Someone also watches Drawn Together!
At first, it does look like someone else posted with NI’s account. But I also noticed what **mhendo ** said.
Kerry made a bad statement. He said words to the effect that:
US forces shouldn’t be invading searching and terrorizing Iraqi homes. Iraqis should be doing that.
It’s a mildly amusing political gaffe. I think we all can understand what he actually meant to say.
Apparently Limbaugh riffed on the literal meaning of his words rather than the clear intent, in some kind of Reederesque fashion which is, whatever.
Now apparently New Iskander thinks that Kerry’s literal words were actually his intended meaning and faults Limbaugh for questioning it?
Boy, I think you got this one wrong, Bud.
New Iskander, good step in tuning out Limbaugh. I think your reasons for not voting for Kerry were a stretch.
Sometime before the next Presidential election, why not actually list those things which are really a priority with you. If the opportunity presents itself, match the candidates background and voting record to your priorities. Take group-funded attacks with a grain of salt – including one source news reports.
Congressman Harold Ford is running for Frist’s seat in the Senate. Keep an eye on him --if not in 2008, then another day. (But that’s from my POV; he may not fit the bill for you.)
Remember that Isky likes to play dumb.
Will the ‘real’ Isky please stand up?
I can see where Limbaugh would like those. I know he probably was a little fuzzy during the years he was on the hillbilly heroin but I hope he didn’t miss his chance to riff on these gems:
“The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” —George W Bush, Grand Rapids, MI, Jan. 29, 2003
and my personal favorite
“I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose, ‘You disarm, or we will.’” George W Bush, Washington DC Oct 5, 2003
I for one am willing to take you at your words.
Looks good on you.
Neither of those is as good as “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” (Dec. 11, 2004)
That does seem to be what he said, actually. Kerry wasn’t his own person, even though he was apparently a pretty decent one, so it was better to elect a dumbass who represented himself more accurately.
What’s this, Dukakis trying for a comeback in '08? :eek:
I also had trouble voting for Kerry, New Iskander. I’m glad you’ve got the same low opinion of Limbaugh that I do. Thanks for sharing your views.
In case you didn’t realize it, it’s a reference to a post Scylla made in another thread. Don’t remember which one, sorry, perhaps NI’s “Curse of the Donkeys” thread?
I’m sure jack got the reference.
You just finished telling us that’s what the Democrats did in 2004, in effect. You voted against him anyway because of some image somebody else created, not because of who you acknowledged he really is. That isn’t the Democrats’ fault, it’s your own, for being so willing to dismiss facts and swallow hype. Maybe if guys like you would start to think for yourselves a little more often, we’d have better government, no?
But you’ve made a good start here and deserve some credit. Well done.
I trust everybody knows by now that I’m not really smart? Good, so we don’t need to go there again.
Yes, I do think Kerry meant every word he said. Including the ‘terrorizing’ word, which would be a complete No-No for any political advisor. I think it proves that Kerry is blunt and not glib at all.
When you have armed soldiers breaking into your house at night, you are being terrorized. Perhaps break in they should, but let’s not mince words.
Yes, Iraqis should be doing that, absolutely.
Kind of like I support right-wing cooks, when they run crazy imagining that UN troops will be stationed at US National Parks. UN troops shouldn’t be allowed to terrorize US citizens. We have our own police to do that.
How I voted, means jack. My state was deep at the bottom of Kerry’s pocket from the get go.
Yes, I do have contrasting opinions, only find it hard to express them in that verbal war going on.
Yes, I think Dems bear the most blame for their failures at the ballot box.
For example, I think you have a decent candidate for '08 in Hillary. If the election was today, I’d vote for her. But just look at the shitfest brewing on the Left against her. What will that lead to?
We have three years to go before '08 and indications are mixed. If the Left extremists will prevail and she will have to cow-tow to them, I will not vote for her.
This one, at the bottom.
Unless he’s trying to score points by criticizing the administration, of course.
It doesn’t, and blunt is not the opposite of glib.
You’re dodging the issue. The reasons you stated for not voting for him were kinda dumb.
Don’t forget, we don’t agree on everything. Iraq is one thing we disagree. Bush is another.
You think Bush is an abomination. I think Bush is a decent President.
Bush certainly is not a genius or a savior, and he might be in way over his head. But so would be anybody else on the national political scene. He’s doing the best he can under the circumstances and he is under no obligation to roll over for any of your candidates.
So if I say that Kerry is a good man, to me it doesn’t mean he’s better then Bush.
That’s just dumb, since I suggested nothing of the sort. I didn’t say a thing about Bush either, since that isn’t the topic. I was talking about your comment that “I still didn’t vote for him because he was so miscast; I was afraid he can’t be his own man.” That’s a stupid reason not to vote for someone. Disagreeing with his platform would be a good one.
You miss the point completely.
This is not about whether or not you agree with other people about particular issues.
It’s about the internal logic (or lack thereof) of your stated reason for not voting for Kerry last year.
Well, it’s refreshing to see someone who can find fault with a crap dispenser, even when they’re espousing the views of “your side.” There are plenty of people on these boards who can’t.
Bullshit’s bullshit, no matter which way it leans.
Well done, NI.
I’ll try to explain again. Considering I had to choose between two decent men (in my opinion) the fact that Kerry campaign was poorly handled and too much beholden to radical Left, tilted the scales toward Bush for me. It was not his whole platform, but it was a part of it.
The same may happen in '08, if you kow-tow to your crazy Dean and his cohorts. Fucker like Dean, given room to grow, may develop into little Lenin even.