Why vote for Kerry?

Other than his 4 Months in Vietnam which is a pointless reason to vote for someone why should we vote for Kerry? List his accomplishments that make him presidential material.

No Bush slams make this all about Kerrys qulaifications please.

I have one. Theresa H Kerry said last week that if I vote for her husband " John Kerry will stop global warming". Anyone more powerful than the Sun gets my vote :p

Whatsamatter? Running out of things to smear/attack so you're looking for more fodder? As enlightened as you claim to be, I'd figure you already know why people are voting for Kerry. You're not actually admitting there's something you don't already know, are you?

As I thought no reasons just the old ad hominem attack. I would bet there are very few reasons anyone can come up with other tha he is not GW.

Right on que, Elvis.

By the way, not surprisingly,

doesn't even make sense.

1. A plan to reduce the deficit in half in 4 years.
2. Provide a fresh start and new leadership that the rest of the world does not associate negitivity with Bush. This should lead to new alliances for the war on terror.
3. A president willing to take on the health care establishment and runaway premiums.
4. Support for Stem Cell Research.
5. A platform that values families, not just stating that they support family values.
6. A plan for energy independence.
7. Pro Environment.

I'd say, that's a good start.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. How many times have you been told, "Don't feed the animals!"

very funny GH!

Jeff'ed,

At least you have a few.


1. A plan to reduce the deficit in half in 4 years.
(Kerry has not outlined how he will do this in a manner that any economist can see it working)


2. Provide a fresh start and new leadership
that the rest of the world does not associate negitivity with Bush. This should lead to new alliances for the war on terror.
( Name the countries that will sign on and has sstated as such)


3. A president willing to take on the health care establishment and runaway premiums.
( Without raising taxes or increasing spending? How will that happen. Remember The other John made 50 million suing Drs. and insurance companies. I cannot imagine the trial lawyers supporting him if he plans to cut out their bread and butter can you?)


4. Support for Stem Cell Research.
How without increasing taxes or spending and cutting the deficiet at the same time?)


5. A platform that values families, not just stating that they support family values.
(Intangible)


6. A plan for energy independence.
One thing he said that I agree on is a .50 cent tax on a gallon of gas. He woul add it to the general fund I would not and would want to see 100% of it go to alternative fuel programs.)

7. Pro Environment.
( How so? his voting record does not reflect such)

John Kerry will....
1.Restore respect for America from our allies that was squandered by Bush
2.Protect the enviroment
3.Not pander to huge corporations like Halliburton and Enron or groups like the NRA
4.Not be controlled by the so-called "Christian Right"
5.Not drag the US into a bogus war
6.Restore stem-cell research
7.Protect a woman's right to choose
8.Not try to fill the Supreme Court with right wing idealogy
9.Reduce the deficit like Clinton did by making the wealthy pay their share of income without using huge loopholes that the GOP provides

The debates should help ferret out the pie in the sky from a reasonable plan and I am truly looking forward to them. Yesterday, when asked by Tim Russert will the Bush / Cheney campaign for 2004 commit to 3 debates, the campaign spokesman waffled a bit......

I would vote for anyone that has a chance at knocking Bush out of office.

Al Gore counted on the debates also and did not get what he hoped for. I think they will hurt Kerry because he will have to get specific something he has avoided to date.

Maybe so TK. Last time, when the lights were on Al Gore, he hesitated and didn't seize the moment. Based on what I've seen from Kerry, I don't see that happening again. Plus, Bush is going to have to run on his record this time. Not just attack his opponent.

(Kerry has not outlined how he will do this in a manner that any economist can see it working)
He'll outline it after January when he's inaugurated.

( Name the countries that will sign on and has sstated as such)
Come on, now. Someone as enlightened as you surely knows that no country will endorse a candidate against an incumbent prior to the election. Not smart geopolitics.

