Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What that crazy wingnut John Conyers said about John Kerry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 10:49 AM
Original message
What that crazy wingnut John Conyers said about John Kerry
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 10:50 AM by zulchzulu
I say that about Mr. Conyers sarcastically. It looks like a few DU peeps woke up on the wrong site of their futon and had to start a Kerry bashing thread to make themselves feel "valid"...

Anyway, here is what John Conyers said about the 2004 Election scandal in Ohio, which, in case you've been under a rock in the last couple years, was seen as a critical reason why the election was stolen again. If you know about our friend James Carville and his little whispers to his lovely wife on Election Eve, you get some bonus points.

"Fighting for Every Voter"

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me. As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes...

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

- John Conyers

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm


I'd love people who enjoy dissing Kerry to respond to what Conyers said. I won't hold my breath though.
:eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Amazing, isn't it? I come to DU to get the latest gossip sliming Democrats.
It's a real time-saver.

Think how many other sites I'd have to wade through to get the same heaping servings of "I Hate (insert Dem name here)" available on DU lately.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Crazy isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm not a Kerry fan...but thanks for posting this. This makes me feel better about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for the post. Good reminder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you.
I appreciate the good information in your post and the challenge to "the bashers" to respond to it. I don't know if you are a Kerry supporter or not, but I really like to see good information about our Dems made available to readers here. I agree, it's silly to resort to bashing when we could have a genuine informational conversation instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
6. Simple question: what does Kerry have to say on the subject?
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 11:19 AM by jgraz
Fixing the election systems in this country is a public, political effort. Without clear public involvement by the major candidate, change is much harder to achieve. To me, this is one of the biggest indictments of Kerry's approach to campaigning: he clearly believes something was wrong, since he's still supporting the litigation, but he won't put his face or his voice on the cause. Instead he relies on surrogates to make back-handed comments about "the ongoing involvement of the Kerry-Edwards campaign."

And before you start accusing me of using the Freeper "flip-flop" line, this isn't what he's doing here. It's yet another example of John Kerry trying to have it both ways. He'll imply that Bush lied, but he won't actually use the word. He'll say the war was badly managed, but he won't (until very recently) say his vote was a mistake. He'll go just far enough to hint to us progressives that he's on our side, and then he'll pull back when the time comes to speak plainly or act in a way that may be unpopular.

If you still disagree, ask yourself this: why does John Conyers have to say these things? Why isn't Kerry out front on this? And even if Conyers is the "go-to guy" on this issue, why can't he say that he has the full support of John Kerry (not just the "ongoing involvement of the Kerry-Edwards campaign")?


Edit: only need one "the"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Why?
"....why does John Conyers have to say these things? Why isn't Kerry out front on this?"

Kerry can't be the front man on the stolen elections because the idiots that don't have a clue that their votes were stolen will spout their idiocy that Kerry is just saying so because he is a sore loser.

Thing is: it is your vote that could have been stolen and each individual needs to take resposibility for how their own vote is counted, and not make Kerry have to carry your weight too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. For once I'd like a candidate who speaks the truth regardless of what response he thinks he'll get
Why is Kerry so afraid of "the idiots that don't have a clue that their votes were stolen"? Does he really expect to get their support for 2008?

Many of us have taken "personal responsibility" for the vote counting in this country. I'm left to wonder why my candidate hasn't done so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Kerry is not afraid
Kerry has spoken the truth... that is why he supports the lawsuits. Yet you continue to spout the meme that he isn't saying anything thereby requiring Conyers to make the statement he has. Conyers is talking to you. Are you too afriad to hear him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. He spoke of 04's vote suppression and faulty machines on Senate floor.
Surely you didn't miss that since you write as if you are alert about anything that has to do with Sen. Kerry?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Sure did Gore and Lieberman a lot of good, didn't it?
Remember "Sore Loserman"? and the other taunts and mantra? You obviously have no clue about how to fight the Rove neocon machine.

You don't put yourself out there as fodder for their taunts and mantra if you don't want to be tarred and slimed. They play dirty and will twist any little thing they can and the media will latch onto it and help them spread it, without bothering to learn the truth.

Just look at what they did with that stupid botched joke. Did they bother to read the transcript and say wait a minute, that was not what he intended to say? NOPE. They played right along with the propaganda.

Just look at what they did with Gore "I invented the internet". Gore said NO such thing, yet they led most of America to believe that he did.

