Kerry is dangerous
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
AlphaTroll
New Member
Of course Kerry is dangerous - if you're a Republican 
chcr said:I said nothing about Bush. I find it hilarious that you think it makes a substantial difference who gets elected.
You're right. I considered making your case special, since you didn't actually say anything but it was too much effort
as far as the above quote, well, I can always hope
AlphaTroll
New Member
Gonz said:
Would just like to point out that I did not take a poke at Bush.
AlphaTroll
New Member
Gonz said:
So you reckon Bush is the only Republican? How the hell do you expect him to win the election then?
The Other One
Banned
Of course, how could one not expect yet another tale of Demo misconduct:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html
"PRESIDENTIAL hopeful John Kerry was branded a “sleazeball” last night by the parents of a young woman he allegedly tried to woo.
Alex Polier, 24, was named as the woman at the centre of a scandal that threatens to damage Democrat Kerry’s bid for the White House.
Her mother Donna claims Kerry, 60 — dubbed the new JFK — once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was “after her”."
Seems poor Ms. Polier is unavailable in Kenya, at the behest of Kerry himself. 24 and 60. I Guess Kerry was chasing his youth.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6157:
"Should Kerry face questions about the charges of infidelity previewed on the Drudge Report, he can draw upon his rhetoric honed during the Lewinsky scandal. Kerry insisted that Americans didn't care as much as the House Republicans about Clinton's corruption. That Clinton gutted out the scandals illustrated to Kerry "the growing up of America."
"In a speech during the Impeachment proceedings, Kerry asserted that the "country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President's egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about the case that seems totally lacking in the House managers' presentation." He said, "No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now OK."
Kerry accused Congress of "moralizing," and that "no amount of inflated rhetoric, or ideological or moral hyperextension" could elevate the "President's actions to the kind of threat to the fabric of the country contemplated by the Founding Fathers." Kerry said he was "stunned by the overreach, the moral righteousness, even the zealotry of arguments presented by the House managers." He said "the President is certainly a sinner. We all are," but Clinton was more sinned against than sinning, having suffered a "violation of a zone of privacy that is as precious to Americans as the Constitution itself."
Somehow it all goes back to the Slickster.
Interesting how 6 years makes all the difference: In 1998 Kerry "... urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs..." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r105:3:./temp/~r105mKitcn::
Catch you on the flip side Johnny...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm
"LEBANON, NH 6-18-2003--- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.
''He misled every one of us,'' Kerry said. ''That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States.''
Hey now, but why did Kerry say this in 1997:
"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation....In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. "
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:1:./temp/~r105snisR3:e47:
But, wait---one more time with feeling please:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0205f.html
"Today, the CIA Director, George Tenet, admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. But that’s not what the Bush White House told the American people. They said Iraq posed a ‘mortal threat,’ an ‘urgent threat,’ an ‘immediate threat,' a ‘serious threat,’ and, yes, an ‘imminent threat’ to the people of the United States."
So which Kerry will it be?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html
"PRESIDENTIAL hopeful John Kerry was branded a “sleazeball” last night by the parents of a young woman he allegedly tried to woo.
Alex Polier, 24, was named as the woman at the centre of a scandal that threatens to damage Democrat Kerry’s bid for the White House.
Her mother Donna claims Kerry, 60 — dubbed the new JFK — once chased Alex to be on his campaign team and was “after her”."
Seems poor Ms. Polier is unavailable in Kenya, at the behest of Kerry himself. 24 and 60. I Guess Kerry was chasing his youth.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6157:
"Should Kerry face questions about the charges of infidelity previewed on the Drudge Report, he can draw upon his rhetoric honed during the Lewinsky scandal. Kerry insisted that Americans didn't care as much as the House Republicans about Clinton's corruption. That Clinton gutted out the scandals illustrated to Kerry "the growing up of America."
"In a speech during the Impeachment proceedings, Kerry asserted that the "country does not believe the fiber of our nation is unraveling over the President's egregious behavior, because most people have a sense of proportion about the case that seems totally lacking in the House managers' presentation." He said, "No parent or school in America is teaching kids that lying or abusing the justice system is now OK."
Kerry accused Congress of "moralizing," and that "no amount of inflated rhetoric, or ideological or moral hyperextension" could elevate the "President's actions to the kind of threat to the fabric of the country contemplated by the Founding Fathers." Kerry said he was "stunned by the overreach, the moral righteousness, even the zealotry of arguments presented by the House managers." He said "the President is certainly a sinner. We all are," but Clinton was more sinned against than sinning, having suffered a "violation of a zone of privacy that is as precious to Americans as the Constitution itself."
Somehow it all goes back to the Slickster.
Interesting how 6 years makes all the difference: In 1998 Kerry "... urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs..." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r105:3:./temp/~r105mKitcn::
Catch you on the flip side Johnny...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm
"LEBANON, NH 6-18-2003--- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.
''He misled every one of us,'' Kerry said. ''That's one reason why I'm running to be president of the United States.''
Hey now, but why did Kerry say this in 1997:
"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation....In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. "
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:1:./temp/~r105snisR3:e47:
But, wait---one more time with feeling please:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0205f.html
"Today, the CIA Director, George Tenet, admitted that the intelligence agencies never told the White House that Iraq posed an imminent threat. But that’s not what the Bush White House told the American people. They said Iraq posed a ‘mortal threat,’ an ‘urgent threat,’ an ‘immediate threat,' a ‘serious threat,’ and, yes, an ‘imminent threat’ to the people of the United States."
So which Kerry will it be?