How could you NOT vote for John Kerry?

[GoodSpeak]

How could you NOT vote for John Kerry?

I mean, are you fond of corporations, greed, unjustified war, the draft, HUGE multi-TRILLION dollar deficits, and religious bigotry?

I could go ON.



I ask you, straight out...which is better: Bush or Kerry?



Kerry is in it for the people.



Bush is in it for the money.






Prove me wrong...I dare you.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Kerry is in it for the people.

Good one.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Kerry is in it for the people.

He's a "people person".

[GoodSpeak]

I see.

So Crawjo...you go back on your word now?

And JMJ, a man for the corporation is better?


Gimme a break, huh?

[moneyp]

Alternative thread title: Swimming Through Tapioca.

[BFrank]

Back to the subject at hand.........I honestly don't know how anyone could vote for anyone but Kerry. The alternative is just too scary.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I see.

So Crawjo...you go back on your word now?

And JMJ, a man for the corporation is better?


Gimme a break, huh?

Goody, I'm not going to vote for Bush, but I'm also not going to fall for the latest Dem. propaganda. Dig?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Goody, I'm not going to vote for Bush, but I'm also not going to fall for the latest Dem. propaganda. Dig?

A cop-out, then.


Yeah...I dig.



Uh-huh, yes I do.

[chuckyd4]

No way Kerry is a "man of the people", but he certainly seems like a more responsible choice IMO.

Well I guess that depends which "people" you're talking about, but definitely not my kind of people. The Economist has an interesting write-up on him this week - they seem to be leaning towards endorsing him, if I'm reading the subtext right.

Most interestingly, they discuss two of the main Republican criticisms - 1) that he's "the most liberal member of the Senate - way outside the mainstream" and 2) that he's some throwback "tax and spend" liberal, and they pretty thoroughly debunk those claims.

Propaganda sucks from both sides. IMHO. Of course.

[crawjo]

So you believe what Kerry says. You trust his sincerity on all the issues he raised during his speech?

A question: If it is true, that as commander-in-chief he will ask the hard questions and demand good evidence before going to war, as he claimed last night, why didn't he do that as a Senator, prior to casting his vote for the Iraq war?

[chuckyd4]

Sheesh.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by crawjo

So you believe what Kerry says. You trust his sincerity on all the issues he raised during his speech?

A question: If it is true, that as commander-in-chief he will ask the hard questions and demand good evidence before going to war, as he claimed last night, why didn't he do that as a Senator, prior to casting his vote for the Iraq war?

I see.

So you have determined that anybody who votes based upon false or trumped-up evidence is a hypocrite when that same person finds out he was lied to?


I mean to tell you, I am amazed at the level of pessimistic acceptance in our youth. Accept the Green at face value, blindly welcome the republican radical right....constantly and forever question the Democrats.



I am simply amazed, Crawjo.

So you have determined that anybody who votes based upon false or trumped-up evidence is a hypocrite when that same person finds out he was lied to?

Be reasonable here, Brother Goodz.

There is this dastardly little deed out there in the real world called counter-intelligence. It's not all black and white, and I'd be willing to bet that it is one of the most extremely difficult situations that our government and their employees have to deal with.

Bottom line? Kerry saw the same exact intel that Bush did, and came to the exact same conclusion.

Me? I'll give both sides a break. Perhaps you may do the same one day.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I see.

So you have determined that anybody who votes based upon false or trumped-up evidence is a hypocrite when that same person finds out he was lied to?

You didn't answer the question. Kerry is right to regard war as a serious endeavour. As Senator for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he cast a vote authorizing the President of the United States to use force in Iraq. He is responsible for that vote. In his speech last night, he claimed that as president, he will ask the hard questions and demand hard evidence prior to authorizing a war. So why couldn't he do the same thing as Senator? Why didn't he ask hard questions and demand hard evidence prior to casting a vote to authorize the President to make war? Why did the "hard questions" only come after the invasion, after our troops were already dying in Iraq?