You must be very careful when dealing with these crooks and Kerry knows that. I only wish people like you could understand that.

Knee jerk and bombast are fun and cathartic, but can also be fatal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Well, it got Gore my vote if he runs in 2008
How many other causes would a President Kerry softball in order to avoid being taunted?

"You obviously have no clue about how to fight the Rove neocon machine"

Oh please enlighten me as to how you would do it. Running and hiding until the bad people stop talking about you?

The difference between Kerry and Gore? Kerry had Gore as a reference point, and he still blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
40. Kerry's rational, civil attitude won me over.
"Oh please enlighten me as to how you would do it. Running and hiding until the bad people stop talking about you?"


No, by being smart and trying to avoid giving them fodder. Kerry showed the voters that this administration was dishonest liars without having to use the word liar. I think that was being smart and "presidential".


"The difference between Kerry and Gore? Kerry had Gore as a reference point, and he still blew it."


No, Kerry didn't "blow it" with the voters. He won with the voters, and if not for fraudulent machines, voter suppression and voter intimidation, he won in a small landslide.

And, I wish I could "enlighten" you and so many others like you who are so ill informed and seemingly unwilling to try to find real facts instead of just mimicking main stream media bias and neocon talking points, but, I'm afraid my abilities are quite limited.

But, I would like to suggest that you may try to understand that sometimes intelligent diplomacy can accomplish more than can guns and bullets. Your kind of rhetoric is nothing but guns, bullets and bombast.

Look for facts. There have been a few shown here that totally blow you out of the water, if you care to do a little THINKING and not just knee jerk reaction.

KERRY'S rational, civil attitude could have helped bring back some civility and respect to our political process if he had not been CHEATED out of his win. My hope is that we can clean up election fraud and a candidate like Kerry will not have to resort to negative campaigning and name calling in order to win an election.

I know it's a "pipe dream" but I still have hope that it can happen. And, if Kerry's "loss" can make that happen, being the man that I know he is, it will make his "loss" easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. And that's the main source of our difference on this
"I'm not sure I can take your advice. You are dealing with English Gentlemen. We are dealing with monsters."
-- Martin Buber, German Jewish Philosopher, in response to Mahatma Gandhi's suggestion that passive resistance be used to combat the Nazi government in Germany, as was used against the British in India.

That's my problem: Kerry treats the Rethugs like English Gentlemen, when time and again they have shown themselves to be monsters. The time for civility has long passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. IMO, You are dead wrong!
The time for civility is NEVER past.

So you agree with the Bush administration that we should ignore the Geneva Conventions, and become the "monsters" that we claim our enemies to be?

Isn't that going backwards? How can we be the good guys, the democratic, civilized soceity, if we become the monsters?

Civilization has come a long way, but we must work hard to continue to spread civilization. We can't cave to the "monsters" and start acting just like them.

Kerry proved that in the last election. Voters responded very positively to his honest, civilized debate. Now, we just clean up election fraud and we can be a civilized society again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Calling Bush a liar and a war criminal is not being a monster
It's telling the truth. Someone needs to. At best, Kerry is resistant to doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Really, can you support that?
Can you support what you are saying?

You have been challenged in this threat to back anything you say up with one single reference that isn't a personal opinion. So far nothing has been posted.

Perhaps there is some fear here that there are no sources and nothing to point to that supports your argument. That's why you sink to personal attacks. Without them, you would be totally silent and have nothing to say at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. Support for what? That Kerry is being civil?
Frankly the quote wars and the meticulous parsing are getting boring. I post a quote, you post a quote and say mine is out of context, and on and on and on. And on.

Kerry's poor campaigning, toothless convention, broken promises about counting the votes and his craven concession speech are all I need to make my decision. You don't agree? Fine -- what support could I possibly provide that would change your mind? My guess is that nothing would.

On the other hand, if Kerry had spent six years acting the way Al Gore has, I'd support him in a heartbeat. He needs to show that his next campaign won't be more of the same. In fact, he needs to show that he'll be orders of magnitude better as a candidate -- he won't be able to count on the "not Bush" vote next time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Really
I see. You make an accusation, then hide behind your inability to actually cite a source, then accuse others of your sins. Others have cited sources, posts by you have not. This is not, 'you post a quote, I post a quote.' Your quote was something from Gandhi, the other quotes were news sources that specifically proved you wrong. You seek to divert attention from that by pretending all things are the same thing. This is, at best disingenuous and at worst a lie, as you yourself might say.

You are unable to back up anything you say with anything substantive. In order to get out of doing that, you then discredit the idea of citing anything, saying that it gets in the way of a good opinion, based on nothing at all but whatever whim possesses the silly person who makes it at the time.

Perhaps it is just too much trouble to actually argue something on the merits. Perhaps the level of debate some people are most comfortable is on the name-calling and employing diversions away from the actual arguments. I understand where doing actual research might be too hard or too time-consuming. But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a substance and content free discussion from you based on nothing more than a feeling and not on anything real or that has a source.

It is all ad hominem attacks and attacks on the character of a person. I should like to see if you have any other way of making an argument, but have never seen any proof that you can, based on your actual writings. Too bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Sigh -- this always does SO much good
here's one:

Mark Crispin Miller: “Kerry Told Me He Now Thinks the Election Was Stolen”


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532222

After Mark made that accusation, Kerry flat-out denied he had said it. I know Mark and I trust what he says. Of course, you'll deny Kerry did any such thing, say it's he said/she said, or just simply ignore the evidence in favor of more snide comments.

The fact is that we've both lived through the last three years and have come up with startlingly different conclusions about Kerry's worthiness as a candidate. How will reposting the same citations over and over again change that?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. I see, asking for sourcing is making snide comments.
The Bush Administration makes this argument as well whenever it is questioned.

The false argument is that because you know Mark Crispin Miller that you can assume that everything he says is true and nothing anyone else says can therefore be true. This is not a logical argument and is, once again, based on personal opinion. "I know him, therefore he cannot lie," is not proof of anything but personal opinion and is subjective to you, who you are and your relationship to MCM. This is proof of nothing.

The other false argument is that because one side is posting actual news sources and the other is citing personal opinion that both sides are stating and drawing from the same fact pool. This is not the case.

You seem unable to state an argument that isn't based on your opinion. Your opinion is worth no more than anyone else's. This is double true since you refuse to cite anything that backs up your opinion, but condemn the argument itself as a 'he said, she said' deal.

It's not that this is an apples and oranges argument, it's that you have fruit salad arguments that flit from one topic to another without anything of substance in it. Personal opinion contains as much weight as actual sources. When caught on one thing, you bring in a totally unrelated subject to back up what you didn't cite in the first one.

I agree; these posts are without substance on at least one side. Too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Like I said -- SOOOOO much good
This is a complete waste of time. You and the rest of the Kerry Klub will believe what you want to believe, and your continual prattling for more and more evidence is just your way to avoid addressing any real argument.

I made two points of evidence that have yet to be refuted: Kerry refused to call Bush a liar during the general campaign and he refused to use the word "fraud" before the election was certified by the House. Show me where that is wrong. Or do I have to dig up everything Kerry said in 2004 before you'll be satisfied?

The rest is definitely my opinion: that Kerry's refusal to directly and publicly confront those issues disqualifies him from another run for the Presidency. Now, there's no reason you can't debate that opinion and try to convince me otherwise, but all the arguments will come down to personal interpretations of Kerry's actions, not disagreements over actual facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I see, now you have revised your requests.
You stated in an earlier post that you Kerry never used the word 'lie.' Since you were demostrable proven wrong in this by numerous people, you are invoking the psychic school of argument, in that people were supposed to guess what you were saying based on what wasn't in your remarks. Now, because you were proven wrong, you are changing the dates in your request in an effort to make yourself right.

Kerry spoke up in 2004 about problems in the 04 election. He participated in and funded law suits against Ken Blackwell and the state of Ohio. This has been pointed out to you. John Conyers, the OP, praised him for it. However, you choose not to see that this happened because it doesn't fit your opinion. And, to try and make yourself correct, you have again revised what you originally asked for now and then complained because the ones reading your posts didn't psychically know what you wanted based on what you didn't, at the time, write.

I see. It's the readers fault. They responded to what you actually wrote. Your were proven wrong, so it must be the fault of the people who read you. Tsk, tsk. Is that really an argument a Democrat opposed to this Administration should be making I wonder?

Ah, and I see that you want to debate. You just want to debate based on 'your feelings' and not on anything factual. I understand. Looking up actual facts can be very time-consuming. Real facts can also get in the way of the 'feelings' that you have on candidates. I can certainly understand where you might find anyone who disagrees with your 'opinions' and asks for something that backs up the opinions with facts as really annoying. Why mess up a perfectly good 'feeling' for some silly fact-based discussions. I understand that you dislike this form of discussion, it is very taxing on the mind, after all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Nope, I just forgot how good the Kerry fanbase is at parsing
He's definitely the candidate for you. Please continue splitting hairs while we grownups elect a president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. I will indeed continue to read about the issues
while others construct meaningless discussions that they can't back up with facts.

We shall see what happens as the next year unfolds. Perhaps there is a place in the American electorate for the type of baseless name-calling, smears and unsubstantiated arguments that you hold you dear.

Which candidate, do you think, most supports this type of argument, do you think? I, and countless others would love to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
82. You were proven wrong - which you call splitting hairs
Then you claim to be a grown up. :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. You and I have a much different definition of "wrong"
Just as most Kerry supporters have a much different definition of "won".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. Yep, sooooooo much good!
"I made two points of evidence that have yet to be refuted: Kerry refused to call Bush a liar during the general campaign and he refused to use the word "fraud" before the election was certified by the House. Show me where that is wrong."


Show me where it is right, and, if it were right, how it would have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with Kerry's qualifications for being President.

If he showed America that Bush is a liar, (which he clearly did), why was it necessary for him to say THE word?

And why should he have used THE word "fraud" before the election was certified by the House, if it had not yet been PROVEN to be a fraud?

I cannot understand your obsession with THE NEED for specific words, if the case was made without specifically using certain words that YOU seem to favor.

He got the job done and handily won the votes from the VOTERS. Proving election fraud and correcting it is taking a little longer. Most people with an IQ over room temperature, and who have availed themselves of the FACTS, know this, and have the intelligence to know that Kerry crying "fraud" and refusing to concede the election would have hurt the efforts to get most of America to take the real problems seriously.

And, it would have given fuel to the Rove machine to paint Kerry as a "sore loser", in the same way Gore gave them fuel to paint him.

If Gore is sooooo great, why didn't he stay active and try to help expose the fraud, as John Kerry has been doing? Why did he hide out for all those years? Licking his wounds?

Nope, John Kerry has handled it in a very smart and productive manner, without crawling into a shell and licking his wounds. You see, he did not think of the fraud as his personal wounds. He thought of it as a threat to American Democracy and should be treated that way, by ALL Americans. And, IMO, America will be the benefactor for the manner in which Kerry has handled the fraud.

After all, it is America that is important here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. As usual, your capacity to praise Kerry far outstrips my desire to bash him
I'd be a lot more motivated if I actually thought he would be a factor in 2008. My guess is that right now he's down to his 4th-string donor list and he still hasn't raised enough to get him through the Iowa Caucuses.

Our unresolvable disagreement stems from the fact that you think he did enough during and after the campaign and I think his actions were shockingly inadequate. I predict that very soon both of us are going to have to face the reality that this argument has absolutely no bearing on the 2008 campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. How can you know that?
"Our unresolvable disagreement stems from the fact that you think he did enough during and after the campaign and I think his actions were shockingly inadequate."


How can you know that "his actions were shockingly inadequate" since it is very clear that you have very little knowledge about what his actions actually were? IMO, YOUR knowledge of the subject is "shockingly inadequate".

And, FYI, he has NOT stopped. His actions are ongoing.

Please tell us this - Did you actually read the articles that several posters showed you? Am I correct in doubting that you even read them, since you continue to make the same baseless remarks?


IMO, Our unresolvable disagreement stems from the fact that you don't care about the FACTS. If YOU didn't hear him use THE words liar and fraud, then, in YOUR opinion he didn't do enough.

And, yes, I will support and defend Kerry to my last breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Let me lay it out for you in a nutshell
(points for knowing where that quote comes from)

How can you know that "his actions were shockingly inadequate" since it is very clear that you have very little knowledge about what his actions actually were? IMO, YOUR knowledge of the subject is "shockingly inadequate".

As usual, you can win any argument if you make up what the other side says. I didn't say I "knew", I said I "thought". My opinion is that he should have done more. My opinion is that he chose political expediency over fighting for our votes and our democracy.

But since you brought it up, why is it that you think it's OK that people need to engage in a fucking research project to understand Kerry's positions on the issues? That's the problem. Sure, the United Church of Kerry can reach into their canon to produce some statement he made to the West Bumfuck Courier-Dispatch, but the fact remains that he is NOT taking the lead on these issues. From where I sit, it looks like he's preserving his deniability in case the wind switches direction.

The fact that someone's opinion differs from yours does not mean that they are uninformed. You just don't like my conclusions, so you say I have little knowledge. What if I asked you to prove that there was no evidence for vote fraud before Kerry conceded? Could you do that? If you couldn't prove it to my satisfaction, would that make you uninformed?

The constant drumbeat for more and more evidence is the same tactics the rethugs use when people accuse Bush of lying about the war. As long as a thread of a shadow of a doubt exists, they feel they are ahead of the game. At the end of the day, you are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't expect to post your opinions on the general forum and have them go unchallenged.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. I could say the same for you.
"Just don't expect to post your opinions on the general forum and have them go unchallenged."


You have been challenged here and shown that YOUR opinions are NOT based on fact.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. No, I've just shown that my opinions are not based on an undying love for John Kerry
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 04:53 PM by jgraz
That's the part you can't deal with. The fact that you "will support and defend Kerry to (your) last breath" tells me that this has moved beyond the best interests of the country or the party and into the realm of hero worship.



Edit: typing is such sweet sorrow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Nope. Not at all "hero worship".
I have learned that Kerry is a man of integrity, principles, and cares about his country. He is one of very few politicians that I trust to do what's right for his country.

IMO, there are very few politicians that we can believe in, in such a way, and, imo, they are precious and should be supported and defended by EVERY American who cares about this country.

At the very least, they should not be denigrated by baseless Karl Rove type talking points. And, the reason I will defend and support them is because I just watched this country be almost hijacked by the Karl Rove neocon machine.

And, IMO, if we do not stick together and defend and support those who will be vigilant about such thing happening again, it WILL happen again. And, the next time, they just might succeed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. It would be a lot easier to stick together without the "Karl Rove" crap
Did Karl ever ask Kerry to call Chimpy a liar? Did he ever insist that the 2004 elections were stolen? Are you so blinded by your love for Kerry that you think that criticism from the left is actually helping the GOP?

Many, many progressive people criticized Kerry -- before, during and after the campaign. And most of those people -- myself included -- were also out working their asses off to get him elected. I plan on supporting any Dem candidate just as vigorously as I supported Kerry in 2004. Can you say the same? Or would supporting someone else be a "Karl Rove" tactic?

You guys need another attack method. This one's getting old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. "Or would supporting someone else be a "Karl Rove" tactic?"
Nope, not at all, so long as you stick to the FACTS, and not regurgitate baseless "opinions".

You really don't get it, do you? If you have a problem with Kerry based on ACTUAL FACTS, I have NO problem with that. If you prefer someone other than Kerry, that is NOT a problem.

The "Karl Rove tactic" comes into play when you spew garbage that has NO basis in FACTS, or totally disregards FACTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. So as long as we all spew baseless opinions in FAVOR of Kerry, you're cool with it
Or will you be attacking all the "Kerry is a good man, Kerry is god, Kerry says he's leaving his wife for me" posts next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #80
85. Can't deal with?
" No, I've just shown that my opinions are not based on an undying love for John Kerry"


Nope. The part that I can't deal with is that your opinions are not based on FACTUAL knowledge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. His "fourth sting donor list" did a pretty good job
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 05:11 PM by karynnj
helping others in 2006. People were innundated with requests so it says something that he was consistently successfull with his list. I bet many of his competitors would love that "fouth string donor list". But it may only work for Senator Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. Yep!
That "fourth string donor list" raised almost a million dollars in a 48 HOUR period for 2006 Congressional candidates, because KERRY asked us to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #55
60.  "Support for what?"
For anything that you have said in this thread would be a good start. You have been shown over and over to be wrong in this thread, including your most recent post.

Show some proof, other than neocon talking points, that the things you have said here are based on actual FACTS.

Several poster here have shown you they are NOT facts. Can you prove them wrong? Are you even reading what they are posting? My guess is that you are NOT.

IMO, Your mind is made up and be damned if you will let FACTS get in the way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. I've got just the candidate for you, then.
Um...it's JOHN KERRY. His entire life has been characterized by a pursuit of and dedication to the truth and speaking it out. If he's really "your candidate" you have a responsibility to educate yourself on this very important point.

