I noticed that a lot of you have allready decided that you are voting for George Bush or John Kerry, but what about the other guy?

Teach those washington fat cats a lesson!
Vote for Ralph Nader!

http://www.votenader.org/


He might not be entirely sane on some issues, but at least he is different. I'm really sick of cookie cutter politicians with huge egos and small penises. It's time for a real president.

you have seen W's penis??

Nader? He's what put Dubya in power to begin with.
Fuck him.

Heh if he was still part of the Green party, and I didn't live in Ohio, I might have considered it.

Nader had put together a great legacy of looking out for the consumer and standing up to the corporate folks. That was his forte....politics is not.

His allowing advisors to stoke his ego into believing he could be a political force only resulted in that legacy being diminished, and the loss of respect from many of those who backed his consumer campaigns. Folks voted for Nader as a protest vote the same way as many of Kerry's votes are going to be votes against the current administration, rather than for the candidate.

We are in the sad position this election year of having no candidates that display the passion of former great politicians who have vied for that office, but instead display their ego's and their commonality in preferring to attack their opponent rather than debate their own merits. Bush has attempted to revert to his 2000 campaign as the compassionate conservative, although those who have lost jobs and health insurance and even their homes under his watch might have a different idea of his compassion. Kerry has maintained a measure of consistency by his continued approach to issues from all possible directions. Nader has shown an interesting new side of himself in his attempt to get on the ballots in all states, voicing his complaints at the Democratic "apparatchiks" working against him, but not at all embarrassed by the Republican forces openly working in his favor.

I am really looking forward to December.

I beleive if you don't vote you are not allowed to bitch about the government. NAdar is my only viable option to keep my right to bitch about the government. God knows i dont want to vote for Kerry or Bush.

Nader is not the only other choice, you know. Check out http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm for a nearly full listing of candidates this year.

I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik. Yeah, Gary Nolan would have been a better candidate, but it's not as though the LP is going to win shit anyway.

That is quite interesting, Usa has even more candidates than france but they sadly get literally next to 0 media attention. I didn't even know there were more than 3 until I read this. Its like there is only kerry/bush shit throwing that matter.

There are ALWAYS alot of people on the ballot but the chances of them getting a single Electorial vote are slim to none. Not impossible, but almost.

Kinu, the two top US parties typically have the money and connections ( the more important of the two) in order get media time and all the exposure that it brings. The others don't, even if they have the money out of their own pocket. Politics is very much a closed, partizan circle once you get to Washington DC level. The United States is not a Democracy as much as it is touted to be. Its a Republic with some socialist aspects to it, and thats how things are run on the Federal level. On a more local level, other parties such as the Libertarians stand a fair chance since its not people playing the Washington DC game who decide, but actual voters. Thats where the true Democracy lies.

Each state also gets alot of say on its own governorship, and many state governments are very unique from each other. For example, the Governator might end up being California's best governor in a while. Unfortunately the Federal governent puts alot of stipulations on what state governments can do if they want to tap into Federal funds for projects such as education, transportation and social programs. Play ball, or no moolah.

Nader? He's what put Dubya in power to begin with.
Fuck him.
I thought it was the Supreme Court's fault?

Seriously, why is it Nader's fault instead of Gore's for losing?

I thought the consensus was that Nader pulled most of his votes from the Democrats. People who normally would've voted for the democrats almost regardless of the candidate voted for Nader to express their displeasure with Clinton's extra-marital activities, which was a major part of the democrats losing the election.

So now it's Clinton's fault?

Dear Kivorn:

Actually, most Democrats really still liked Clinton, sex scandal or no, and the majority of analysts would agree that one of Gore's biggest campaign mistakes (perhaps the biggest) was not letting the sitting President stump for him. If it's one thing (well two things) that Clinton has, it's cunning and charisma, and he's a *brilliant* campaigner.

