Al Sharpton

[Danoz]

As much as I disagree with him, he certainly knows how to write and deliver a speech. It was inspiring as a communications major to watch this in it's entirety (Had to go to C-SPAN, Fox just isn't covering this convention well IMO.. they showed a minute of the speech). It's also nice to see a speaker finally show thier true colors up there.... Kerry's asked his speakers to "tone it down", as he's reallying trying to create a more moderate view of himself. Gore wasn't up there yelling about Betrayal and Bush "playing on fears", and Dean wasn't putting forth theories of "Bush knowing about 9/11 ahead of time". The speeches before this one seemed very fake to me.

Let's be honest, the Democratic party is very liberal... why try and hide that fact? You can't have Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and John Kerry speaking... and then think you can fool people into believing this a moderate group <img src=smilies/laff.gif>. I don't care what they say up there, you can't reinvent these people. I say they stand up there and say what they believe. Hell, having Micheal Moore sit in a posiiton of honor next to former president Jimmy Carter wasn't exactly moderate.

Well, in conclusion, thumbs up to Sharpton for delivering a brilliant (yet mislead) speech to the convention. The other Dems should follow his lead.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Let's be honest, the Democratic party is very liberal... why
> try and hide that fact?

American democrats are very conservative by international standards and I don't see any reason to believe that they're dramatically more liberal than they say they are. I think this post is just more of that "us against them" mentality that has been infecting American politics and encouraging the partisan bickering that renders our Congress so consistently impotent.

There are many moderate Republicans and many moderate Democrats. Al Sharpton is not one of them and that is likely why he comes off the way he does.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

American democrats are very conservative by international standards and I don't see any reason to believe that they're dramatically more liberal than they say they are.

<hr></blockquote>

Then what are American conservatives? Super-conservatives? Sure, we can compare to the increasingly liberal European appeasers and the socialist/communist countries around the world, but why would we want to? John Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Edwards and the most liberal people in the senate-- and they speak words that, even by international standards, can be consitered "liberal". Why don't I see people like Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller speaking at the Democratic convention? Because true conservative democrats don't have a place on stage there.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I think this post is just more of that "us against them" mentality that has been infecting American politics and encouraging the partisan bickering that renders our Congress so consistently impotent.

<hr></blockquote>

But let's be honest here, America IS politically cut in half... even more so than it has been in the past. The way I see it, one side will respond to terror and the other will hide behind appeasement and empty words. It's unfortunate that people have to "choose a side", but it's realistic.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

There are many moderate Republicans and many moderate Democrats. Al Sharpton is not one of them and that is likely why he comes off the way he does.

<hr></blockquote>

But neither are the people I mentioned. The moderate Republicans WILL speak at the Republican convention, and this is the difference.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> John Kerry, Hilary Clinton,
> Ted Kennedy and John Edwards and the most liberal people in
> the senate

I don't suppose there's any chance you'd back that up with some kind of evidence? You may be right about Ted Kennedy, but I certainly don't get that impression from the others.


> The way I
> see it, one side will respond to terror and the other will
> hide behind appeasement and empty words.

I've noticed some very unsettling patterns in the way you see things. I think your impressions of our government are so wildly inaccurate and partisan that I don't really know what to say. It's hard to construct a logical argument against empty rhetoric.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> I've noticed some very unsettling patterns in the way you
> see things. I think your impressions of our government are
> so wildly inaccurate and partisan that I don't really know
> what to say. It's hard to construct a logical argument
> against empty rhetoric.

Yeah, I thought about replying to that post myself, but figured I'd may as well just turn over to Fox News and shout at the TV. It's all the same these days.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Mr. Saturn]

> Why
> don't I see people like Joseph Lieberman and Zell Miller
> speaking at the Democratic convention? Because true
> conservative democrats don't have a place on stage there.