( Without raising taxes or increasing spending? How will that happen. Remember The other John made 50 million suing Drs. and insurance companies. I cannot imagine the trial lawyers supporting him if he plans to cut out their bread and butter can you?)
A nonpartisan study shows that lawsuits contribute very little to the raising healthcare costs. By the way, your example is ad hominem.

How without increasing taxes or spending and cutting the deficiet at the same time?)
By lessening the restrictions.

(Intangible)
Not when looking at the big picture full of color.


One thing he said that I agree on is a .50 cent tax on a gallon of gas. He woul add it to the general fund I would not and would want to see 100% of it go to alternative fuel programs.)
He supports alternative fuel research.

( How so? his voting record does not reflect such)
Yes it does.

(Kerry has not outlined how he will do this in a manner that any economist can see it working)
He'll outline it after January when he's inaugurated.

Most think it's important to see now unless you plan to vote for someone just because he is not the other guy. But heck you do not even understand the current budget and the effects of policy why would care what will happen in 05.

( Name the countries that will sign on and has sstated as such)
Come on, now. Someone as enlightened as you surely knows that no country will endorse a candidate against an incumbent prior to the election. Not smart geopolitics.)

Wrongo beacuse the only countires that could sign on and offer any effective help are UN security council countries like France, Russia, Germany,China and thier conflict of interest issues and domestic policy issues would stop them committing enough peace keepers to make a difference. Any idiot knows this except a few here. Secondly pandering for thier support now only weakens our national defense in the future. The military is the hammer of our policies if you will not use it it loses effectiveness as Bill Clinton proved for 8 years Re: Iraq, Nk and Iran.


( Without raising taxes or increasing spending? How will that happen. Remember The other John made 50 million suing Drs. and insurance companies. I cannot imagine the trial lawyers supporting him if he plans to cut out their bread and butter can you?)

A nonpartisan study shows that lawsuits contribute very little to the raising healthcare costs. By the way, your example is ad hominem.

It is the number one factor in the rising cost of healthcare to the individual.

It's not ad hominem is a legitimate question
and one yourself have raised numerous times re Dick Cheny and Haliburton.

How without increasing taxes or spending and cutting the deficiet at the same time?)
By lessening the restrictions.
What restrictions? Specifics

(Intangible)
Not when looking at the big picture full of color.


One thing he said that I agree on is a .50 cent tax on a gallon of gas. He woul add it to the general fund I would not and would want to see 100% of it go to alternative fuel programs.)
He supports alternative fuel research.
Everyone does the question is about effectivly funding it without rasising taxes and hurting the economy. Again no specifics from you.


( How so? his voting record does not reflect such)

Yes it does. Specifics?

What you and the Bush admin. seem to be confused about is that for many people, that's all the reason they need to vote for Kerry.

No ballot I ever saw had a space where you write in your reasons for voting for a particular candidate.

DanS

I did not format this thread as a ballot and asked for opinions. So I would not be wrong in expecting them good or bad.

It's called a conversation Dan it's optional you do not have to take part at least the last time I checked the forum rules.

Then again only a fool would vote for someone that he did not clearly understand the issues and where his candidate stood. If that shoe fits people here then so be it.

Actually, I think it would take an idiot to understand what you just said - you know, birds of a feather, and all.

I don't know where you dream this stuff up, but sometimes you should just concede ignorance instead of proving it to the world.

Reference?

What?? English, man, english.


Awk!! I told myself to quit feeding the animals and encouraging them. Must ... stop .... reasoning ...

And I say that only a fool would vote for Bush.

I guess we're even, then.

GH,

More proof the the option limited choose the military in which to hide.

Were you really wanting to know why people are going to vote for Kerry? Or is it just possible you were hoping someone would respond so you could flame them and every reason they have for voting? Gee... never would have expected that from you!

Is it possible that others may have the same depth of conviction about their reasons for voting as you? Oh I get it, you are the only "really" educated person on here. You obviously went to school far enough away from the freeway to get a quality education. You know, away from all the infectious tattooed libs with all their bumperstickers and dumb directionally challenged muslim friends.

