|
Kerry should work at IHOP. not run for president
I was thinking that Kerry has not stood fast to anything in his whole life.
His ability to flip-flop leads one to think that his ultimate place in life is that of a pancake maker. In Contrast: George Bush Jr. has redeemed the office of the Presidency and has re-established a sense of dignity both to American Politics and to America. Among his many accomplishments, this is perhaps George's greatest. Only those totally ignorant of recent history will forget for example how Bill Clinton so totally trashed the great office. Yeah once, there was a president more preoccupied with the taste of a cigar inserted vaginally, and sinfully, into a woman half his age. In contrast, George Bush in his patriotic and noble service has compellingly made the single best possible argument for repealling the misguided 22nd amendment which has established a two term limit upon the office of the presidency. |
Not my post. Check headers.
Lord Valve The Genuine Article Some asshole using my screen name slobbered: (snip) |
unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything
no matter what evidence is presented... I was thinking that Kerry has not stood fast to anything in his whole life. His ability to flip-flop leads one to think that his ultimate place in life is that of a pancake maker. In Contrast: |
(Lord Valve)
I was thinking that Kerry has not stood fast to anything in his whole life. His ability to flip-flop leads one to think that his ultimate place in life is that of a pancake maker. You can't blame GWB for accusing Kerry of changing his story. GWB doesn't have the intelligence to realize you don't have to recite the same words every single time. Any change in the script and GWB thinks its a different episode. |
|
Lord Valve wrote:
I was thinking that Kerry has not stood fast to anything in his whole life. Actually, his problem is that he sees both sides of every issue, not just one. This is hard for morons to comprehend since they like simple one value 'fixes' like war, death and destruction. His ability to flip-flop leads one to think that his ultimate place in life is that of a pancake maker. He hasn't flip flopped on anything. On the other hand, he does have a tendency to muddle his message by talking about too many facets to the problem. He really needs to keep his message clear and consise enough to be heard by the average joe. In Contrast: George Bush Jr. has redeemed the office of the Presidency and has re-established a sense of dignity both to American Politics and to America. Well, maybe dignity, though his looking like a petulant school child in the debates has not helped a lot. His real problem is that, while able to convey a simple message, he is unable to make any connection between what he says and reality. All he has accomplished is to bring the U.S. into disprepute within the international community, isolate allies, disable progress in science and environment, and spend freely on the credit card to present the illusion that the U.S. is in a 'recovery'. |
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote: "xrongor" wrote in message ... unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything no matter what evidence is presented... What does "resolute" mean to you, It doesn't mean stubborn or closed-mind. and why is the liberal socialist Democrat party striving desperately to adorn themselves with that moniker? Why is the right-wing fascist Republican party wallowing in mud? |
|
"Ian St. John" wrote in message news:Piw9d.32494 All he has accomplished is to bring the U.S. into disprepute within the international community, isolate allies, disable progress in science and environment, and spend freely on the credit card to present the illusion that the U.S. is in a 'recovery'. Don't forget the sell-out of the US environment. Bob |
"xrongor" wrote in message
... unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything no matter what evidence is presented... What does "resolute" mean to you, and why is the liberal socialist Democrat party striving desperately to adorn themselves with that moniker? -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
"Kevin Singleton" wrote in message ... "xrongor" wrote in message ... unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything no matter what evidence is presented... What does "resolute" mean to you, and why is the liberal socialist Democrat party striving desperately to adorn themselves with that moniker? what, did you get that question of the ASVAB you failed? randy |
And yet, Kerry said that knowing what he knows now, he STILL would
have voted to give authorization. So of course it's a flip flop. He's a panderer's panderer. ------------ You're missing my point. By definition it can't be a flip-flop. The authorization was for Bush to go to the UN and work up a plan - not to go to war. Kerry's saying he would authorize Bush to go to the UN again. There's nothing inconsistent about that. You're insisting that it's a flip-flop because he approved authorization to go to the UN, and then didn't support Bush exceeding that authorizatiuon and going it alone. They are 2 distictly different things. |
You really should go and read what the Congress approved, Abe.
