Kerry Comments...

[therealUT]

If by smarter, you mean nastier, I'd have to agree. But just because Bush went for the throats during elections and smeared his opponents names while his opponents actually approached the election process with dignity and pride doesn't make him smarter, just more of a butthole.

Kerry and Gore approached the election process with dignity? Thanks for the laugh, OWB.

 

[OWB]

Kerry and Gore approached the election process with dignity? Thanks for the laugh, OWB.

Compared to Bush? Absolutely.

 

[GAVol]

It's amazing how often Republicans get accused of being dumb. It seems to me that Democrats would think to themselves at some point "Hmmm . . . .we've only been able to elect two Democrat Presidents in the past 40 years. Maybe we're the one's that need to rethink some things."

 

[OWB]

I'm not calling all Republicans dumb, just Bush.

 

[GAVol]

Since Bush is so dumb, I guess it's lucky for him that he was able to trick his way to an Ivy League MBA.

Look . . . I hear the guy speak and sometimes he makes me cringe too, but I don't for a second think he's unintelligent.

 

[therealUT]

Since Bush is so dumb, I guess it's lucky for him that he was able to trick his way to an Ivy League MBA.

...or an SAT score of above 1200. He was a C student at Yale, however, never earned below a C in any class. Gore and Kerry both had multiple D's on their transcripts...

 

[SWIL]

Please, Dub-yah has had a sliver spoon in his mouth since the day he was born.

 

[OWB]

His Daddy's name got him a lot of things.

 

[SWIL]

His Daddy's name got him a lot of things.

*cough* PRESIDENCY *cough*
eace2:

 

[therealUT]

His Daddy's name got him a lot of things.

So, Gore's daddy got him nothing? Yeah, I buy that. Also, did Bush's daddy get him his SAT score? His grades at Yale? Al Gore, Sr. father was a very prominent Senator while Jr. was in college. W's father was not even a Texas congressman yet, when W graduated from Yale!

Another nice try...

 

[therealUT]

*cough* PRESIDENCY *cough*
eace2:

So, father did things for son when son was middle aged...good to know.

 

[OWB]

Money also gets you a lot of things.

 

[OrangeSquare]

The inability of the Liberals and the Democrats to understand that they are out of touch, will continue to cost them.

It's like GAVol said, they haven't had more than 2 Presidents in 40 years.

There IS a reason for that.

Keep calling Bush dumb, it worked real well for you in 2000, 2002, 2004, and if that's all you got, it won't help you any next week either.

 

[OWB]

It doesn't matter what I have, I'm not running.

Oh yeah, and Bush is dumb.

 

[GAVol]

Money also gets you a lot of things.

There's no doubt about that. I'm sure he's gotten a lot of opportunities due to money and his father and Grandfather's name . . . but I'm sorry, they didn't just hand W an Ivy League MBA.

 

[OWB]

There's no doubt about that. I'm sure he's gotten a lot of opportunities due to money and his father and Grandfather's name . . . but I'm sorry, they didn't just hand W an Ivy League MBA.

Bush didn't even have the SAT scores to get into Yale, but his family had the money. Everyone knows that once you get into Yale, it's a lot easier getting out of Yale. Getting your foot in the door is all you need.

Bush even bragged to students once saying that "C" students like himself could one day be President.

So how did he get into Harvard when he was only making average grades at Yale? It's about the money.

 

[GAVol]

Bush didn't even have the SAT scores to get into Yale, but his family had the money. Everyone knows that once you get into Yale, it's a lot easier getting out of Yale. Getting your foot in the door is all you need.

Bush even bragged to students once saying that "C" students like himself could one day be President.

So how did he get into Harvard when he was only making average grades at Yale? It's about the money.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Bush got into school based on family legacy. To think otherwise would be delusional. I also have no doubt that he's not the IQ equivalent of a doorknob.

 

[volinbham]

ok, get ready; you may not be prepared to recieve these comments, or your political allignment may not allow you to COMFORTABLY recieve them, but I am going to speak the truth, and I only pray that some of you will recieve them to a degree that will inspire you to dig deeper to verify their legitamacy. So here goes..

John Kerry, along with a number of other freely thinking Americans whose views are largely suppressed by the corporate-guided mainstream media, UNDERSTANDS the dispicable nature of this administration's policies and practices here and abroad. His comments from a few days ago, so much in question now, are unfortunate only in his delivery of them. His speech writers gave him something to say, but he screwed up the delivery of the words in such a way that those who wanted/needed to seize upon them for political gain were likely on their knees, thanking the "God of Mispoken Words" that what Kerry said might help the GOP retain control of the House of Representatives (and Senate?) so that George Bush (and his band of criminals - namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice and others) may continue to rule as a monarch in the aftermath of 9/11, continuing his destruction of habeus corpus, due process, American civil liberties and anything else that stands in the way of the ultimate objective: American global imperialism.

Put simply, rogue elements within the Bush administration want to put themselves in a position to rule the world without challenge and, by the way, line their pockets (re-enter Dick Cheney) to the max as they go.

John Kerry is not the smartest of orators, but I have genuine pity for those who cannot see the truth of this matter. Kerry misspoke, and it is unfortunate, but which is worse? George Bush is a complicit player in a scheme to achieve global domination, and the simple truth from a Republican perspective, where it relates to this current event, is this: "Maybe Kerry's words - if Karl Rove and the gang can sufficiently distort them and convince a majority of voters that our ******** interpretation of them is accurate - can help us retain control after next week's mid-term elections, and we'll do and say anything necessary to take advantage of his honest mistake, or any other opportunity that presents itself, so that we can continue our haenous objectives, domestically and abroad.

Some will disagree with my interpretation of things, but I have never been more certain of anything in my life.

I have written in somewhat broad terms here, but if anyone would like to discuss any of the points I have touched upon, I am more than prepared and happy to hash them out. Thanks.

GO VOLS!

Editted at 3:16 am --- that explains a lot :whistling:

 

[volinbham]

Bush didn't even have the SAT scores to get into Yale, but his family had the money. Everyone knows that once you get into Yale, it's a lot easier getting out of Yale. Getting your foot in the door is all you need.

Bush even bragged to students once saying that "C" students like himself could one day be President.

So how did he get into Harvard when he was only making average grades at Yale? It's about the money.

So which of John Edward's "Two Americas" did John Kerry come from? For that matter, which do most Ivy League students come from?

 

[herksrus]

ok, get ready; you may not be prepared to recieve these comments, or your political allignment may not allow you to COMFORTABLY recieve them, but I am going to speak the truth, and I only pray that some of you will recieve them to a degree that will inspire you to dig deeper to verify their legitamacy. So here goes..

John Kerry, along with a number of other freely thinking Americans whose views are largely suppressed by the corporate-guided mainstream media, UNDERSTANDS the dispicable nature of this administration's policies and practices here and abroad. His comments from a few days ago, so much in question now, are unfortunate only in his delivery of them. His speech writers gave him something to say, but he screwed up the delivery of the words in such a way that those who wanted/needed to seize upon them for political gain were likely on their knees, thanking the "God of Mispoken Words" that what Kerry said might help the GOP retain control of the House of Representatives (and Senate?) so that George Bush (and his band of criminals - namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice and others) may continue to rule as a monarch in the aftermath of 9/11, continuing his destruction of habeus corpus, due process, American civil liberties and anything else that stands in the way of the ultimate objective: American global imperialism.

Put simply, rogue elements within the Bush administration want to put themselves in a position to rule the world without challenge and, by the way, line their pockets (re-enter Dick Cheney) to the max as they go.

John Kerry is not the smartest of orators, but I have genuine pity for those who cannot see the truth of this matter. Kerry misspoke, and it is unfortunate, but which is worse? George Bush is a complicit player in a scheme to achieve global domination, and the simple truth from a Republican perspective, where it relates to this current event, is this: "Maybe Kerry's words - if Karl Rove and the gang can sufficiently distort them and convince a majority of voters that our ******** interpretation of them is accurate - can help us retain control after next week's mid-term elections, and we'll do and say anything necessary to take advantage of his honest mistake, or any other opportunity that presents itself, so that we can continue our haenous objectives, domestically and abroad.

Some will disagree with my interpretation of things, but I have never been more certain of anything in my life.

I have written in somewhat broad terms here, but if anyone would like to discuss any of the points I have touched upon, I am more than prepared and happy to hash them out. Thanks.

GO VOLS!

Dude I cant debate you, you seem to have your ducks in a row. But, damn I feel sorry for you. You have been lead astray. God bless you man, and I will pray that some day you will come to understand that you were way off the mark.

GO VOLS!:salute:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

BREITBART.COM - Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest

In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

 

[All Vol!]

You may be therealUT, but you are apparently real gullible too...btw, what I have underlined is clickable.

Not even sure if I can argue with you, since you believe that Bush is trying to conquer the world...

First of all, I did not suggest that Bush himself is trying to conquer the world, as though he sat down and drew up a plan for world domination, a la Dr. Evil...Bush probably couldn't plan a trip to Burger King, let alone a blueprint for a would-be empire.

However, if conquest was Bush's goal, don't you feel we would have used our overwhelming military superiority in order to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan, and then quickly moved on to Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc?

This is not like Germany invading Poland to kick off WWII. Although not subtle, this is a more insidious style of fledgling emperialism. Man, what did you think the conquest of Afghanistan, for example, would look like?...an iwo jima type statue and an American flag flying atop Kabul city hall? I'm not talking about a military invasion of the rest of earth. In these days of sole superpowerdom, there are other options. Consider this: as we speak, the U.S. military is constructing permanent military bases in Afganistan and Iraq, and as you know, hand-picked the puppet governments in those countries, rendering them essentially U.S. possessions.
This administration's idea of advancing American interests abroad is utterly twisted and perverted; it is carried out by the real players, many of whose ideals are grossly exemplified by the declarations of a Republican "think-tank" called Project For The New American Century. If you don't believe that elements within the Bush administration are bent on global dominance, have a close look at it. Don't be fooled by the mission statement. It gets real ugly when you dig deep. Co-founded in 1997 by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, its mission is essentially the advancement of American interests in the new century to include "dominance in foreign affairs, by force if necessary." Some of its manuals go as far as discussing the notion of denying other nations the use of space. The principles of this group, via Cheney, have guided American policy throughout the Bush administration. If you have children, their very futures are in grave peril because of the damage this administration has done to the Constitution. If you are worried about terrorists, you are fearing the wrong enemy.

Instead we are using limited warfare policies and COIN tactics in order to limit civilian casualties in both countries.

One of your unfortunate problems (don't worry, you're far from alone) is that you live inside the cocoon of the North American mainstream media. Limit civilian casualties? I don't know whether to laugh or cry that you actually believe this. Since our invasion of Iraq in 2003, more than 600,000 Iraqis have died in violence related to the U.S. military presence there. Roughly 7% of the entire male population in Iraq has been killed as a result of this war. That's closer to GENOCIDE than it is to limiting casualties, my friend.

Also, Habeus Corpus is allowed to be restriced (and completely prohibited) by the Constitution, in times of war. Lincoln suspended it as did FDR.

Lincoln, with careful consideration for our constitution, suspended habeas corpus because he was dealing with an insurrection. Bush has done it as part of assuming dictatorial powers.
The fact that you would use FDR's suspension of habeas corpus and various other violations of human rights, as an attempt to justify what Bush has done, is obsurd. FDR removed all due process rights from Japanese-Americans as well as severely stifling freedom of the press. FDR's actions in this regard should be viewed as an opportunity to learn from historical mistakes, not use them to justify the actions of current leaders who are making them all over again.
Furthermore, what Bush has done is far more than a temporary suspension of habeas corpus. Maybe you are not very familiar, if at all, with The Military Commissions Act of 2006. This filthy piece of legislation, recently signed into law, grants the president personal capacity to label anyone he chooses an enemy combatant, taking away all rights to due process and fair trial - INCLUDING THOSE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS! Perhaps you, as many so unfortunately do, believe this type of assault on democracy is necessary for our "protection" in the phantom war on terror. Well, let me reply by reminding you of the words of Benjamin Franklin, a true patriot..."Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You might be completely sure of this, however, you can be completely sure and completely wrong.

How laughably ironic that you have borrowed these words from John Kerry, who used them during one of the '04 debates in reference to Bush's failed policy in Iraq, Bush having said he was sure that he was doing the right thing. :lol: That's rich, man, really rich.

Congratulations, you have lost all respect I have for any of your opinions.

To that, I guess I would just say I feel pretty fortunate that I was not aiming for your respect in the first place, and whether or not I get it isn't important to me. I, on the other hand, respect your right to your opinion, however much I may disagree - and it's quite a bit.

 

[therealUT]

You may be therealUT, but you are apparently real gullible too...btw, what I have underlined is clickable.



To that, I guess I would just say I feel pretty fortunate that I was not aiming for your respect in the first place, and whether or not I get it isn't important to me. I, on the other hand, respect your right to your opinion, however much I may disagree - and it's quite a bit.

First, I have known for 3 years that we would have permanent stations in Iraq. I guess we conquered Japan, South Korea, Panama, and West Germany, also...

I find it funny that you call me gullible, yet you buy into the Johns Hopkins survey that 655,000 have been killed in Iraq.

Further, I could care less if due process is not given to "enemy combatants." If someone chooses to commit themselves to killing U.S. troops, then I doubt they would get my sympathy if they did not receive a trial by jury. To be fair, I do not expect a trial if I am detained fighting against a foreign force. I know fair well that I will lose my limbs and my head if I am captured.

 

[All Vol!]

First, I have known for 3 years that we would have permanent stations in Iraq. I guess we conquered Japan, South Korea, Panama, and West Germany, also...

I find it funny that you call me gullible, yet you buy into the Johns Hopkins survey that 655,000 have been killed in Iraq.

I tried to hold this in as long as I could, but you are just an idiot with a large vocabulary.

"buy into"? What you are buying into, sir, is far far worse. I will waste no more time debating with you, because there are those out there who are not too far gone. "idiot with a large vocabulary"?
I wish you the best, but I won't continue this because you are apparently unwilling to do your homework. And it's clear you are not likely to do more than criticize on the level of a gradeschooler.
Good luck to you.

 

[therealUT]

"buy into"? What you are buying into, sir, is far far worse. I will waste no more time debating with you, because there are those out there who are not too far gone. "idiot with a large vocabulary"? That's a little funny, I guess, but what's not funny is that you are an idiot with a large problem.
I wish you the best, but I won't continue this because you are apparently unwilling to do your homework. And it's clear you are not likely to do more than criticize on the level of a gradeschooler.
Good luck to you.

Concerning that "homework" thing, try not to quote me as saying things I did not say, in the future. Thanks.