Thursday, July 29
Stronger at Home, Respected in the World

* Madeline Albright, Former Secretary of State
* Joe Biden, U.S. Senator from Delaware
* Wesley Clark, Four Star General, 2004 Presidential Candidate
* Max Cleland, Former U.S. Senator from Georgia
* James Clyburn, U.S. Representative from South Carolina
* Alexandra Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
* John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee
* Vanessa Kerry, Daughter of John Kerry
* Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from Connecticut, 2004 Presidential Candidate
* Ed Markey, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts
* Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative from California
* Eleanor Holmes Norton, U.S. Representative from the District of Columbia
* Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Representative from California, Democratic Leader
* Jim Rassman, Green Beret rescued by John Kerry in Vietnam
* Louise Slaughter, U.S. Representative from New York
(joined by Congressional Women)
* John Sweeney, President of AFL-CIO
* Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia

He must be a robot Lieberman.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Fla Flash]

Oh jesus.
Put the crack pipe down.
Sharpton is, and always will be, a rebel. He's a freakin' ex-preacher fer crissakes. (and a teriffic orator)
Your only passion with his speech is that it went against the tone Kerry & Co. were trying to set and it fuels your rabid desire to get the current president re-elected.
Edwards gave a terriffic speech, yet all you can do is compliment the rogue.
Figures.
And you fail to mention what a commanding speaker Clinton is.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[TheRobbit]

> > I've noticed some very unsettling patterns in the way you

My question is "they're liberal... so what?" you act like that's an insult.

<P ID="signature">your wish,
my fear,
both granted
http://rob.therobbit.com</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> My question is "they're liberal... so what?" you act like
> that's an insult.

I took his calling the Democratic Party "very liberal" as an implication that they were extremists, which is most certainly a bad thing and most certainly untrue. I'm not a big fan of the Democratic Party, but I think it's irresponsible to portray them as "very liberal", just as I think it's irresponsible to portray the Republican Party in general as "very conservative." Granted, I would classify our current administration in that way, but there are plenty of moderate Republicans in Congress of whom I'm quite fond.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Danoz]

Ah, interesting. I've been watching all the prime time speeches and haven't run across Lieberman... wonder when he spoke.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Danoz]

I don't deny that Edwards gave a decent speech, and a Clinton gave another very good one (something not unusual for him)... but the tone that the Kerry team is trying to set at this convention is a misleading one. All you have to do is compare speeches.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[TheRobbit]

> I took his calling the Democratic Party "very liberal" as an
> implication that they were extremists,

Yeah I don't think they're extremist either, maybe to very a conservative person they are though.

Danoz shouldn't try to label people though, it never quite works.

<P ID="signature">your wish,
my fear,
both granted
http://rob.therobbit.com</P>

[Danoz]

> Danoz shouldn't try to label people though, it never quite
> works.

I can note the direction of a party, and nobody here denies that every year the Democratic party shoots further left. People really should read "A National Party No More" by Zell Miller.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Goku]

> I can note the direction of a party, and nobody here denies
> that every year the Democratic party shoots further left.

Examples please.

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Danoz]

> Examples please.

Just look to the doctrine of previous democratic presidents who, today, would be Republican. "Not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" isn't the cry of the donkey these days. "What is my country going to do for me" seems to be all I hear from many non-conservatives. "Give me, I deserve. How about, you deserve what you earn, best man for the job, fair pay that stays in line with the work done. JFK and Roosevelt especially who stood up and told the Chamberlains of the world that we would not fault in the face of evil. He didn't cower away from the word, giving it relative meaning. John Kerry voted against all our major weapon systems and has proven himself to be very weak on defense. As honorable as his service was in Vietnam, it doesn't automatically make him the man for the job-- and when confronted with questions about it, the subject always goes to his service and not his record-- a record that happens to be very liberal. The conservative Democrats like Lieberman are getting insignificant percentages in the party, they're all being forced to change their tone if they even want a chance at the ticket. The party is so entwined in liberal groups like the ACLU, that they depend on the far-left support. A democrat has to fill a number of liberal requirements before he/she even has a shot! They have to be pro-choice, for gay marriage, for affirmative action, undying supporters of the United Nations. And then, they need the support of the Hollywood crowd... didn't you find it odd that John Kerry called those Hollywood speakers the "Best of America", even after Goldberg made childish "Bush" jokes about vaginas? Do you think he would actually take an open stand against that kind of tastelessness? No, he would give them laughs and standing ovations (of course, only later, Kerry's people say he doesn't support the words). You know I'm not entirely happy with the Republicans, who are also becoming less conservative.. but I'm disgusted with the Democrats who embrace the far-left with every passing year in the name of secularism. I'd like to know whether other Democrats here question whether or not the party is increasingly more liberal, I thought it was blatantly obvious.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Fla Flash]