Would it be fair to say that Kerry voted for the war because he was afraid of the political consequences of voting against it? I think that would be fair. If so, what does that say about his qualifications for leadership? When it was politically expedient for him to support a war, he did so. When it was politically expedient for him to oppose it after it had already started, that's what he did. Why would we expect anything different from him once he becomes president? That is a very important question that he is going to have to answer during this campaign.

I mean, really, sheesh.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Would it be fair to say that Kerry voted for the war because he was afraid of the political consequences of voting against it?

Of course not--that would not be fair. It can't be proved. One might just as easily conclude that he voted to authorize the war for any number of nondamning reasons, including wishing to support the president, as Congress usually does in matters of war, on the basis of evidence that was "hard" but has nonetheless proved to be largely false.

"Bush lied, people died."

[GoodSpeak]

No, Crawjo.

You didn't justfy your answer.

My response speaks volumes about the George the II lies about Iraq.


Quit trying to cover, Crawjo...Kerry is the best possible candidate and no quirk in a Senate vote is going to change that.



You just won't commit.





























Cop-out.


Plain and simple.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Be reasonable here, Brother Goodz.

There is this dastardly little deed out there in the real world called counter-intelligence. It's not all black and white, and I'd be willing to bet that it is one of the most extremely difficult situations that our government and their employees have to deal with.

Bottom line? Kerry saw the same exact intel that Bush did, and came to the exact same conclusion.

Me? I'll give both sides a break. Perhaps you may do the same one day.

I see.

And because George the II "stayed the course" even though it was wrong and Kerry decided it was a mistake given what we know now....all of a sudden Kerry is the hypocrite?


Intelligence allows for a change of mind, my Brother.



THAT is the decided difference between the two candidates.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak, going through his monthly belligerent phase, which coincides with the full moon

You just won't commit.


Cop-out.

Plain and simple.

GoodSpeak, you'll never get people to "commit" by insulting them and badgering them to "commit." Last time I checked, the vote was

A. private, and

B. conducted on the first Tuesday in November (or by absentee ballot shortly before that).

Crawjo doesn't owe it to you to "commit."

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I see.

And because George the II "stayed the course" even though it was wrong and Kerry decided it was a mistake given what we know now....all of a sudden Kerry is the hypocrite?


Intelligence allows for a change of mind, my Brother.



THAT is the decided difference between the two candidates.

So essentially, the only way you would be happy is if Bush said fuck it and pulled out the troops immediately?

Kerry didn't change his mind before the war started. After that it's a little too late.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So essentially, the only way you would be happy is if Bush said fuck it and pulled out the troops immediately?

Kerry didn't change his mind before the war started. After that it's a little too late.

Not exactly.

Kerry changed his mind after it was determined that the WMDs flat didin't exist and when it was determined the intelligence was suspect.


Bush, OTOH, should have pulled out before Barbara and Jenna were conceived.**




[**A cheap shot, yes, I agree....consider it "get back" for Chelsea, OK?]

[GoodSpeak]

BTW, Blue'?


I'm ignoring you.



No offense, I'm just being honest about it.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Of course not--that would not be fair. It can't be proved. One might just as easily conclude that he voted to authorize the war for any number of nondamning reasons, including wishing to support the president, as Congress usually does in matters of war, on the basis of evidence that was "hard" but has nonetheless proved to be largely false.

"Bush lied, people died."

The evidence was hard but proved to be largely false. This is true. But yet, you say that "Bush lied" even though that can't be proved either. Bush based his decision on the same evidence that Kerry used to base his. Given this, why should we think that Kerry would have reached a different conclusion, had he been president?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by crawjo

The evidence was hard but proved to be largely false. This is true. But yet, you say that "Bush lied" even though that can't be proved either. Bush based his decision on the same evidence that Kerry used to base his. Given this, why should we think that Kerry would have reached a different conclusion, had he been president?