Stop pretending. You meant to title this thread the "Kerry bashing thread" and you meant to ask people to volunteer to be sacrificed at the TK Altar of political knowledge. You have no intention of ever even having a half assed discussion of politics on this board as your mind is slammed shut from any other possible reality other than your own. The few here that respond are only serving to fulfill your need to prove yourself right. If you have so much conviction about your man Bush, why the need to prove everyone else wrong????

The beauty of it all for me is that 90% of the people I know voting for Kerry would be voting for a sock puppet if it were running against Bush. That is because they have fundamental belief things need to change and it starts with our current administration. I don't need to sell Kerry, I don't need to defend him, I need to check his name on the ballot so we can start repairing some of the damage this administration has caused.

DanS,

You can say it but you cannot back it up. But why would you do that when emotion and feelings substitute for thought in your world.

Not one person here has ever backed up their vote for Kerry based on detailed actions Kerry would take on point by point issues. Just emotion and feelings, yes their right but don't play it off as right or even informed.

Wailuku,

Honestly I wanted to see if people had reasons for voting for Kerry other than the " He is not Bush " diatribe they try to pass off as an informed reason. Jeff'ed did a good job of outlining 7 reasons but I doubt he or anyone can back them up with facts and figures on Kerrys position. What difference does it make what my motivation is BTW? If you don't like it don't respond or just call me a Dickwad and move on. I promise it won't hurt my feelings. Care to offer na opinion or are you sticking with I am a Dickwad as your response? :p

Oh, changing baits? Nice try you unemotional colorblind Bush voting fool.

I can honestly tell you that I believe, based on what I've read and heard on countless political venues that Kerry's position on every issue that I raised has more foundation that Bush's, but I really don't care to take the time to post endless supporting documentation here. As I said, the debates will go a long way to validating that.

I do agree with you though TK, that people should consider the issues and what candidate supports the type of country that they want to see. But it's more than just facts and figures. I can honestly tell you that I feel betrayed by Bush and that he deceived us to go to war. Bush is not just a cog in the political wheel, but our leader.

The one figure that you cannot dispute is the deficit that Bush has driven and I haven't heard anything from him, other than supply side hyperbole, that deals with that.

"Care to offer na opinion or are you sticking with I am a Dickwad as your response?"

No, I bow to your superior knowledge and higher intellect. Your ability to be verbose and refrain from name calling is truly your most redeeming quality. In fact I think that is what has won me over. I'm sure glad you have kids. With values like yours being perpetuated I will sleep well at night knowing our country will head in the right direction.

TK,

I'm going to sleep just fine tonight. And I'll sleep even better when GW packs his **** and moves out of the WH.

Jeff'ed

The deficit is really easy to understand if you look into the federal budget add in Iraq and Afgahanistan wars. But seeing that the largest % comes form mandatory SSN and Human services increases does little good if you feel that the Iraq war was baseless.

Wail,

You miss this point. That you can call me any name it the book directly, qualified or thinly veiled and I could care less . It does not effect me in the least. Secondly you cannot find one post here where I have name called one person that did not do it to me first. Once they do it they find out that I enjoy it and I am better at it than they are and they usually stop or move past it and get back to the point.

So you're good at calling names, huh?

Color me impressed.

It's probably because we clearly have no understanding of how to formulate good names and then use them in a witty manner.

Oh well...............

Your point is that you are a good name caller? Neato! Yeah, now that I look back on it "dickwad" was pretty spectacularly formed. I'm impressed! I am waiting with baited breath for your next gem.

Oh yeah, the "they did it first" excuse explains everything. Don't forget to pull your trump card you know the one, the old "they made me do it"... Kind of reminds you of a child doesn't it?

