Kerry/Edwards 2004!!!

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
sweet...now for sure we'll have another four glorious years of President Bush.

why are you posting? shouldn't you be enlisting and volunteering for iraq duty?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

bozack that was one of the single most unintelligent idiotic posts I've ever read. I seriously hope you were kidding around. And Kerry appeals to far more than "liberal nutbags" as you so eloquently put it. Ever wonder why he's neck and neck with Bush in the polls? Maybe he appeals to more than just liberal extremists.
It's quite ironic how people are throwing out how inexperienced Edwards is. Remember, George W. Bush became president, and if there was ever a more undeserving and unqualified candidate in our nation's history it would be him. Besides, Kerry is strong enough to not need someone to hold his hand throughout his presidency. I really like Edwards and think he is a great addition to the Kerry team. Hopefully will see John and John winning the 2004 election.

 

[gcy]

All the way with Kerry and Edwards. Dump Bush now. :beer:

 

[alchemize]

What is really impressive is Edwards stern anti-bush, "there's no WMD" and "No blood for oil" stance. I mean, look at some of these quotes:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

and

We must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations? credibility.

Boy that debate with Cheney is going to rock, he'll pwn him on Iraq and WMD's!

 

[Pandaren]

I have tried to avoid posting in this flamepit of a forum, but I must say that Kerry's choice of Edwards as a running mate has centrists and diehard Democrats energized, and Republicans worried.

My friends, even those who are not particularly partisan, like Edwards. They like his friendly personality and positive outlook. People like the fact that he came from a working class family (his father worked in a textile mill for almost 30 years), was the first in his family to go to college, and eventually made it big. He made his fortune through his own talents and hard work and people really respect that.

I have heard various Republicans interviewed on radio stations and they are all grasping desperately for any attack they can make on Edwards. They say Edwards has no experience on the national scale (while forgetting that G.W. Bush had similar lack of experience). They bash Edwards as an opportunistic trial lawyer, while failing to mention a single circumstances where Edwards did anything wrong or dishonest in the courtroom.

Kerry's experience combined with Edwards' exuberance is IMO a good combination.

 

[DealMonkey]

Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

Link - 9-12-02
Link - 10-10-02

Edit: PS He was a co-sponsor of the "use of force" bill too. Warmonger!

 

[etech]

How can you "return the White House to the American people" when it was never taken away from them?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

quite simple etech, George Bush and his administration simply do not represent the majority of American people. That is why there is so much uproar, that is why the nation is so divided, and that is why Moore's movie has grossed 60 million dollars already.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
bozack that was one of the single most unintelligent idiotic posts I've ever read. I seriously hope you were kidding around. And Kerry appeals to far more than "liberal nutbags" as you so eloquently put it. Ever wonder why he's neck and neck with Bush in the polls? Maybe he appeals to more than just liberal extremists.
It's quite ironic how people are throwing out how inexperienced Edwards is. Remember, George W. Bush became president, and if there was ever a more undeserving and unqualified candidate in our nation's history it would be him. Besides, Kerry is strong enough to not need someone to hold his hand throughout his presidency. I really like Edwards and think he is a great addition to the Kerry team. Hopefully will see John and John winning the 2004 election.

Why would I be kidding around as it is the truth, Kerry is a liberal nutbag so why wouldn't he appeal to such, also with the state of affairs and media surrounding the incumbent it is rather laughable that Kerry is not doing far better in the polls....want to know what is unintelligent and idiotic? putting serious weight into popularity polls at this point in time. Kerry needs Edwards to try and get the moderate and conservatives who are on the fense as his track record clearly paints him as a loony lefty...just hope Edwards doesn't have the same track record when it comes to voting.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
quite simple etech, George Bush and his administration simply do not represent the majority of American people. That is why there is so much uproar, that is why the nation is so divided, and that is why Moore's movie has grossed 60 million dollars already.

right, and Edwards Kerry better represent the joe public? please I take back my last statement as if this is what you are trying to imply then this by far is the most ignorant and simply stupid thing I have read to date, Kerry married to a billionare and multi millionare trial lawyer Edwards are both the epitome of "average joe" if I have ever seen one....what a laugh.

 

[CaptnKirk]

This is my post from April 5, 2004.
I don't think that the situation has changed much in just 90+ days,
But we have had several disturbing revelations about the Bush Administration operations.

Kerry & Edwards -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the stance of bringing the South into the Democratic Party camp it would be Edwards.
From the position of offering a continuity of effort and keeping the ball rolling - if, after a two
term presidency (assuming Kerry would win, and repete) it would also be Edwards.

