OK, wil, time to back your horse:
Will Democrats put their money where their mouths are?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Will Democrats put their money where their mouths are?
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Kwalder, what do you want me to do bet with you personally, (something I would never do btw.)? If not then please understand what and who I bet is not ANY of your business. I will debate the issues from time to time, but see no reason to exihibit idiotic behaviour to you, or anyone else, by making some childish bet to proove what political ideology I support.
wil.
wil.
It is about time they get serious. By that I mean, come up with solutions to problems that they potray but don't neccesaily exists. It will be very tough for them as the fab nine has had their way to this point in bashing Bush. My opinion, they will continue to bash Bush and lie. The is the platform they have used up until the 2000, 2002 elections well. The liberals in hollywood and the liberals in the elite media are almost exposed to America now as Janet Jacksons' tit. It's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo until the debates now. Nothing exciting on the horizon that will turn the tide of the nation in the liberals favor. All they will rely on is: "The future is not as good as is used to be." Makes you kinda quiver, doesn't it?
I just wanted to add that there are problems in America that do exist but the libs are on the wrong side of the solution to the real problems and so are the majority of Americans. The Gore counties will likely turn into mini Haitis if it was not for the income tax payers in this country supporting their feeble minds and lazy asses.
I heard that Bush called Kerry last night to congratulate him. That's pretty gutsy considering all the things that Kerry has said about him.
Anyway I heard that Bush said "Let's have a spirited debate" and Kerry said "Yeah. let's keep it to the issues"........
I found that hilarious....Especially since Kerry has yet to talk about any of the issues. All he's talked about is how bad of a job the President is doing.
Actually though, it's a good strategy by Kerry, since he can be on both sides of every issue.
Anyway I heard that Bush said "Let's have a spirited debate" and Kerry said "Yeah. let's keep it to the issues"........
I found that hilarious....Especially since Kerry has yet to talk about any of the issues. All he's talked about is how bad of a job the President is doing.
Actually though, it's a good strategy by Kerry, since he can be on both sides of every issue.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
I heard that Bush called Kerry last night to congratulate him. That's pretty gutsy considering all the things that Kerry has said about him.
Anyway I heard that Bush said "Let's have a spirited debate" and Kerry said "Yeah. let's keep it to the issues"........
I found that hilarious....Especially since Kerry has yet to talk about any of the issues. All he's talked about is how bad of a job the President is doing.
Actually though, it's a good strategy by Kerry, since he can be on both sides of every issue.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is this your first election or something? It is normally procedural for the incumbent to call the new nominee, not 'gutsy.'
As for Kerry's failing to discuss the issues instead of noting what a bad job Bush is doing -- jesus, man, don't you get that the job that Bush is doing is probably your BIGGEST issue right now? On foreign policy alone one could have a month-long debate about Bush's mandate and it's shortcomings and diabolical failings. And the fact that Bush conveniently brought the gay marriage issue to a constitutional debate, which can neither be solved nor implemented in the very near future, implies that it is HE who wishes to turn the tide away from the real issues, like bombing the snot out of countries, and onto something that the feds have no right to mess with in the first place.
For the sake of the world at large, I hope most American voters are more adept at sifting through political debate than you are.
I heard that Bush called Kerry last night to congratulate him. That's pretty gutsy considering all the things that Kerry has said about him.
Anyway I heard that Bush said "Let's have a spirited debate" and Kerry said "Yeah. let's keep it to the issues"........
I found that hilarious....Especially since Kerry has yet to talk about any of the issues. All he's talked about is how bad of a job the President is doing.
Actually though, it's a good strategy by Kerry, since he can be on both sides of every issue.
Is this your first election or something? It is normally procedural for the incumbent to call the new nominee, not 'gutsy.'
As for Kerry's failing to discuss the issues instead of noting what a bad job Bush is doing -- jesus, man, don't you get that the job that Bush is doing is probably your BIGGEST issue right now? On foreign policy alone one could have a month-long debate about Bush's mandate and it's shortcomings and diabolical failings. And the fact that Bush conveniently brought the gay marriage issue to a constitutional debate, which can neither be solved nor implemented in the very near future, implies that it is HE who wishes to turn the tide away from the real issues, like bombing the snot out of countries, and onto something that the feds have no right to mess with in the first place.
For the sake of the world at large, I hope most American voters are more adept at sifting through political debate than you are.
xpanda, selective Monday Morning Quarterbacking is not taking a stand on issues. However, since YOU brought some up, could you please inform me as to Kerry's pro-active position on Foreign Policy, Gay Marriage and the War on Terrorism?
It's easy to attack someone else's leadership. Kerry has yet to lay out his specific position on almost every important issue. That's not leadership, that's just professional whining.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
It's easy to attack someone else's leadership. Kerry has yet to lay out his specific position on almost every important issue. That's not leadership, that's just professional whining.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
You make the mistake of assuming that I favour Kerry. I wholeheartedly do not. I see him as being little different from Bush Sr. I agree that he has flip-flopped on most issues.
However, absolutely none of this changes my belief that Bush has to go, one way or another. He is a menace to the international community in so very many ways. I believe that much of American foreign policy (economic, trade, military) must change -- but the bigger issue right now is getting Bush out of office. Nothing will change with him at the helm.
However, absolutely none of this changes my belief that Bush has to go, one way or another. He is a menace to the international community in so very many ways. I believe that much of American foreign policy (economic, trade, military) must change -- but the bigger issue right now is getting Bush out of office. Nothing will change with him at the helm.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwalder:
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it." - Groucho Marx
Don't make the mistake that Kerry will make a change for the better. No leadership is not the answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't I know it. But I said this in another thread last week -- I'd be happier having a guy in charge of the most dominant country in the world who needs to consult with his party and the international community (when appropriate) than settle for a guy who makes very barbaric decisions in the name of leadership.
I don't think the US has ever had a president so despised by the international community. If Bush does get re-elected, I wonder what will be the over/under on how long it takes before there's an attempt on his life?
"Be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it." - Groucho Marx
Don't make the mistake that Kerry will make a change for the better. No leadership is not the answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't I know it. But I said this in another thread last week -- I'd be happier having a guy in charge of the most dominant country in the world who needs to consult with his party and the international community (when appropriate) than settle for a guy who makes very barbaric decisions in the name of leadership.
I don't think the US has ever had a president so despised by the international community. If Bush does get re-elected, I wonder what will be the over/under on how long it takes before there's an attempt on his life?
i personally believe that 4 years isnt enough time to give a president, as it leads to short sighted decisions instead of a well thought out strategy. in my opinion kerry would be a one termer anyway so i would like to see how george handles the next four
presidents have very little affect on the economy in general but they usually get credit or blame when the natural business cycle occurs so that is a non issue for me.
the only person that might have brought a more inclusive policy in international relations was wes clark, so that becomes a non issue for me.
and the social issues that seem to be the rage today would not change dramatically with bush or kerry so another non issue.
i just wish we could skip this election and see where the war and tax cuts will lead us in the next four years. because despite how people feel about the two candidates, those are the only 2 real issues to discuss unless ive missed something over the last 4 years.
presidents have very little affect on the economy in general but they usually get credit or blame when the natural business cycle occurs so that is a non issue for me.
the only person that might have brought a more inclusive policy in international relations was wes clark, so that becomes a non issue for me.
and the social issues that seem to be the rage today would not change dramatically with bush or kerry so another non issue.
i just wish we could skip this election and see where the war and tax cuts will lead us in the next four years. because despite how people feel about the two candidates, those are the only 2 real issues to discuss unless ive missed something over the last 4 years.