Yes he has called me everything from a friend of Fidel Castro to accusing me of being gay. I'm betting he is an avid listener to the Michael Savage show because this is the exact same crap that Savage does with people who disagree with him.
Little E it was you and SCOWAK that started the name calling crap and you know it.
It was also you two who started the calling guys like JLH out at the pier.
You want to debate politics? Fine! but leave the ignorant gutter bull$hit out of it.
At least you don't hide behind the phoney pretense that you are some kind of Christian like SCOWAK does.
I know Marsha's husband Mike and if he hadn't just had back surgery I'm pretty sure he would be looking for you if he knew the names you have been calling her.
Grow up and act like an adult !

This may be a bit off topic, but I just have to ask...... Why should the wealthiest of americans pay more of their income in taxes than the middle class or less fortunate, especially since they are the ones that use government programs the least????? They are american just like I am american, if I pay 28% or 20% or whatever, why shouldn't they pay 28% or 20% or whatever??? Just because they had the drive, ambition, intelligence or just plain good luck, to make millions upon millions, why do so many people want to punish them with higher taxes??? I don't get it....would you feel the same if you won the super lotto for 100 mil tomorrow? Would you offer up those higher taxes if you had your stroke of good luck? Or maybe you'd just offer up about 20 million and donate to the national debt because you feel like you should be paying more in taxes than what they are taking?

Wasn't it the Declaration of Independance, the foundation of our country, that said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Well if we are all equal, why not tax us all equally?

Couldn't agree more. 20% of 1 million is 200,000. 20% 0f 100,000 is 20,000.

They are already paying much much more, but people want to up it even higher... It just doesn't make sense.

Whats strange though, is that I honestly do have respect for Kerry, as he is obviously driven by a strong will. Any man who can stick to his guns like that will definitely leave an impression in me.

However, it seems that his followers have no respect whatsoever for President Bush.

My only request for the people on this board is that you show a little respect for Bush. He's done pretty well for himself, and your jealousy is just getting rediculous. Who cares if he was born with a silver spoon. He obviously took advantage of it.

Once again, "uh oh".

Curtis

Originally posted by Stew:

Little E it was you and SCOWAK that started the name calling crap and you know it.--Stew
------------------------------------------------------------

Stew,

I'm only speaking for myself, but it's you guys on the left that constantly refer to people who's personal politics you don't agree with disrespectful nick names. The only name other than your moniker I've referred to you by was Disco Stew, and that was only after you had repeatedly and rudely referrenced me with names other than my moniker--If I'm wrong, please correct me. When you guys can no longer argue or dispute logic the names/insults start flying. That seems to be the far lefts M.O. I've tried to rise above it and follow H20's example of being more respectful and intellectually engaging. That's still a work in progress, but at least I'm trying.

As for your Savage analogy, I happen to agree with you that he's a BUFFOON. He certainly doesn't represent any conservatives I look up to. If you want to hear an intellegent, articulate knowledgeble conservative, I would invite you to listen to Michael Medved (12:00-3:00pm: 770 AM)--He's someone that I think very highly of, that represents the conservative viewpoint very well. --RB
------------------------------------------------------------

At least you don't hide behind the phoney pretense that you are some kind of Christian like SCOWAK does.--Stew
------------------------------------------------------------


What does 'phoney pretense' mean?

In the past, you've accused me of claiming I was a prophet--when I requested that you post any statements I've made to that effect you never posted any--- I'm still waiting.

I never claimed to be a perfect Christian, but I'm not going to apologize to you or anyone else for believing in something bigger than myself.

Lastly, you've referenced Jesus and the bible yourself--are you a fellow believer?--RB

I've listened to Medved and you are right he is much less bombastic than those other idiots like Rush and Sean. Unfortunately he parrots the same right wing dogma that the rest do :rolleyes: Almost word for word! The rumor that the RNC gives these radio guys specific talking points appears to be true. He ought to stick to his movie reviews and leave the political commentary alone.
I've studied the bible extensively but am not a practicing believer.I hate the way the so called "Christian Right" is trying to force their belief upon the rest of us and now that they have that stooge Bush in the White House they are even worse!
Also I know that to follow Christ is an ongoing work but for cryin' out loud RB what the hell are you doing wanting to fight someone because of political differences? Don't you think you should be asking yourself "What Would Jesus Do" in that kind of situation instead of fighting?
There is room here for intelligent political debate but it seems it always detriorates into name calling and when some tries to explain why they like John Kerry over Bush you righties jump all over them and do everything from questioning their sexual orienatation to calling them communists.