You know, for a conservative you spend an awful lot of time complaining about how 'far left' the dems have moved.
How come you haven't mentioned the fact that Bush has gravitated closer to Kerry's position on Iraq since he was behind in the early polls?
Just curious.<img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You know, for a conservative you spend an awful lot of time complaining about how 'far left' the dems have moved. How come you haven't mentioned the fact that Bush has gravitated closer to Kerry's position on Iraq since he was behind in the early polls? Just curious.

<hr></blockquote>

Why would I mention something of which I've seen no evidence?

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Fla Flash]

Oh I forgot.
Your eyes have to be open to see things.
My bad. <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Oh I forgot. Your eyes have to be open to see things. My bad.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, it's easy for you to answer me like that... but why not hand me some examples? I'm suprised at your claim, because I haven't even heard it from liberals in office and media-- and of course I haven't seen it from the President himself. If anything I think it's obvious that Bush has maintained his position and vision for Iraq.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[thegodofhellfire]

> Why would I mention something of which I've seen no evidence?

Force of habit?



EDIT: Sorry, that was just mean.

<P ID="signature"></p><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by thegodofhellfire on 08/06/04 05:40 PM.</FONT></P>

[Fla Flash]

No it wasn't.
Bush forced a turnover date after Kerry had taken a position that we need to get it done and get the hell out.
Bush, at the time was low in the approval polls.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/mean.png>
Diary of a Vigilante III...The Homecoming.. (http://www.freewebs.com/mewscorner/)</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

No it wasn't. Bush forced a turnover date after Kerry had taken a position that we need to get it done and get the hell out. Bush, at the time was low in the approval polls.

<hr></blockquote>

Polls? Since when has our president cared about media polls? I've heard him state on several occations that he finds them to be essentially worthless. At any given time in the past months, every poll shifts over and under a 50:50 mark in both directions. Now to the issue itself, Bush carried a turnover date for some time, and that date was June 30th. He certainly didn't create that particular date thanks to approval polls, but from an early decision that the handover would take place on that date uninterrupted to help Iraq become a democratic country. In actuality, the handover date was June 28th-- not because he looked at approval polls and moved it back two days, but he instead did this to avoid terrorist attacks on a day that important to the Iraqi progression.
Really, Flash... your argument is made out of straw. Kerry's position even was more that we need to find a new strategy, and not necessarily one that involves having to 'get the hell out'. In fact, his strategy was appealing to international support and then remaining in Iraq as long as it takes. Of course, he may have very well flip-flopped since then ;). Better try again.

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Goku]

> Just look to the doctrine of previous democratic presidents
> who, today, would be Republican.

I dont know about that. Ive read the liberal side of the argument and they state that the Democrats have moved way right. That....the whole american political spectrum has shifted right.

From what i read of Kerry and seen of him, he is not very left. He speaks from dead centre most of the time.

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Danoz]

The political spectrum is more conservative? Seriously, I have to wonder what planet you're on. I gave you a whole post of examples, and all you do is post the opposite conclusion without any backup. And, for the record, most liberals don't make the argument that America is more conservative. No offense, but how do you explain this?

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Goku]

Allright, you did not read my post thourougly. Istated that liberals think the democrats have shift right.

Also, you gave me meaningless examples.

JFK and Chamberlains of the world example is useless. I would also like to note that the US didnt get into WWII until Pearl Harbour. This was many years after the war started. Infact, if i remember my history correctly, you countrly was selling weapons to both sides in the beginning.