Nader pulled his vote from both Republicans and Democrats (both I and Faervas voted for him in 2000) who didn't see *either* candidate as offering much of anything. I voted Nader not because of disgust with Clinton (after all, he wasn't running for office, and I approved of his policies in any case) but because Gore seemed completely unwilling to stand for anything (and Faervas had been a McCain man whose impression of Bush, having seen the mess he made here in Texas, was less than stellar)

Also, since we have the electoral college system in the US, and Faervas and I both live in Bush's home state of Texas, it was a 'safe' protest vote as we could not hope to affect the electoral vote in our state.

The popular wisdom is that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, but I'm not so sure that's so. There were not a few Republicans and Independents that pulled the lever for Nader rather than vote for either of the mainstream candidates offered in 2000, and if you look at where (statewise) Nader got his votes from, he pulled disproportionately from 'throwaway' states such as Texas, Utah, Alaska (where he got 10% of the vote, in a typically very conservative state!), and California, which were clearly decided already. Here is the data by state from the 2000 election:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

The sad thing is that the difference in the Florida popular vote is *so* small (540 votes out of nearly 6 million cast!), that I don't think we'll ever really know who won the election. In this case, considering that Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes, what happened in light of just how close the Florida vote was, especially in light of several controversies surrounding ballots, etc, seems a shame.

As much as I dislike Bush, his policies, and as dangerous as I feel he and his brand of (cough) 'compassionate conservatism' is for the country, Nader didn't 'steal' the election from Al Gore, and neither did Bush (Gore was treated with kid gloves by the Bush campaign compared with what is going on in this election); Gore simply failed to make his case, which is mind-boggling considering how well the country was doing in 2000.

Regards,
Nydia

Thats interesting lummus I guess. Here TV are forced to give X minutes per candidat regardless of the party or the cash. Actually its not allowed to pay a TV to get time ( I m sure connections play tho I m not stupid). 2 TV are government TV too which allow everyone to get a chance to present their program. If you get more than 5% at the election you get 1 million to cover your campaign cost ( now american campaign costs seems way way way higher so its not really comparable). Considering election system is different it might not be applicable I guess.

I guess ya france is more socialist for that.

Then again, you have to consider that most of these candidates are either not serious or, well, nuts. For example:

Jack Grimes -- who previously ran for President as a write-in candidate in 2000 -- bills himself as the "Leader and Director of the United Fascist Union." As for his use of the word "Fascist," Grimes explains he wants to restore a New World Order based upon the governmental style of Imperial Rome "to institute a military dictatorship form of government over the Earth." Grimes believes that "the psychic is the next great step in the evolution of humankind on this planet." And it gets more weird: Grimes wants to address "the dilemmas now facing America and the whole of Western civilization: Democracy, Christianity, International Capitalism, Earth Changes, U.F.O.'s, government cover-ups, and others." Citing to Cayce and Nostradamus, Grimes predicts that "the United States will be reduced from its present size to a small triangular-shaped land mass through the loss of many of its coastal states." While those quotes come from his old 2000 campaign site (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/7344/), his 2004 is equally entertaining. Be sure to visit the "Pictures" page to view Grimes and his girlfriend (presumably) posing in their homemade black uniforms ... and to view pictures of them eating at different local restaurants. Or visit the "Speeches" page to read Grimes' 1998 remarks delivered to the "Flying Saucer Society of Dover, DE." Best of all is the Discussion Boards section of his site, in which Grimes exalts his followers to worship Satan -- plus you can read about the problem he was having getting to a campaign event in another state (because Mom's car was broken, etc.). While Grimes failed to achieve ballot status in any states in 2000, he falsely boasts on his site that he was on the ballot in 45 states and placed 6th in the race.
Muadin -- yup, he just uses one name -- is an announced write-in candidate for President. His slogan is a New Age-sounding mantra of "One People, One Planet, One Awareness." Muadin writes he is the candidate of the "E-Democratic Party" -- an unknown entity which he apparently created. What does he stand for? Here are his own words: "The people of earth must use the Internet to network and organize at the grassroots level, outside of the corporate global power structure, in a leaderless revolution of awareness and ideas, a second enlightenment, aimed at establishing e-democracy at every level of human government and in every aspect of human society and affairs. The e-democratic spirit of this leaderless cyber-revolution must culminate in a planetary e-democratic federal government through which all executive, legislative, judicial, and economic power ultimately rests directly in the hands of the people of earth." This focus includes is a requirement that Congressmen and US Senators must vote based upon e-votes on each issue cast by their constitutuents -- and that the federal government be changed from three branches into five branches (don't ask!). Other positions in his platform include a 10% flat tax, abolition of the death penalty, a constitutional ban on political parties (so all candidates must run as Independents), federal term limits, separate national election of the Vice President, repeal of the Second Amendment (gun rights) ... in fact, when we last checked, Muadin was proposing 18 constitutional amendments. If you dig through Muadin's off-beat campaign site, you can also find pix of Muadin badly cropped into poses in the White House ... and a picture of "future First Lady" Jessica Muadin (who, unlike her husband, has a full name). Muadin describes himself as a motivational speaker and President of the Planet Pilgrims Center for E-Democracy and Planetary Awareness.