Jesus would kick some frickin ass, that's what he'd do!

Look people, there is a huge difference between calling someone a douchebag, or in tk's case 'ledouchebag' and making fun of your nick. See, making fun of someones nick takes some thought and effort both on the part of the humorist and the reader. Is it any surprise then that righty is the one who doesn't get that?

Apparently righty thinks its only funny and fair to call names when they're argued into a corner. Happens alot around here, right Elvis?

Grow some fuzz on your forum balls, wouldya?

How can I respect this man? I didn't like Reagan but I respected him. I didn't like Bush #1 and I respected him too. This clown does not deserve my respect because of the way he has polarized this nation and thrust us into a war that we hadn't no business being in.
He and his minions continue to pay dirty politics for the sake of clinging to power at all costs.
We are still over two months away from the election and I fear we have not even began to see the worst that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush are capable of doing to win this election.
Am I paaranoid? No! I'm scared sh*tless at the spectre of what the GOP will do to hold onto power. These guys are high tech Richard Nixon clones.

Why?

How about this....because Bouche had his chance and screwed it up. The kind of screw ups that don't deserve a second chance.

I didn't vote for him but I could have the second time if he didn't prove to be such an incompetent boob AND he was more interesting than the other candidate.

Furthermore, after having watched the tactics of the republican party closely this election, I'm not sure I can ever vote for them again.

Ever.

Stewie,

The real world works like this. You get what you give. If you think you can call someone a name, any name what you consider to be little or big and they are not allowed to respond or you take offense to it you need to grow up. You and a few others started with the Chickenhawk BS and now you want to cry foul. So very typical of liberals. If AM's husband has an issue with anyone it should be her. This is another example of your liberal whiney assed thought process. She comes on a BB dominated by men insults them when she cannot make a point and then wants to play the "I am a sensative" woman card and there should be chivalry? If a woman wants to mouth off to men she gets what she gets. If she wants to act like a lady it's a different story. The grown up thing to do is stop the insults yourself if thats what you expect of others.

H20
"Look people, there is a huge difference between calling someone a douchebag, or in tk's case 'ledouchebag' and making fun of your nick. See, making fun of someones nick takes some thought and effort both on the part of the humorist and the reader. Is it any surprise then that righty is the one who doesn't get that?"

There is only a huge difference if there is context. If you know someone and over the course of your friendship you have come to a place where you both agree that it is ok it works. If you just meet a person for the first time or casually know them you would not do such a thing because it could be seen as an insult or provocation. Here 100% of the time in the context of heat of the debate it is a provocation. One then cannot complain about the outcome as they intiated the walk down that path. To deny your intent is a lie in that case.

BTW how do you get Chickenhawk or Neocon from TheKing if your game is as innocent as you claim?

Aunty you are loved by many!

AM,

Obviously your memory is selective. I was polite to you until you whished me dead . Even your so called friends chided you for going over the line.
"You even had the gall to insult Salmo g. "
He called me a moron and my comments moronic I took it as an invite to play the game by his rules. Again the first slavo was not mine. I did not know that he has some special status here. Again please show me where I have called anyone a name that they did not fist do such to me. Maybe you could back it up with a $1000 cash donation to a PPP named charity for everyone you do not find? It would only be 12 or 15 g's.

It's easy for cowards to make accusations lets see you back it up for once. This is the second go around for you without backing it up AM whats your excuse this time?

There is always context, Elvis. A moniker is all the context one needs to make a joke. Its a given that we know nothing of each other personally, why then take something like a dig at yer moniker so personally? Your effeminate side is showing again, Mr. Sensitive.