Cuba is also a different story. JFK had no choice but to stand up to Castro and the Russians. If he did not, an extremely important tactical advantage would be lost. The american people would be under constant nuclear threat.

Besides, John Kerry has never been the prez so you cannot make arbitrary assumptions that he would of cave if he were. I dont even know where you get that idea from. Besides, he did stand up agaisnt somthing - your own government when he returned from the Vietnam War.

Now, please dont tell me what major weapons system Kerry voted against was a bad thing. You never gave any defense bill examples. That is no argument. Are you talking about the new star wars program?

The one to prevent an ICBM strike? Democrats do not support it because they know it is giant boondoggle. The system is being outlayed when it is not ready. Ive read technical articles that state this. I read that it would be a miracle if the militairy gets this to intercept a missle. Worst, even if they could get it to teh point where it could reliably intercept a missle, the system could be foiled by simple counter measures. Hell, my electronics background tells me that such a system with so many variables is damn near impossible to develop with any kind of success rate. Can such a system be developed? I have no doubt with better technology. It is still years away. This is being rushed. It is money down the toilet.

More money for Iraq bill? The one he voted against. I read a quotation from him somewhere stating that he voted against bill because he wanted a FULL ACCOUNTING of where the money was going. The responsible thing to do.

Where is the money going. Ive read articles on MSNBC stating that companies such as Halliburton have been charging for sercies not provided and/or over charging for services and undelivering. It is very understandable, especially since your dollar has DROPPED and you are running RECORD deficits.

As I am commenting on records, what about GWs record? It hasnt been all that great. Surpluses turned into record deficits, fight a war "waged on faulty intelligence" with no exit strategy. An over extended militairy. A forgotten war (afghanistan). A militairy ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Hell he called the Iraqi war over when it was not. How many people have died since "Mission Acomplished"? Not a good record in my eyes. Instead of attacking Kerry, why dont the republicans run on their record.

What other bills has Kerry voted against? Name them. By the way, dont bring out that 1st and 4th most liberal democrats report. Results of this report are skewed this year because kerry and edwards have missed votes. Look at the results of this report in previous years:

In 1999, Kerry ranked as the 16th most liberal senator, Edwards as the 31st.
In 2000, Kerry was the 20th most liberal, Edwards the 19th.
In 2001, Kerry was the 11th most liberal, Edwards 35th.
In 2002, Kerry was 9th, Edwards 31st.
In 2003, Kerry was 1st, Edwards 4th.

Regardless of results, this survey is arbitrary. The people who do it selects 62 votes of what they believe is most important to democrats. It then divides these votes into 3 categories and deems the rankings based the person voted. This is not a true measure of liberalism.

The Lieberman argument:

Um Leberman (sp?), last time I checked he was still in the party. Wait a minute, he was the Vice Presidental candidate last election. Gore - Leiberman. Sounds like he got one hell of a shot to me. Hell, if it wasnt for the way the electorial Collegeis setup, he would of been Vice President. He got the popular vote.

You always bring the ACLU into every liberal argument. It is your demon to scare good conservative children. State specifically how the Democratic party is entwined with the ACLU. Remember, ACLU support does not equal entanglement.

BTW, stating your percieved criteria is not evidence. If you found me an application form that stated all those things you said (ie pro choice), then we will talk. There COULD be a correlation that shows democrats hold those values, but this does not show ACLU entanglement. This could be explained other ways. Besides, psychology basics: correlation does not equal causation.

Dont bother with the Hollywood argument either. It isnt proof of anything. People who are entertainers are just people. They share all different kinds of views, some extremely intelligent, other retarded (B. Speares). If there is one thing I have noticed, conservatives always cry foul when a star has an opinion that conservative disagree with. Entertainers think and have the RIGHT to voice their views. They also read and watch the same news you do too. They are not mindless robots that spew jibberish. Besides, conservatives are so bloody hypocritcal when the bitch about stars. The joke of the matter is that you bitch about the portion of the hollywood crowd that disagree with you yet elevate those that agree with you to high positions of power (Arnold and Ron Reagan). Bloody hypocritical.