Larry Topham -- who declares on his campaign site that his "favorite food" is "wheat" -- is the quintessential perennial candidate. Over the past 28 years, Topham has run for Salt Lake City Mayor (1995, 1999, 2003), US Senate (1994), Salt Lake City Council (1993), Utah Governor (1992, 1988), Congress (1990), and President (1976, 1996, 2000) -- and there are probably more that we missed, as he sometimes runs as a write-in candidate. And, over those years, he has run as both an Independent and as a nominee of various third parties. Topham is also a bit eccentric. A 68-year-old retiree, he is a zealous advocate of returning the US to the gold standard -- and he refuses to recognize the validity of the dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) currently in use as they are backed by neither silver nor gold. In a 1998 incident, he entered the closed Utah Capitol building near midnight by falsely telling a guard that he worked there. When police officers later found him in the rest room, Topham claimed to be the Secretary of State and declared he was there to seize the Capitol. He was arrested by use of pepper spray, according to court documents. At other times, Topham has declared various officeholders illegitimate, claiming they either didn't properly file their oath of office certificates or didn't pay their filing fees with gold or silver. Topham still persists with these claims, as his 2004 Presidential site declares Topham is currently the "Secretary of State of the State of Utah and Acting Governor during martial law." In fact, Topham apparently declared martial law in Utah in November 1997 because everyone is using that "fake" money not backed by gold/silver -- which, he declared, now makes him the Governor of Utah. Further, "Governor" Topham has decreed that anyone who works to elect any candidate he deems an unauthorized candidate (i.e., just about every candidate who qualifies for the ballot) is "participating in an unofficial election to overthrow the constitutional government of the State of Utah and its counties and is forbidden by law, and may well be an act of treason."

Tom Wells -- the founder of the Family Values Party (http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/) and a self-described "Messiahian Jew" -- is a frequent write-in candidate for Congress. He also ran for President as a write-in Candidate in 2000. Now Wells is running for President again in 2004 for the same reason that he founded the ultra-conservative, theocratic party: because -- explains (http://members.aol.com/tomwells1/) Wells on his site -- God directly spoke to him in his bedroom on December 25, 1994 at 2:00 a.m. and commanded him to do so. Wells' political platform is largely derived from religious fundamentalism -- including numerous citations to Biblical passages -- with an ultimate goal of banning all abortions ("the premeditated murdering of GOD'S innocent children"). He is also opposed to homosexuality, tobacco products, tattoos, alcohol, drugs and gambling -- and supports all of the Ten Commandments. If you disagree with any of these views, Wells writes on his site you are not allowed to contribute any money to his campaign. Wells is listed here as an Independent because the FVP appears to merely be an alter-ego of the candidate.

Those last two almost make Lyndon LaRouche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Larouche) look good.

edit: fixed quotes.

And Larry Topham takes california!!!

Have to agree with above about CLinton, most Democrats (and Demmcratically leaning independants) LOVED Clinton. He had a sex scandal.....who cares....JKF did too and he was a nations hero, he just didnt get caught by some nasty girl who saves seman covered clothing.