I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). |
Neat story but the President was authorized to do what was necessary. He
wasn't required to (nor should he) kneel down before France and the UN (as Kerry would) and ask them for permission. ---------- You say "the Pres. was authorized to what was necessary." So, can you find in the congressional record what was voted on exactly? If you can show congress authorized broader power than what I'm saying, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. |
Abe wrote:
And yet, Kerry said that knowing what he knows now, he STILL would have voted to give authorization. So of course it's a flip flop. He's a panderer's panderer. ------------ You're missing my point. By definition it can't be a flip-flop. The authorization was for Bush to go to the UN and work up a plan - not to go to war. Kerry's saying he would authorize Bush to go to the UN again. There's nothing inconsistent about that. You're insisting that it's a flip-flop because he approved authorization to go to the UN, and then didn't support Bush exceeding that authorizatiuon and going it alone. They are 2 distictly different things. Ho, hummm. I can't wait until after the election when we can move forward to the "I told you so" posts, by both sides. Not much fun for our foreign visitors, tho. Vote early, vote often. |
"xrongor" wrote in message
... what, did you get that question of the ASVAB you failed? I'm sorry. I'm only fluent in English. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
"Abe" wrote:
I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). Abe, please see my response to you elsewhere in this thread. Or, at least, Section 3 of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: |
"Kevin Singleton" wrote in message ... "xrongor" wrote in message ... what, did you get that question of the ASVAB you failed? I'm sorry. I'm only fluent in English. why dont you send your kids down to the recruiter to go fight for our country and find out what it is... randy |
In alt.home.repair Lord Valve wrote:
(snip) The problem with hardcore Republicans is that they believe everything that comes out of Bush's mouth, and don't think for themselves. For example: Bush likes to oversimply by saying that Kerry voted FOR the war, and then voted AGAINST it. This is untrue. Kerry did not vote for the war, he voted for the president having the authority to go to war. He then voted against a specific bill to fund that war, while backing an alternative bill. This same blind acceptance of everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is the reason that 62% of Republicans STILL believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Now go here and read about the numerous Bush flip-flops: http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=118263 |
Kevin Singleton wrote:
"Abe" wrote in message ... I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). Go read it through. Why? He has clearly delineated his claims and your posting the resolution does not challenge those claims. It supports the fact that Bush was authorised to work WITH the U.N. not take over from them. |
David Gale wrote:
"Abe" wrote: I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). Abe, please see my response to you elsewhere in this thread. Or, at least, Section 3 of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: Still waiting for you to say something meaningful. I can see why you just post references. You hope that people will get confused? |
"though Clinton may have been an embarrassment as a person, "W" is an
embarrassment as a President." Well said. |
"Lord Valve" wrote in message om... I was thinking that Kerry has not stood fast to anything in his whole life. I was thinking you've been watching too many TV ads. Ever had an original thought? They're fun. George Bush Jr. has redeemed the office of the Presidency and has re-established a sense of dignity both to American Politics and to America. Bwahahahahahahaha! |
|
xrongor wrote:
unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything no matter what evidence is presented... Bush was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security, then supported it. Other examples abound. It's not changing one's mind after collecting additional facts that's bad (the "flip"), it's changing one's mind back to the original position (the "flop") that's skerry. |
JerryMouse wrote:
xrongor wrote: unlike republicans who would never DARE to change their minds about anything no matter what evidence is presented... Bush was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security, then supported it. Other examples abound. It's not changing one's mind after collecting additional facts that's bad (the "flip"), it's changing one's mind back to the original position (the "flop") that's skerry. The only thing that flip flops here is the republican spin of Kerries message. Kerry has been 'on target' the whole time, but it is true that they may be able to distort this because Kerries position is much to complex for the simple minds of the average RepubliCON. |
In alt.home.repair JerryMouse wrote:
Bush was opposed to the Department of Homeland Security, then supported it. Other examples abound. It's not changing one's mind after collecting additional facts that's bad (the "flip"), it's changing one's mind back to the original position (the "flop") that's skerry. Ah, so when Bush first vetoed a patient's right to sue, then praised a patient's right to sue, then argued against it again, that was a true flip-flip, but when he vowed to find Osama bin Laden, then later said he didn't really care that much about bin Laden, that was not? |
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
... It doesn't mean stubborn or closed-mind. Why is the right-wing fascist Republican party wallowing in mud? Good job dodging the questions, Lloyd. Typical liberal. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
"xrongor" wrote in message
... why dont you send your kids down to the recruiter to go fight for our country and find out what it is... My son is in Qatar, right now, Randy. That still doesn't address the OP's inability to produce a coherent sentence. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
"Ian St. John" wrote in message
... Why? He has clearly delineated his claims and your posting the resolution does not challenge those claims. It supports the fact that Bush was authorised to work WITH the U.N. not take over from them. The bill authorizing use of force does not require the president to confer with the UN. Please, read it. At least once. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
In article ,
"Kevin Singleton" wrote: "Lloyd Parker" wrote in message ... It doesn't mean stubborn or closed-mind. Why is the right-wing fascist Republican party wallowing in mud? Good job dodging the questions, Lloyd. Typical liberal. I answered questions that were questions and answered mud-slinging with mud-slinging. You snipped the mud I responded to, which makes you dishonest. Typical fascist. |