Ohh Whoopy Goldberg, bring out the unoriginal lady who careers has been down the toilet for years. She made vagina jokes. Big deal, How the hell does she reflect Kerry. it reflects her as unoriginal, but it dosnt reflect Kerry. He cannot control what she says. He can not apologize for what she says. Besides, she did a stand up comedy routine. You have seen one Danoz, havnt you? They get pretty raunchy? They are also not the most tasteful things? Hence the stupid potty humour

Besides, bringing out a Whoopi argument is like me bring out Ann Coultier and saying look: George, apologize to all liberals because she called them unamerican and treasonous. Much worst actually, i read some of her articles. Very unprofesionall and vile.

So, where are your examples Danoz? I dont see any anymore? They...are accusations, not arguments. Arguments are flushed out with true examples, or atleast logic. I dont see them.

<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P>

[Kuikorosu]

Every time you say the world "liberal", I kick a puppy.

Just food for thought.


<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 40BLM/21RDM/19RNG/15THF/10NIN/8WHM
Nation: Windurst
Server: Fenrir
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Allright, you did not read my post thourougly. Istated that liberals think the democrats have shift right.

<hr></blockquote>
I know what you stated.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Also, you gave me meaningless examples.
JFK and Chamberlains of the world example is useless.

<hr></blockquote>
How are they useless? The Democrats are shifting more and more towards a "redistribution" that more resembles socialism than America. Instead, allow me to clarify further-- Kennedy was a social moderate, a famous anti-communist and cut taxes during his presidency.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I would also like to note that the US didnt get into WWII until Pearl Harbour. This was many years after the war started. Infact, if i remember my history correctly, you countrly was selling weapons to both sides in the beginning.

<hr></blockquote>
No, the US didn't sell weapons to the other side, but there were countries considered neutral at the time that did. And, they weren't selling weapons-- but gold. As for Pearl Harbor, we DID wait too late, but Roosevelt stood up against the evils in the world when he needed to. The procrastination is a mistake this president has not made.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Besides, John Kerry has never been the prez so you cannot make arbitrary assumptions that he would of cave if he were. I dont even know where you get that idea from. Besides, he did stand up agaisnt somthing - your own government when he returned from the Vietnam War. Now, please dont tell me what major weapons system Kerry voted against was a bad thing. You never gave any defense bill examples. That is no argument. Are you talking about the new star wars program?

<hr></blockquote>
He voted against the B-1 bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the AV-8B, the AH-64 Apache Helicopters, the patriot missiles, the Aegis Air defense cruiser, the Trident Missile system for US submarines, the M-1 Abrams Tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the tomahawk cruise missile -- many of which are crucial in our missions today. During the 1990s he voted to cut defense spending on several occasions, sometimes over 6 billions dollars of money that would be shifted towards social programs and away from our protection. He voted against military pay raises, forces in numbers. In 1995, he actually voted to freeze defense spending for seven years! Something that would have cut more than 34 billion dollars from defense-- only 27 other senators voted with him-- Dude, democrats and republicans alike have been voting against these radical defense weaknesses.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The one to prevent an ICBM strike? Democrats do not support it because they know it is giant boondoggle. The system is being outlayed when it is not ready. Ive read technical articles that state this. I read that it would be a miracle if the militairy gets this to intercept a missle. Worst, even if they could get it to teh point where it could reliably intercept a missle, the system could be foiled by simple counter measures. Hell, my electronics background tells me that such a system with so many variables is damn near impossible to develop with any kind of success rate. Can such a system be developed? I have no doubt with better technology. It is still years away. This is being rushed. It is money down the toilet.

<hr></blockquote>
Since when is research for our protection "money down the toilet"! It was Reagan's boldness on the subject that won the US another great conflict.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

More money for Iraq bill? The one he voted against. I read a quotation from him somewhere stating that he voted against bill because he wanted a FULL ACCOUNTING of where the money was going. The responsible thing to do.

