Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
As you yourself recently stated here (maybe I'm paraphrasing) with regard to an Israeli assassination in Syria "terrorists should be killed wherever they are". Why is that again? Its because we are at war. Has Kerry even mouthed those words once in this race?
|
You've been talking a lot of shit for the last few weeks -- some of it on things you know about, and some obviously not. I'll call you on this one. Kerry said precisely those words (essentially a quote) during both of the Presidential debates. I also think they are more or less in one of his stump speeches.
You're just not listening.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
His base at the wedding would probably sit out the election if he did.
|
Now, that's just plain stupid. His "base at the wedding" f-cking hates George Bush, and saw in 2000 what protest votes based on principle do in a close election. They'll turn out.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Or maybe he really is willing to go after Iran and Syria, and keep the pressure on 20 other nations. Mmm hmm, cuz that's just what we've been hearing from him. Right.
Hello
|
Actually, we have heard all of those things from him -- but you're not listening. Or, like Bilmore, you assume he's a liar.
I find it fascinating that you all on the Right not only find it so easy to believe that Kerry is lying or pandering to get elected, but also _assume_ the direction in which he is doing so. (i.e. That he will become some sort of pacifist or weakling after the election, rather than doing what is necessary to defend out country even if some of "his base" doesn't like it.)
It is remarkable to me that you find it so easy to believe this of a man who: volunteered for the military, saw combat, was decorated for courage under fire, served as a prosecutor, immersed himself in public service and (before that) engaged in public discourse and activism on the most important issues of that time. Kerry has proven beyond a doubt, over the course of his life, that he thinks seriously and cares deeply about the critical issues of the day. No one could have said that about Bush before he became President.
Of course you need to look at a man's record, but it is also a mistake NOT to think that the Presidency is a unique office and the demands and responsibilities of the job can change their occupants to produce results one would not expect from their records. The job of a President (i.e. represent and protect the nation) is different than the job of any Senator or representative and requires one to view problems differently and take broader positions.
In other words, whatever Kerry has done as 1 of 100 Senators from 1984-2004 (and we disagree on that record) is not an indication that he will not take appropriate action as President in a world tranformed by the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing wars.
Consider, for example, that Harry Truman was a relatively undistinguished Senator with little record before Roosevelt picked him as VP.
If you think that Bush has done well, then your man is also a prime example. Ignore everything pre-1980, and you still have this record: started three businesses with money borrowed from family connections and ran them into the ground; leveraged the cash from the last into an ownership stake in the Texas Rangers (his partners always wanted the Bush name); became personally wealthy based on insider dealings, despite conflicts of interest, with the stadium land deal; served six years in, essentially, a part-time job as Governor of Texas where he laughed about the executions he oversaw. What in the world would make anyone think that this "record" is suitable to be President of the U.S. during and after 9/11?
S_A_M
etft and efs and to add "NOT"
