the great state of blah blah blah..." :D :D

[Planetkillr]

Well...On a more serious note. I agree with what you are saying about the politician / Honesty issues. What really frightens me about Al Sharpton is this. Most Politicians sugar coat & tell the people what they wanna here. And usually, they end up lets more & more of their hiden thoughts known as time goes by. Judging by Al's past statements and actions. I wonder what we, the U.S.A., would be in store for. If he ever got any real power.

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by Planetkillr
Well...On a more serious note. I agree with what you are saying about the politician / Honesty issues. What really frightens me about Al Sharpton is this. Most Politicians sugar coat & tell the people what they wanna here. And usually, they end up lets more & more of their hiden thoughts known as time goes by. Judging by Al's past statements and actions. I wonder what we, the U.S.A., would be in store for. If he ever got any real power.

Hell?