<hr></blockquote>
Sure you did, "at one point he said it would be irresponsible to vote against it, at another point in time he voted against it, then he said he voted for it before he voted against it, now he says he’s proud he voted against it"... which is it? Sen. Norm Coleman throws it out there. Had he actually come out and said that first, it would mean something.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

As I am commenting on records, what about GWs record? It hasnt been all that great. Surpluses turned into record deficits, fight a war "waged on faulty intelligence" with no exit strategy.

<hr></blockquote>
He confronted terror, put down a fascist dictator and has had economic growth.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

An over extended militairy. A forgotten war (afghanistan).

<hr></blockquote>
Over extended? And... a forgotten war? You don't think we're still fighting in Afghanistan?
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

A militairy ignoring the Geneva Conventions. Hell he called the Iraqi war over when it was not. How many people have died since "Mission Acomplished"? Not a good record in my eyes. Instead of attacking Kerry, why dont the republicans run on their record.

<hr></blockquote>
President Bush does run on his record and has. He's run on his response to 9/11 and has done so quite well.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Um Leberman (sp?), last time I checked he was still in the party. Wait a minute, he was the Vice Presidental candidate last election. Gore - Leiberman. Sounds like he got one hell of a shot to me. Hell, if it wasnt for the way the electorial Collegeis setup, he would of been Vice President. He got the popular vote.

<hr></blockquote>
Actually, you're wrong. The one thing I truly dislike about Lieberman is the fact that he changed many of his views when he jumped onto the Gore ticket. And this election he didn't exactly get significant percentages.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You always bring the ACLU into every liberal argument. It is your demon to scare good conservative children. State specifically how the Democratic party is entwined with the ACLU. Remember, ACLU support does not equal entanglement.

<hr></blockquote>
Hah, and the ACLU also stands up for "religious freedom". Don't believe whatever they tell you they believe in. How many key democrats have stood up against their attempt at the destruction of Christianity.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

BTW, stating your percieved criteria is not evidence. If you found me an application form that stated all those things you said (ie pro choice), then we will talk. There COULD be a correlation that shows democrats hold those values, but this does not show ACLU entanglement. This could be explained other ways. Besides, psychology basics: correlation does not equal causation.

<hr></blockquote>
I didn't build that correlation.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Dont bother with the Hollywood argument either. It isnt proof of anything. People who are entertainers are just people. They share all different kinds of views, some extremely intelligent, other retarded (B. Speares). If there is one thing I have noticed, conservatives always cry foul when a star has an opinion that conservative disagree with. Entertainers think and have the RIGHT to voice their views. They also read and watch the same news you do too. They are not mindless robots that spew jibberish. Besides, conservatives are so bloody hypocritcal when the bitch about stars. The joke of the matter is that you bitch about the portion of the hollywood crowd that disagree with you yet elevate those that agree with you to high positions of power (Arnold and Ron Reagan). Bloody hypocritical.

<hr></blockquote>
It's not hypocritical. Neither are or were extremists, Arnold is actually a moderate. And of course they have the right to speak their views, but when those views are extreme and disgustingly offensive I wouldn't expect the candidate for presidency to call them the "best of the best".

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Ohh Whoopy Goldberg, bring out the unoriginal lady who careers has been down the toilet for years. She made vagina jokes. Big deal, How the hell does she reflect Kerry. it reflects her as unoriginal, but it dosnt reflect Kerry. He cannot control what she says. He can not apologize for what she says. Besides, she did a stand up comedy routine. You have seen one Danoz, havnt you? They get pretty raunchy? They are also not the most tasteful things? Hence the stupid potty humour

<hr></blockquote>
It's the fact that he stood up and endorsed it that reflects on Kerry. He didn't have to apologize, but he needed to speak against that kind of talk.



<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[Lillymon]

> He voted against the B-1 bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the
> F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the AV-8B, the AH-64 Apache
> Helicopters, the patriot missiles, the Aegis Air defense
> cruiser, the Trident Missile system for US submarines, the
> M-1 Abrams Tanks, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the tomahawk
> cruise missile -- many of which are crucial in our missions today.