And hey there was big newsflash this morning, you might have missed it..... Internet bb's are not real life. I could care less any more if some dolt that can't formulate thoughts well enough to respond intelligently to arguments made by an undereducated musclehead like myself. In fact it further elucidates my points about the core of conservatism. Let's just say that it appeals to the less cerebral elements of our culture on the whole, those would prefer not to expend too much energy evolving thoughts, ideas and concepts into reality.

You'd rather have the church tell you the world is flat or the government tell you we need to go to war so you don't have to figure it out for yourself. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

What are we left to think when all that's left in your verbal arsenal is fat jokes and derision? I can't help but think to myself 'total loser'. I take pride in in extracting low brow insults from you, Elvis. It makes you and your constituency look even worse, if that's possible. It undermines the moral high ground upon which your political ideals are based. It means I'm doing what I set out to do in these political forums, exposing the truth about the conservative base and the hypocrisy on which it is founded.

H20,

You have to assume that people care about what you think or say and that is a false assumption on your part. You have no idea who people are that post here as all you get are snippets and your own presumptions fill in the rest. So anything that you create from it is of your own making and truely reflective of your character more than the other guys.


AM,

Selective memory again, here is how it really happened. the topic was the Iraq war I support it and you do not. You took offnse to it and started on your usual diatribe about how i had no right to support a war if I would not fight in it. I posted that my family had been involved in almost every war in this countries history up to and including this war. You said you wished I where dead after that post by me. Mush later after you made a false accusation that I had threatened you bodily harm I said I could hire a fat woman to come and fight you if you really wanted. Now lets put up or shut up. I will pay $1000 dollars to a PPP charity if you can prove that I called you a name to your whishing me dead. If not you pay $1000. I can make that bet with 100% confidence because it is not in my nature to call someone a name until they do it first.

Put up or shut up!

h20

we care...... or at least I do

thanks led.

elvis, the veracity and frequency with which you respond to my posts indicates you DO care. If you didn't care you'd ignore me.

You can be forgiven for that though, its hard to ignore having your entire belief system laid bare for the hypocritical, racist, self-reightousness that it is.

H20,

I would love to ignore you but you keep addressing post to me. Why I remeber one of several weeks ago that you vowed to keep at the top. Yet when challenged you went silent.

------------------------------------------------------------

Stew,

I never took issue with or started anything with anyone because of their personal political differences.

I'm the person that has maintained that it's OK to attack someone's personal politics, but it's not OK to personally attack someone because of their politics. There is a profound difference--unfortunately, there some people on this board that don't understand or agree with that.

This whole thing started when I was continually accused of somehow being a coward because I happen to support our troops and have happened to have made a different carreer choice than someone else.
I respect my country, democracy, capitalism and ALL of our troops. I don't say like some others that, "I support our troops--I just don't support what they're doing right now." I support the American troops 100%-- whether history will prove what they've carried out recently was adviseble or not. After being repeatedly publically accused of being a coward, I finally ran out of cheeks to turn and offered a forum to do it in person--still no takers. I thought this whole unfortunate thing had blown over--judge for yourself who re-opened that issue and who is cyberly throwing fuel on a fire that had just about extinguished.
------------------------------------------------------------
As for your comments about republican talking points, both sides talk and address the same issues on a given days plate--that's politics.

Even though Michael Medved may be in agreement with some others on a given issue, the thing I like about him as opposed to others is that he doesn't just take calls from people who agree with him and tell him how great he is. He primarily invites and takes calls from people who disagree with him and allows them an opportunity to 'air' their views/opinions. When he offers his view/opinion in return he does it respectfully and many times with verafiable facts and an historical example to help make his point.

I get letters addressed to me all the time.

'you might have alreday won.....'

'confidential'

etc

If I don't care about them, I ignore them.

Like Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"
------------------------------------------------------------

I don't agree with some of the things Theking says or the way he says them.