Voting for Nadar cause he has best shot at actually winning a state (though the chance is about as likely as Buyza getting laid).

The popular wisdom is that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election, but I'm not so sure that's so. There were not a few Republicans and Independents that pulled the lever for Nader rather than vote for either of the mainstream candidates offered in 2000, and if you look at where (statewise) Nader got his votes from, he pulled disproportionately from 'throwaway' states such as Texas, Utah, Alaska (where he got 10% of the vote, in a typically very conservative state!), and California, which were clearly decided already. Here is the data by state from the 2000 election:

Fair enough.

Also, for the record, internationally Clinton was probably the most popular president to hold office in the last twenty years (or more). I had nothing against him, in fact I agreed with his foreign policys on an extremely high level.

In spite of the scandal and threat of impeachment for his lack of honesty in admitting his behavior, Clinton could most likely win another term as president if he were allowed to run again for the reason that people liked his foreign and domestic policies, and liked the man as a politician.

Whenever he was on any type of stage where questions were being asked he always showed a sound grasp of the subject and a depth of knowledge that none of the current candidates seem to be anywhere near. And, I even remember on some rare occasions admitting when he was not as fully informed as he would like to be before offering an opinion. The current candidates always seem to try to change the subject when they are unsure of an answer.


VOTE McCAIN:D

VOTE McCAIN:D
If I could...I would!!

He had a sex scandal

No, he had a sexual harrassment suit brought against him and he lied under oath to try and weasel out of it, in addition to suborning perjury from witnesses in the trial.

little difference

Go ahead, thrrrrow your vote away!

To anonymous rep person that said I'm so annoying because of the above post...


Thank you...I resemble that remark :p

To anonymous rep person that said I'm so annoying because of the above post...

Hehe, I got a neg rep cuz someone does not like McCain. The rep meter is one of the silliest things I have seen, allowing folks to drop an anon comment or worse, such as the "blah..blah..blah.." I have received in the past, rather than have to take the time to present an intelligent thought out response.

But then, I suppose an intelligent thought out response would preclude many of our community members from participating at all.:p


VOTE McCAIN:D

But then, I suppose an intelligent thought out response would preclude many of our community members from participating at all

From the guy who still thinks the CBS memos are legit :rolleyes:

The bottom line is; Kerry was in Vietnam serving his country in a war. He was being shot at and shooting back. Bush did not go to vietnam and spent the end of his service time working on a political campaign. All the other bullshit about purple hearts and sugar coated reports is irrelevant. One guy is an honorable american and the other is a slimy snake. And about mc cain, yes he is a good american and politician, but just because he got caught and was a pow doesnt make him any more special than any other man or woman that served in vietnam.

I was under the impression that Kerry was in vietnam working on a political campaign?? :confused:

One guy is an honorable american and the other is a slimy snake
Well, at least you're right about that... I think you've got their labels mixed up though.

From the guy who still thinks the CBS memos are legit :rolleyes:
And where have I made this statement, out of curiosity?

I think a better question is where haven't you droned on and on about Bush refusing direct orders(that whole bit was from the CBS memos, in case you are still confused).


He was being shot at and shooting back. Bush did not go to vietnam and spent the end of his service time working on a political campaign. All the other bullshit about purple hearts and sugar coated reports is irrelevant. One guy is an honorable american and the other is a slimy snake.

You're leaving out the part that one served for 6 years in a branch where he could have been called up, and that Kerry left his service early to work on a political campaign. Also, that Bush says Kerry's service was more honorable while Kerry attacks Bush for his constantly.

Your conclusion is correct, you're just incorrectly identifying which is the snake.

Cristo, if you are going to say I am saying stuff, please try to quote a post I made and not someone elses. Your last post not only did not show a quote where I am supposed to have said I believe the documents are real, but it was not even from anything I posted.


If you are just going to keep posting stuff to drive up your post count, more power to you. But if you are going to try to engage in intelligent debate, try to do it intelligently.

blah blah blah

Who cares, but this is funny!