Maybe you should've done a little research (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp) into this before making yourself look stupid again.

> He confronted terror, put down a fascist dictator and has
> had economic growth.

OK, the sources I've looked at have shown President George W. Bush to have harmed the economy pretty badly. How about your sources?

> Hah, and the ACLU also stands up for "religious freedom".
> Don't believe whatever they tell you they believe in. How
> many key democrats have stood up against their attempt at
> the destruction of Christianity.

I certainly wouldn't. Christianity has had an excellent run but it's become as obsolete as the NeoGeo. Time for it to step over and make way for a new generation.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Maybe you should've done a little research into this before making yourself look stupid again.

<hr></blockquote>
I've read it, and my post stands. He was still within a minority of senators that voted against important and necessary weapon systems and budget increases that were in the best interest of our forces and our defense. Just because Cheney agreed with him on a few specific systems within the package does not change the fact that Kerry was actively against them all-- and missed many important votes in the process.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

OK, the sources I've looked at have shown President George W. Bush to have harmed the economy pretty badly. How about your sources?

<hr></blockquote>
From an inherited recession the president had the fastest economic growth over a 9 month period in 20 years. Bush couldn't plan for 9/11 or the Iraqi war, and to blame the recession on him is ludicrous.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I certainly wouldn't. Christianity has had an excellent run but it's become as obsolete as the NeoGeo. Time for it to step over and make way for a new generation.

<hr></blockquote>
Truth is never obsolete, only forgotten. The great number of Americans will fight for religion, and it's the responsibly of our country to protect that freedom. "Make way for a new generation"? I certainly fear the secular hell that you're wishing for... because when the line of morality is no longer clear to our leaders, America will cease to exist. "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" --John Adams

<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>

[MooglyGuy]

> Just
> because Cheney agreed with him on a few specific systems
> within the package does not change the fact that Kerry was
> actively against them all--

Apparently you never even read what was on that page, or maybe your selective vision kicked in, since it's quite clearly explained that voting against a specific Department of Defense budget appropriation is hardly being "actively against" what the DoD is currently working on. Jeez. <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

<P ID="signature">http://www.zophar.net/Files/mooglish.png
"Kupo, motherfucker!! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"</P>

[Lillymon]

> From an inherited recession the president had the fastest
> economic growth over a 9 month period in 20 years. Bush
> couldn't plan for 9/11 or the Iraqi war, and to blame the
> recession on him is ludicrous.

That's not a source.

> Truth is never obsolete, only forgotten. The great number of
> Americans will fight for religion, and it's the responsibly
> of our country to protect that freedom. "Make way for a new
> generation"? I certainly fear the secular hell that you're
> wishing for... because when the line of morality is no
> longer clear to our leaders, America will cease to exist.

Our leaders? Did you forget that where I live?

Besides that, the unmistakable move over the past few decades and indeed centuries has been away from religion (Christianity in the US is shrinking (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm) by the year while the non-religous are growing and Wicca is positively exploding). I don't want an end to morals, they're essential to society, but morals and religion are not so totally intertwined that one cannot exist without the other.

> "We have no government armed with power capable of
> contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
> religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the
> strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a
> net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
> people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
--John Adams

Again, morals and religion are implied to be almost the same thing. Atheists seem to have no problem being good, moral people without fear of hell or some other kind of 'divine' punishment. I frankly think it's rather scary that some people need the thought of eternal punishment constantly in their minds to stop them from doing evil things.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[IceWolf20]

> "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
> Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
> Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" --John Adams

"If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." -- Samuel Adams

Whom would be whom here? I'm sure there's an argument for both....but I'd like to think that "vain and aspiring" would apply to the right at this point....more specifically the WH admin. Is the Kerry-Edwards team the "experienced patriots"....I doubt it, so I think we're pretty much fucked as it stands, but hey, if it isn't working as it stands, why not try a change and give it another whack....if K-E bomb, Bush can still come back for a second term.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>