However, you guys like to verbally gang rape him like he's the new fish in the State Pen.---If he finally says 'F' that noise and comes out swinging---can you blame him?

Why don't we all agree to put the "I'm rubber--you're glue" flak jackets away and politely and respectfully debate the issues at hand.

The politicians and their politics are fair game.

It would be more adult and definatly more productive as a forum if we stopped personally attacking people because of their politics, and limited our attacks to politicians and their politics.

I am calling on Theking and Grandpa to take the first step towards civlity---if you put the past were it belongs (in the past) and address people by their monikers and post opinions and questions respectfully and in return you're insulted and rudely referenced--then that will speak for itself.

It's worth a try to at least start fresh and wipe the slate clean.

If that dosen't work there's always 'dodgeball.'

AM,
"Hey TK, you forgot one thing. You removed at least one post back then and tried to misrepresent my response to you."

Not true AM that was the first baseless accusation you have made. When have I ever run from anything you have said? I would never remove a post and have never removed a post.

RB,

I have offered all multiple times that if they wanted to stop the name calling all they have to do is say so and I would be happy to return the favor.

------------------------------------------------------------

Why don't you be the BIGGER man and start first.

If you make an earnest and continued effort to be civil, and the insults and name calling continue from your political adversaries--then that will say alot more to onlookers about the people throwing the names and insults than it will about the person there being thrown at.

RB,

You know it's not that easy. Look at the JLH example. You backed off on him and he is still coming full steam. Has that changed anyones opinion about you or have the stopped the name calling? Secondly if someone does not care to look into the facts of the matter I have little control of how I am percieved and either does anyone else. If they cared at all they would have never started it in the fist place. I'll give them a shot based on their actions.

The name calling hasn't bothered me that much as far as me getting called names.
What has bothered me is how TK and Grandpa have said some pretty cruel things to Aunty M.
TK you left the door wide open for someone to take a cheap shot at your wife but we, unlike you with your no class remarks about Marsha, didn't do it.
You guys want to call a truce? Fine but perhaps TK you could be a man and step up with some long over due apologies.

Stew,

Poor poor logic there Pal. 1st for your analogy to work I would have had to have taken shots at AM's husband which I have not. I believe you do not give AM credit for her role in anythting that has happened and secondly it is rather sexist for you to assume she is not capable of standing on her own two feet and defending herself. Youy make it sound as though I just upped and took cheap shots at her for no reason. You need to read more before you take it upon yourself to decide degreees of fault. And last for a guy who from his first post directed at me has taken cheap shot after cheap shot it is very shabby of you to claim any moral high ground.

Way to turn it around there TK :rolleyes: Apparently you're one of those who can never see their complicity in any dispute
It's always the other guys fault right?
Okay well I thought I would try to reason with you but that appears to be impossible.

Stew, I have never denied my role I have only claimed I did not start it which is true. You on the other hand have completely failed to dicuss your role and picked AM and myself instead to make your statement. What does that say about you?

------------------------------------------------------------

That's my point exactly---You do make good points sometimes---However, the way you present them makes some people automatically negate anything you've said regardless of whether it made since or not.

As much as you read, I'm sure you've read Carnegie's, 'How to win friends and influence people'. I'm sure you don't neccessarily care to make friends in this forum--but if you want to influence the discourse--there is a more effective way to do it.

In the final analysis, the only behavior we can control is our own.

Let your ideas and views be what gets people thinking and not the way they were presented.

"He started it! Nuh uh, SHE started it! DID NOT! DID TOO!"

Okay okay... Seriously TK, if someone on an online forum doesn't like who, who the hell cares? If you honestly think youre above them, act like it. When you get pulled into this arguement of pure emotion, it makes you look just as petty as the guys saying "only a fool would vote for Bush."

A good arguement is: 1)Thought out (few of yours are). 2) Written well (I have trouble reading any of yours). 3) Lacking in emotion (All of yours are purely emotional).