He offers himself as a 'Southern Gentleman' with charisma, a youthful first term politican
that has not yet become set in his ways, nor jaded by the 'Washinton Insider' mentality.
He ran a suprisingly clean campaign through the Primaries, minimum of mudslinging.

If he were to team up with Kerry- and if they were both to stay above the slander, but maintain
a steady 'On the Issues' campaign, only defending the false spin from the Republican Machine,
they could offer a solid and contrise option to the Bush Administration.
Intelligent voters - who actually understand where the countries politics SHOULD be coming from
would have a strong and potential winning team ticket.

Bubba America will stay with Cowbow Dubya - the mob mentality of the posse.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people that gather in large numbers.

(*Note: - My stance is 'I'm a Republican', but Bush has not earned my vote, nor will he get it.)

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

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

Link - 9-12-02
Link - 10-10-02

Edit: PS He was a co-sponsor of the "use of force" bill too. Warmonger!

Good, in that case, I don't want to hear any "weak on nat'l security" comments from you (or the peanut gallery)!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
quite simple etech, George Bush and his administration simply do not represent the majority of American people. That is why there is so much uproar, that is why the nation is so divided, and that is why Moore's movie has grossed 60 million dollars already.

We will find out in November, but there is no way that you can prove your statement right now.

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. Moore's movie has made 60 million because P.T. Barum was right.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

Link - 9-12-02
Link - 10-10-02

Edit: PS He was a co-sponsor of the "use of force" bill too. Warmonger!

Good, in that case, I don't want to hear any "weak on nat'l security" comments from you (or the peanut gallery)!

Nope, I'll only be making comments about the hypocrisy of the left, k thanks!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Can you please put those quotes in context with links/dates? Thanks.

Link - 9-12-02
Link - 10-10-02

Edit: PS He was a co-sponsor of the "use of force" bill too. Warmonger!

Good, in that case, I don't want to hear any "weak on nat'l security" comments from you (or the peanut gallery)!

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

It looks like it's time for the Bush lied crap to end also, unless you want to add Edwards lied right under it each and every time.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

i love how bozack and other neocons like to spout off how Kerry is such a liberal nutbag. Where is your proof and what constitutes a liberal nutbag (someone who doesn't agree with Bush)? Also, don't compare other elections to this one as if prior elections somehow validate what you want to believe.
You claim he's a flip-flopper, but won't you agree Bush is just as bad if not worse. Kerry sees a mistake and is willing to correct it, Bush makes mistakes and is so stubborn that he won't correct them. You tell me what's better?
In regards to your Edwards statement, remember that Edwards parents will mill workers. He came up from the middle class to earn the money that he's got today. You say he's a "dirty trial lawyer" but where is your proof that he has ever done one dishonest thing in the courtroom?
Now, let's talk about Bush and the AVERAGE JOE. Bush's entire life has been handed to him on a silver platter. He's gone to the best schools because of his connections, he's gotten great jobs because of his connections, and he pretty much owes his life to his father. He has done nothing for himself and has failed in most of his business ventures. It's laughable that you want to criticize Kerry for being rich when your boy Bush is as bad as they come. If there is one thing that Bush has in common with the average joe it is this: INTELLIGENCE.

 

[conjur]

Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

 

[glenn1]

Edwards was a good pick for Kerry. Besides all the reasons previously mentioned, he was the only one of the commonly named main contenders who would stand a chance in the VP debate. You gotta keep in mind that despite his current high unfavorable ratings, Cheney is one of the better debators in politics today, he absolutely owned Lieberman last go around and he would have tap danced on Gephardt's head had he gotten the nod. This election will be the first in a while which will actually feature four well-matched debate opponents.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Edwards was a good pick for Kerry. Besides all the reasons previously mentioned, he was the only one of the commonly named main contenders who would stand a chance in the VP debate. You gotta keep in mind that despite his current high unfavorable ratings, Cheney is one of the better debators in politics today, he absolutely owned Lieberman last go around and he would have tap danced on Gephardt's head had he gotten the nod. This election will be the first in a while which will actually feature four well-matched debate opponents.

Cheney I believe will own Edwards too. You can't deny his ruthlessness

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Interesting thing. The administration has information it is unwilling to give Congress. Perhaps it also denied it then.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur
Curious.

Who provides the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee, eh?

Probably the same organzations that provide it to the White House.

So, did Edwards lie also?

Did Kerry pick a liar for a running mate?

Or did "Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

Oh? Congress receives unvetted intelligence reports?

Interesting....

Edwards
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,"


So are you saying that Edwards as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not doing his job in overseeing the intelligence agencies?

Why does the Senate Intelligence Committee have to fight with people who answer to Bush to get what they ask for? They should ask, and it should be "yes, right away".