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040917/i/r2290147443.jpg

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=71305&postcount=73

All of that info is based on the CBS memo, and you've been regurgitating it over and over..I'm not going to track down every time you've brought it up, I simply don't have the time to copy and paste it all.

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=71305&postcount=73

All of that info is based on the CBS memo, and you've been regurgitating it over and over..I'm not going to track down every time you've brought it up, I simply don't have the time to copy and paste it all.
I would suggest not making false statements if you are not willing to back them up with data, as they do not add credibility to your cause. For the record, I have never said I believe the documents to be true, although I have no doubt that the issues they address very well may be. I consider Bush to be a child of privilege who has lived his life getting what he wanted and bullying those who differed with his opinion, and when all else failed calling in his daddy's connections. It does not bother me that much that he smirks when addressing the enemies of this country, but he still smirks when talking to his fellow citizens, and that just adds to my low opinion of him.

And also for the record, I do not support Kerry.

All I am saying Cristo is either back up your charge with facts, or don't make the statements in the first place.

I would suggest not making false statements if you are not willing to back them up with data, as they do not add credibility to your cause. For the record, I have never said I believe the documents to be true

Wrong.


Now, what I want to know is how much of a ruckus needs to be made before there is a response to this by Rumsfeld, Powell and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Will they sanction the reply of the White House officials, thereby changing military policy of following the direct order of a superior officer without question to one of deciding whether or not to comply based on if you thought


The documents received by 60 Minutes make it clear that favorable treatment was being accorded Bush, and that along with getting his commission and placement in the Guard ahead of the lengthy list of non-privileged young men also trying to avoid active duty, he was also having his evaluations "sugar-coated"

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=71216&postcount=1

You most certainly did say you believed the documents were true.

Then you continued your little jaunt into lala land by bringing up Bush "disobeying a direct order" all over.

Now that we've sorted out who is "making false statements" ...

[QUOTE=Crist0]

You most certainly did say you believed the documents were true.

QUOTE]

Again, your quotes do not show me saying I believe the documents to be true. I stated that the documents that were received by 60 minutes..etc, etc. You have once again placed your assumption of what I believe in front of what I have actually stated.

And, I did further point out that the White House officials in responding to the documents presented by 60 Minutes admitted that Bush did not comply with the order to get a physical, and I admit to believing that the White House response given to the media was true and that he did not obey an order. I have stated in that thread that the documents could well be the work of a 527, and that I expect more of the same to come out before the election from both camps.

If you are going to make assumptions and false statements against everyone who speaks out against your chosen candidate, you are going to continue looking like anything but the intelligent poster you believe yourself to be.

I challenge you again to back up your statement with a quote from me or stop making false statements. Try reading the entire thread if you are that invested in this, but if not just take your foot out of your mouth and tape it shut for a while.

I'm sorry, what does this say:


The documents received by 60 Minutes make it clear that favorable treatment was being accorded Bush, and that along with getting his commission and placement in the Guard ahead of the lengthy list of non-privileged young men also trying to avoid active duty, he was also having his evaluations "sugar-coated"

It's you saying that the 60 mins documents make it clear that..

Then you attempted to back up the documents(that you said clearly showed Bush was getting favorable treatment) by claiming the White House said he disobeyed the order, instead of what they actually said..that he never had to take the physical because there were no planes there for him to fly.


I stated that the documents that were received by 60 minutes..etc, etc.

Bullshit.

You said that those documents were clear proof("they made it clear").


I challenge you again to back up your statement with a quote from me or stop making false statements. Try reading the entire thread if you are that invested in this, but if not just take your foot out of your mouth and tape it shut for a while.

How many fucking quotes of you saying something do I have to copy over before you come clean?

At what point do you stop lying about what you posted?

It obviously isn't when you have been shown the quote and given a link of precisely where you said it.

Perhaps we should start calling you Teresa?

Hmm... I'd hate to do this, but reading that quote pretty much does make one think that you believe the memo's to be true. Maybe ya didn't mean to do it, but that's what it reads like.

Bleh, agreeing with cristo always makes me feel icky.

Bush says "Iran will not develop a nuke on my watch". So when officially did North Korea develop theirs? Wasn't it on Bush's watch? That guy is such a jack ass.

Phelonius

Actually, if N. Koreas does actually have the bomb (still not confirmed), they did most of the work and probably got it during Clinton's tenure. But you are right, Bush is a bit of a jackass nevertheless.

I don't think we can stop Iran from getting the bomb as long as they are getting help from Russia, North Korea and others. We might as well get used to the idea. It's not like we have not had hostile nuclear armed countries aiming bombs at us before.

I don't think we can stop Iran from getting the bomb as long as they are getting help from Russia, North Korea and others. We might as well get used to the idea. It's not like we have not had hostile nuclear armed countries aiming bombs at us before.
As far as the help they are getting, one has to wonder how much of that help is paid for by Halliburton and GE money, since both companies have done business whith Iran despite the UN/US sanctions.

And, as far as other countries having had missiles pointed at us, the deterrent then was that they did not want to die any more than we did; these fundamentalists are of a different mindset.

I don't think we can stop Iran from getting the bomb as long as they are getting help from Russia, North Korea and others. We might as well get used to the idea. It's not like we have not had hostile nuclear armed countries aiming bombs at us before. With three simple, but glaringly ignorant sentences, you summarize exactly why you just don't get it.

"We can't do anything about it" - and yet you call your president a jackass while he's trying to do something about it.

"Get used to it" - Is this defeatism or what? What the fuck is wrong with you? If this piss ant little terrorist supporting country is trying to get nukes, we can and will do something about it.

And the most retarded statement of all -

"It's not like we have not had hostile nuclear armed countries aiming bombs at us before."

If you can't see the difference between mutually assured destruction as a deterrant policy against another civilization, and not having no such gaurantee of restraint against a terrorist supporting regime whose wacked-out followers blow themselves up with as many people around them as a matter of agenda, then you're a clueless fuck. Get in line with Halo, he needs the company.

First of all, I don't call Bush a jackass because he is trying to do something, I call him a jackass because he does things badly. I actually agree with most of the moves he has *tried* to make but think he should have been able to accomplish the goals in more sensible fashion. If it's any consolation to you, I think Kerry is an even bigger jackass.

I do see a difference in what you describe, however I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion nukes in the hands of Iran = nukes in the hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorists. The Soviets secretly supported terrorists around the world too but never gave them nukes. I would also remind you Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and if a terrorist gets hold of one, that is the likely source. Iran will hold on to theirs so they can be the big boy on the block, not squander them on a suicidal attack on the US. They aren't stupid and they are not quite as willing to lose the power they do have to try and spread islam as the idiots in the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

The bottom line is I don't believe we can stop Iran from getting nukes any more. They are just too far along now to stop it. The time to do that was ten years ago, but our good buddies in Russia made sure the Iranians got all the help they needed. If we attack now, they will simply speed up their program and have justification for doing so. Not to mention we have a little problem in Iraq right now tying up the majority of our available forces. Nope, reality is they are going to get nukes and we can't really do squat about it.

That is the unfortunate reality of politics of today. We vote for the lesser of the two jackasses. But usually, when both are huge jackasses, we vote for the new guy to shake things up and get some new blood running.

Iran has many times over the years expressed their desire to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. No, they would not give away nukes to terrorists, but they most certainly would do their best to drop one in Tel-aviv. It really bugs me that Bush characterizes Kerry as a flip flopper. As if once a senator votes to give the president the ok to engage the troops, they can never disagree with any choices the president makes during the engagement, lest you be labeled a terrorist supporting flip flopper. It bugs me to death that, today, for a person to disagree with Bush, his policies or his lack of progress in Iraq, means you get labeled as unpatriotic, and in some extreme cases a supporter of terrorists. That's bullshit and Bush and all his crooked people are jackasses.

Phelonius

Or maybe people will just prefer the jackass they know and can predict to the jackass they don't and can't.

IMO Kerry *is* a terrible flip-flopper on a number of important issues. He seems to take the stance he thinks will be popular for the moment and then changes his tune a few months later when he thinks something else will bring him more votes. I have come to find I have zero confidence in what he says. He has one last chance to impress me in the debates. If he fails, I will likely vote for Bush.

It would be nice if somehow, some way Iran could be pressured into giving up the quest for nukes. I don't blame Bush for wanting to stop Iran's nuke program, I just wish he would not make promises that can't be kept and I am pretty sure that this is one such.

It really bugs me that Bush characterizes Kerry as a flip flopper.That's the funniest thing I've read all year. Dude, get a clue.

The Ultimate John Kerry Ad (http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/)

On the other hand, the Bush campaign exaggerates (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269) the "flip-flopping" for their own purposes.

Exaggerated?! Fucking hilarious.

Since the first Gulf War, Kerry has changed his reasoning and excuses for voting the way he does more times than he has actually showed up for work in DC.

Call it whatever you will, but shit sticks to shit and Kerry is covered in it.

Why did they picked up wrong, after reading Thormir's link, affirmations to prove his flip flopping?

http://www.politics1.com/personalchoice04.htm


I KNEW SHE LOOKED FAMILIAR!:o

Kerry has a reputation for flip-flopping even amongst his fellow democrats. Even Howard Dean used it against him in the primaries before Dean imploded his own campaign. Exaggerated? Possibly, but not that much IMO.

Both campaigns "spin" things....to mislead you into believing what they want you to believe....Bush is extremely adept at it.

Some good examples here as well:

http://www.spinsanity.org/

Why is there no video in Akipt's link, and why do the voices all sound different? Doesn't surprise me. There are a million different facets to the war in Iraq. It is very naive of you or anyone else to call someone a flip flopper if you don't agree with all facets. He agreed to disarm Hussein, but in your simpetain mind as well as Bush's that means go to war? Bush is no better than Hitler. He is promoting a society that labels anyone that doesn't agree with him as unpatriotic. You are either with him or against him. I guess I am against him cause I certainly am not with him. I guess I shouldn't expect logic from the mind of a Texan:mad:

Phelonius

Bush is no better than Hitler.
I don't like Bush much either, but this statement is, meaning no personal insult, idiotic. Read up on the attrocities Hitler commited and get back to us.

Why is there no video in Akipt's link, and why do the voices all sound different?Because it's an audio link? And because John Kerry can't even decide which accent to use?

He agreed to disarm Hussein, but in your simpetain mind as well as Bush's that means go to war?Uh hello? Knock knock. Authorized use of force, and that usually means war since 17 UN resolutions weren't going to disarm him.

Bush is no better than Hitler.This again :( and you call me a "simpletain" ? You are disonnected from reality and lack any historical context for the jibberish you have typed.

He is promoting a society that labels anyone that doesn't agree with him as unpatriotic.The only people calling anyone un-patriotic and un-American are your Democrat party leaders and running mate. But that's so cool you can just ignore that huh?

I guess I shouldn't expect logic from the mind of a TexanI'll let Nydia answer that one. It's funny you just alienated half the world's jewish population and offended everyone in this country's second largest state. Good job you.

Don't piecemeal my comments. I compare Bush to Hitler in respect to his effort to label anyone that doesn't agree with him as unpatriotic and against him, nothing more. Don't get carried away. Its pretty clear that was the main tactic Hitler used to bolster public support for his military escapades. Or maybe your panties woulnd't get into a wad if I used Macarthur instead? You must be a commie if you dont support nuking Japan.

Phelonius

Better phrase your posts Phel...when you make a sentence like that, make it clear how your are comparing the two:

that was the main tactic Hitler used to bolster public support for his military escapades.
That in your first post would have helped...take your time and make the comparison clear.


I still think it's over the top.

to his effort to label anyone that doesn't agree with him as unpatriotic and against him, nothing more.How about backing up this statement with a link, instead of proving once again that you have diarrhea of the mouth?