"Ian St. John" wrote:
David Gale wrote: "Abe" wrote: I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). Abe, please see my response to you elsewhere in this thread. Or, at least, Section 3 of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: Still waiting for you to say something meaningful. I can see why you just post references. You hope that people will get confused? No, I hope that people will cross-check my facts, verifying them for themselves. I do not expect (or want) people to take my opinion as solid fact; I want them to consider the issue, examine the facts, and make the decision for themselves. I strive to never simply declare someone wrong; I try to find relevant documentary evidence which backs up my claim. I do not, for instance, try to argue that something like an authorization by the US congress for the US president to use US forces is actually an authorization for the president to beg the UN to actually enforce resolutions that had been "in effect" for twelve years, or anything silly like that. Oh, that's right, you do that. Oops. om) |
Kevin Singleton wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote in message ... Why? He has clearly delineated his claims and your posting the resolution does not challenge those claims. It supports the fact that Bush was authorised to work WITH the U.N. not take over from them. The bill authorizing use of force does not require the president to confer with the UN. Please, read it. At least once. The Congress authorised him to help the U.N. Obviously he cannot help the U.N by walking all over them and ignoring them. Of course he had to confer with the U.N on whether the U.N. sanctions and inspections were working. Ignorance is not a basis for good policy. Well, I guess that you think so since you promote as much ignorance as you can find and spew. |
David Gale wrote:
"Ian St. John" wrote: David Gale wrote: "Abe" wrote: I watched the debate and vote on C-SPAN when it was happening. I think I'm interpreting the authorization correctly (of course, I'm not above admitting I'm wrong if you can point me to an official document that says the authorization was for something different from what I'm saying). Abe, please see my response to you elsewhere in this thread. Or, at least, Section 3 of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114.ENR: Still waiting for you to say something meaningful. I can see why you just post references. You hope that people will get confused? No, I hope that people will cross-check my facts, verifying them for themselves. It is not the facts that need correction, but your spin. I do not expect (or want) people to take my opinion as solid fact; I want them to consider the issue, examine the facts, and make the decision for themselves. We can agree on that much at least. I strive to never simply declare someone wrong; I try to find relevant documentary evidence which backs up my claim. I do not, for instance, try to argue that something like an authorization by the US congress for the US president to use US forces is actually an authorization for the president to beg the UN to actually enforce resolutions that had been "in effect" for twelve years, or anything silly like that. No. I wouldn't expect you to argue a red herring except in a fake 'example' that assumes that talking to the U.N is somehow 'demeaning' or that you can best help the U.N. by defying their rules and regulations to do your own thing regardless. This is a lot like the wife abuser stating that 'she was asking for it' A baseless self justification that does not deal with facts but with egos. Oh, that's right, you do that. Oops. om) |
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , "Kevin Singleton" wrote: "Lloyd Parker" wrote in message ... It doesn't mean stubborn or closed-mind. Why is the right-wing fascist Republican party wallowing in mud? Good job dodging the questions, Lloyd. Typical liberal. I answered questions that were questions and answered mud-slinging with mud-slinging. You snipped the mud I responded to, which makes you dishonest. Typical fascist. He does that with me too. Watch out for his 'out of context' partial snippages. |
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
... I answered questions that were questions and answered mud-slinging with mud-slinging. You snipped the mud I responded to, which makes you dishonest. Typical fascist. You didn't answer either question. You failed to answer the first question, and you responded to the second question with another question. Snipping the context is not dishonest. It is not needed, and, if you're having trouble keeping up, it's all in Google, forever. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
... No, they were unsure; that's why they had the inspectors there. And now we know. They don't have inspectors on Guatemala, but nobody knows for sure if they have WMD. The reason for the sanctions was to force Hussein to allow inspections, and to ensure that his WMD were destroyed and/or accounted for. And it turns out, the status was "defunct." When, exactly, did you know that? Towards the end, the inspectors were getting cooperation, as Kaye has said. "Towards the end" of a 12 year runaround, and only after it was clear that Gore would not be president. Did you ever wonder why Hussein started cooperating, all of a sudden? If by "one or two" you mean zero. When, exactly, did you know that? To whom? The authorization your congressman passed doesn't specify. No, authorizing you to defend me if necessary is not the same as authorizing you to launch a strike when I'm not threatened. If you authorized me to strike against a "continuing threat", the way your congressman did, it does. -- Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com |
In article ,
"Ian St. John" wrote: Adding the island nation of Tuvalu just illustrates how feeble that facade really is. He-he. Tuvalu, from the CIA world fact book: Area: 26 sq miles (1/10 the size of Washington, D.C.) Population: 11,468 (7/04 est.) 2 ethnic groups, no HIV, no deaths from AIDS, per capita GDP $1,100, no agriculture, no permanent crops, one of the smallest and most remote nations on Earth. Yet, they still have a more realistic budget than the United States with its immense deficit spending habit: revenue: $22.5 million expenditures: $11.2 million (2000) |
They'd be completely stripped of both tacic and strategy if they took that
advice ;-) Ian St. John wrote: Actually the facts clearly do show that Bush acted prior to any "Failure of Diplomacy" and without a visible or credible threat to the U.S. I don't care how much you like fairy stories, you should not promote them as reality. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter