Author Topic: Edwards: What Kerry said! (Read 2735 times)

MrCoffee · « **Reply #120 on:** October 06, 2004, 12:18:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
I strongly disagree. Kerry has a very clear and consistent voting record(when he voted) that shows he is soft(actually the softest senator on record) of national defense. Both Kerry and Edwards are frighteningly soft on defense as their voting records show. It is why the refuse to run on their records.

There has never been a more liberal voting record than Kerry's. If you are a far left liberal, Kerry is your man.

Before I take off, to answer your question Steve, yes I could vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Bush/Cheney domestic and economy deal is too lacking for me.

NUKE · « **Reply #121 on:** October 06, 2004, 12:19:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrCoffee
Because hes an american. What american in times like these would not do everything in his power to try to defend america. Of course each would do so according to his own protocol but the end result should be the same so long as they use the military. You only have to watch those beheading videos to reaffirm what to do tot he terrorists in Iraq, Afganistan, or wherever.

Didnt Bush miss his intelligence meetings or something for the first eight months in office?

Kerry has NEVER shown he is strong on defense, even after 911. His record is there for all to see.....over 20 years of it. 20 years of nothing.

He has consistantly voted against funding the military and intelligence..EVEN AFTER 911.

Kerry is now "talking tough" but he is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to be elected. He can't hide his record. He cannot run on his record.

When has Kerry demonstrated leadership on any issue other than leading the charge to ALWAYS vote for tax increases?

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #122 on:** October 06, 2004, 12:20:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Drunky
Was he talking about Edwards or Kerry?

Just wondering.

Edwards.

But Kerry's attendance for the Senate intelligence committee isnt exactly stellar either

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #123 on:** October 06, 2004, 01:58:10 AM »

Cheney was the bulldozer and Edwards was the dirt.

Waaaaaay out of his league, ol' John was. A Senior statesman vs. a used car salesman with a JD.

7-3 Cheney.

Steve · « **Reply #124 on:** October 06, 2004, 03:00:23 AM »

Lol sandman, those articles show several times my point. Thanks for helping me. Lights out.

Creamo · « **Reply #125 on:** October 06, 2004, 05:33:01 AM »

Oh the merits of living the night shift. I'm still up at this hour, and still amazed after watching the VP Debate; I watched this one just to see if all the crazy O'club politards on each side here has any merit, one way or the other, and got to see it twice on replay.

Here's what a kinda Bush supporter got from it, although I hate Bush for letting the ATF run wild, under the guise of the Homeland Communist Act. I enjoyed the debate. Pry because it wasn't a "ME Vs. My Opponent I will try to Hate!" I didn't care much, I just watched it.

As for the issues? They were both prepared, and both hit them by design. Maybe Cheney after that long lawyer speach about gays, and he just dropped a silent bomb. Still, a tie. If you used that stick to measure a win, and posted as such, you’re an O’Club poster most all here that groups you in as a bias blowhard. LOL’s included in your post or not.

The winner? Kinda a tie on issues. They had practiced the sure stalemate weeks before. All your arguments about that are pointless I think. How they presented their arguments made a bit of a difference though. For instance;

Cheney is the meanest most poised SOB I have ever seen. He doesn't even come off as a typical politician which blew me away. More like a stubborn old smart bastard we all have had to talk to sometime in our life that would tell you what you don't want to hear, yet you know he is right, and still believe different if you disagree and think you have a better plan. And you didn't. No matter how much the truth sucks, it's the way it is without better avenues or 20/20. Sometimes it’s your Dad, sometimes just a old fart that shoots you straight watermelon you spent time with somewhere, somehow.

Anyway, if I was a trial lawyer or a terrorist, I just give up and sell Amway. Bush could just fake an assassination when he wins and I'd be happy, although GWB obviously chooses his company well, which I never knew till tonight, and Kerry can now never claim. Which leads to my next point watching this debate…

Picking your VP because he is a slick talking trial lawyer who might help you when it comes to public speaking, has lotsa hair and will influence diesel dykes and lonely housewives, may not have been so clever after all. And certainly is why I just decided I WILL Vote this year for once . That’s harsh, and will lose credibility with some here, but damn straight if it ain’t right.

Oh well, sleepless at 3:00am, (damn the night shift curse) and bored. I won't care who wins, much... But after seeing that debate, I’m sure about one thing.

Charon · « **Reply #126 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:32:57 AM »

What gets me is that these are the questions, largely, that should have been part of the public debate (nonexistant) before the first units staged in Kuwait for the invasion.

Little that is being debated now is new. WMD didn't show up, but even if they had been there the basic premis of the invasion was questionable itself.

A total failure by these Democratic candidates and the Democratic party to do their jobs, along with a similar failure by the broadcast media (largely) to do their jobs. I think the President should be held accountable for the Invasion, but so should these candidates and the rest of Congress for that matter.

Charon

lazs2 · « **Reply #127 on:** October 06, 2004, 08:49:29 AM »

kina with creamo on this one... in about every one of his points exceptr... I don't really see the diff between lawyers and terrorists..

It looked like a tie to me with a slight edge to Cheney. Cheney is a mean smart SOB.

Who really won? you can use the liberal media and this board to tell... the libs on both scored it a tie or slight win for Cheney...

That would mean, in real terms, that Cheney slaughtered edwards.

Edwards looked like an abmbulance chaser that got into politics because... well.... it was the next step but.. no need to really do any of the work eh?

lazs

Drunky · « **Reply #128 on:** October 06, 2004, 01:23:50 PM »

I still think the debates are like the 'talent' part of the Miss America Contest.

Muckmaw1 · « **Reply #129 on:** October 06, 2004, 01:27:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Drunky
I still think the debates are like the 'talent' part of the Miss America Contest.

I don't even want to think about the swimsuit competition.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #130 on:** October 06, 2004, 02:15:18 PM »

"John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases."

All to be decided by whom? Anyone?

Lawyers!

BTW don't they already check with experts BEFORE they sue?

Eagler · « **Reply #131 on:** October 06, 2004, 03:07:49 PM »

dumbacrats at their best - hotair doublespeak

Torque · « **Reply #132 on:** October 06, 2004, 03:14:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
What gets me is that these are the questions, largely, that should have been part of the public debate (nonexistant) before the first units staged in Kuwait for the invasion.

Little that is being debated now is new. WMD didn't show up, but even if they had been there the basic premis of the invasion was questionable itself.

A total failure by these Democratic candidates and the Democratic party to do their jobs, along with a similar failure by the broadcast media (largely) to do their jobs. I think the President should be held accountable for the Invasion, but so should these candidates and the rest of Congress for that matter.

Charon

Isn't that exactly what "Fahrenheit 911" made obvious?

Charon · « **Reply #133 on:** October 06, 2004, 05:42:02 PM »

Quote

Isn't that exactly what "Fahrenheit 911" made obvious?

I never gave it much value as an infromation source and haven't seen it. Most of what I read made that apparent before the invasion kicked off, and it has been a long running source of angst for me.

Charon

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #134 on:** October 06, 2004, 06:18:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo

Cheney is the meanest most poised SOB I have ever seen. He doesn't even come off as a typical politician which blew me away. More like a stubborn old smart bastard we all have had to talk to sometime in our life that would tell you what you don't want to hear, yet you know he is right, and still believe different if you disagree and think you have a better plan. And you didn't. No matter how much the truth sucks, it's the way it is without better avenues or 20/20. Sometimes it’s your Dad, sometimes just a old fart that shoots you straight watermelon you spent time with somewhere, somehow.

That about sums it up in total.