[*ahem*]

If I may...

The difference would be Kerry would have been in direct contact with those who provide such intelligence instead of fobbing it off on Uncle Cheney and/or the intellegence commitee.


Hint: Commanding in wartime situations makes you a better leader than swilling beer while pretending to be on duty at the Alabama Air National Guard.



Just thought I'd share.

[al j]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Of course not--that would not be fair. It can't be proved. One might just as easily conclude that he voted to authorize the war for any number of nondamning reasons, including wishing to support the president, as Congress usually does in matters of war, on the basis of evidence that was "hard" but has nonetheless proved to be largely false.

"Bush lied, people died."

I hate to use your comments as example, Rita, but this is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. You defend speculation against Kerry's vote but then go on to say that Bush himself lied, which also cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven that he is in it for the money, nor that the war is finishing his dad's business, etc. etc. The war and the past three years leading up to this point may not be easy for people to stomach and outright angers some, but we need to be consistent with our ideas of fair.

I also just want to say that I love Crawjo's logic when it comes to these matters. I have the same questioning attitude but only wish I could express myself as well. Your posts up above are very refreshing to me.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Joe Christmas

I hate to use your comments as example, Rita, but this is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. You defend speculation against Kerry's vote but then go on to say that Bush himself lied, which also cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven that he is in it for the money, nor that the war is finishing his dad's business, etc. etc. The war and the past three years leading up to this point may not be easy for people to stomach and outright angers some, but we need to be consistent with our ideas of fair.

I also just want to say that I love Crawjo's logic when it comes to these matters. I have the same questioning attitude but only wish I could express myself as well. Your posts up above are very refreshing to me.

Thank you very much, Mr. Christmas! It's nice to know that somebody appreciates these debates.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Joe Christmas

I hate to use your comments as example, Rita, but this is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. You defend speculation against Kerry's vote but then go on to say that Bush himself lied, which also cannot be proven. Nor can it be proven that he is in it for the money, nor that the war is finishing his dad's business, etc. etc. The war and the past three years leading up to this point may not be easy for people to stomach and outright angers some, but we need to be consistent with our ideas of fair.

I also just want to say that I love Crawjo's logic when it comes to these matters. I have the same questioning attitude but only wish I could express myself as well. Your posts up above are very refreshing to me.

Hm.

Isn't it interesting how Crawjo defends himself by not answering the challenge.

And you are willing to accept Bush told the truth, then?

Blue' can "express" herself well and so can I, yet Crawjo's non-commital answers are favorable to you?




Perhaps this is what you find so "logical", eh?

[al j]

Okay, Goodspeak. Express yourself and explain this challenge you've laid out for Crawjo. Because all I read was how-can-I-not-vote-for-Kerry followed by some blabbery about a draft and then some unqualified garbage about how the presidency is a big moneymaking sham for Bush.

Then you gargled with more of your own logic then spit it in Crawjo's direction, but failed to even acknowledge his very coherently-stated point, you know, the one about Kerry needing to justify his own vote for war.

As for whether or not Bush told the truth, I am simply not willing to call him a liar. I do not know and I think it's foolish for anyone to make such a claim without hard evidence. They impeach people for shit like that, remember? And last time I checked there wasn't any detectable movement in Washington, or among the people for that matter, running in the interest of Bush's removal. Aside from the legal election thing, of course.

I've answered your first question but now need some clarity on your second: exactly how and on what issue is Crawjo unwilling to commit?

The difference would be Kerry would have been in direct contact with those who provide such intelligence instead of fobbing it off on Uncle Cheney and/or the intellegence commitee.

This is a foolish speculation.

Presidents have a cabinet for a reason.

[pollo loco]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Goody, I'm not going to vote for Bush, but I'm also not going to fall for the latest Dem. propaganda. Dig?

Oh, yes!. You're gonna vote for Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[moneyp]

Swimming Through Tapioca. Why, guys?