Just my $.02...

Curtis

At least Bush is proud of his record (and I am too). Kerry refuses to discuss is Senatorial record....

Gee, I wonder why????

What record?

Exactly!!!! What record of Kerry's. God forbid that the media talk about him voting to cut every major weapons system we now currently use.....

Couldn't agree more.....

Once again for the comprehension impaired...

"Bush is proud of his record"

What record?

doggone it ...I go away again to fish and come back to see what's new.....same old choir is still singing to each other.....

Lets see, he cut my taxes BIG time (this tax break will now free up some money to send my child to a private school) and he liberated over 35 million people while fighting the WoT. He is about to open up the forests again to everybody thru the "healthy forests initative" which will save us hundreds of millions of dollars every year thru true conservation methods. He is a true hunter and fisherman that will protect my right to carry a firearm, and hunt and fish on federal land.

Now, what is in Kerry's senatorial record that he should be proud of again?

Oh yeah, did you know he served in Vietnam?

Neato...Bouche cut your taxes and now your children will inherit your debt, thumbs up BOUCHE.

There was surplus before this clown took office, REMEMBER?

Neato....Bouche "liberated" 35 million people. Read the news today? Ahhhh, the sweet song of liberty.... link ....oh, and....



The WoT? Please give me one significant accomplishment of Bouche's in fighting the war on terror? Osama? The Taliban? His horrible decisions have allowed Al Qaeda to increase its ranks. In figting the war in Iraq it is nearlt universally agreed upon by the intelligence community that the war in Iraq has weakened our position in the war against terror. I don't suppose you'll go looking for that kind of analysis though, you'll just take whatever drivel falls out of Dumbya's gob.

The Taliban have regrouped and reorganized to the point that they control certain portions of Afghanistan again. Again, I suppose you missed these stories in the news. Yeah, they were on Fox too.

I'm not even touching the 'healthy forests initiative' which, since it hasn't been enacted yet, is not part of his 'record'. This however is the easiest assertion you have made to tear down if you'd just look into the fullness of its implications.


This is what he's proud of? This is what you support?

I'll bet he's proud of this part of his 'record' too... total loser

Is he proud of his record as governor of Texas? Hmmm, let me see what I can find on that. Oh lookie, those records are sealed.

Do you really think he's proud of his military record? How about his criminal record? Is he proud of his SEC violations?

Are you?

Sorry dude, you brought it up.

Grandpa-

Back from fishing and nothing to say as usual except disparaging remarks. Why risk having your arguments refuted or being asked a tough question, its way easier for you to come in, lob a dud grenade and bail.

Just as I can expect to be an anti-Bouche mouthpiece we've come to expect you to be a mouthpiece for nothing. Well done and effective, as usual.

here's another grenade.....have you noticed how your audience has shrunk?

I have an audience?

I'm talking to you.

See know this is how a discussion goes. I believe in Bush over Kerry. I have put forth my points and you have yours........Now....

What is in Kerry's senatorial record that he should be proud of again??? Why doesn't he bring up his senatorial record at all in his campaign????

Gee, I wonder why?? Could it be that he doesn't want people to remember what his record is?

***** C...R...I...C...K...E...T...S*****

One thing about that Maui10man

All your points are wrong

Its a moot point, IMO because as I stated above "Bouche had his chance and screwed it up. The kind of screw ups that don't deserve a second chance."....

He could be running against a cabbage patch kid and I'd still vote against him.

Not only that but Kerry HAS a record. Bouche's records prior to being president are sealed. Not a real level playing field if you ask me.

Nice to see that my **crickets** taunt is catching on....

I thought nobody cared what I had to say Elvis?

In your opinion.


Still waiting for someone to defend Kerry's "Liberal" senatorial record.......

I have always used the "crickets" comment at other pages... Didn't know it was copyrighted..."underH2O"...

H20,

Crickets have been around for years there is even a site you can down load them with sound. So I quess you are back in the same boat.