John Kerry speaks the truth. John Kerry does not lie. It's that simple.

Others have posted the information regarding his action on voting integrity. Dig in--it's great reading. Get to know this guy before you go around accusing him of being "afraid" or not taking responsibility. He's shown more courage than I can include in one post--everything from his war experiences, to testifying about that war in front of Congress, to running for public office, to standing against DC corruption as a new Senator, to facing the same cancer that killed his dad, to enduring having his reputation and character trashed in one of the nastiest presidential campaigns ever, to coming back to his Senate job after losing and continuing to be a strong, honest leader in whatever he does.

That's courage. That's honesty. If people can't appreciate and respect that, then I think they are being completely unreasonable or are acting on a personal agenda to discredit a very fine person.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
99. So it appears you have some deficiencies in your applied reading skills
Did you READ what Conyers wrote about Kerry...which, just in case you're already wondering off, was the POINT of this thread.

I know. Facts...they are just distractions...to some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Kerry has used the word "fraud" several times, typically in
radio interviews.

Don't have the links handy, but they include appearances on Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller. And if I'm not mistaken, when he did an appearance in MA for renewing the Voting Rights Act, he also used the "F" word. ("fraud" that is)

He has spoken often of the voter suppression tactics (which were the big, obvious story in Ohio, but not redressable) and that we need to legislate to prevent those. He is one of only a handful of cosponsors on several election integrity bills introduced in the 109th Congress (typically joined by Boxer and Feingold and one or two others).

He also has used the word "lie" in describing how the Bush administration led us to war, several times. Hopefully some other Kerry supporters here have time to dig out the links to those. If not, I'll try to come back later and add them, just so you will be fully informed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. He wouldn't use "lie" when it counted -- during the campaign
And he wouldn't say "fraud" when it counted: the day after the election. He knew it was stolen then, but he chose to preserve his chances to 2008. That kind of polticial calculus is not what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Kerry, H. Clinton, B. Boxer & Frank Lautenberg "Count Every Vote Act "
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 11:34 AM by zulchzulu
About election reform, Kerry has spoken many times on the subject. However, Britney wasn't wearing underwear, so the story didn't make it out on the news. Or perhaps there was a Drudge-fueled story to cover at the time...

From here:
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/john-kerry-40-years-after-voting.html

The simple truth is our democracy is only as strong as the people’s faith that their voice counts and their votes will be counted. No one in this country should walk out of a voting booth on Election Day and fear that their vote might not be counted. No eligible voter should approach their polling place and fear that they will be intimidated or denied their right to vote. No American should lose their chance to vote because the lines were too long due to a shortage of machines.

Barriers to voting are an insult to the freest nation in the world. Faulty and insufficient voting machines are an embarrassment to the greatest democracy on earth. That’s the bottom line, we have to do better, and we have to act now. There are important elections across America coming up in 2005 and 2006.

All Americans should insist on reform at every level to strengthen voting rights, stop voter suppression, and secure funding for election officials to purchase reliable and verifiable voting machines so that the discrepancies found in Ohio never happen again. President Bush and Republican leaders owe it to the American people to read the report by the voting rights team, and use their control of Washington to take action on real electoral reform pending in the House and Senate.


109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
S. 450: Count Every Vote Act of 2005
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-450

As for the status of the bill:
"This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. "He'll imply that Bush lied, but he won't actually use the word."
He won't? Wanna bet?





The Union Leader
Mark Hayward

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry yesterday accused the Bush administration of lying about progress in Iraq and whether that country is at civil war; he said "that's correct" when asked if he thinks the President himself is lying.


They tell us we're making progress in Iraq and that there is no civil war. That is a lie," Kerry said during the speech.

"It's immoral to lie about progress in that war to get through a news cycle or an election," he said.


Kerry used the word "lie" four times during his speech. "They," he said, lied about civil war; lied when they doubted the credibility of reports on Iraqi fatalities; lied in faulting former President Bill Clinton for the North Korean missile test; lied about the Congressional page scandal being a Democratic ploy to win the congressional elections.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. What's the date on that? I'm betting it wasn't 2004
Kerry himself said in the debates that he wouldn't use "that word".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I'm betting this is strike three!
Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans on War
By Ron Fournier
Associated Press

Wednesday 18 June 2003

LEBANON, N.H. (AP) 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."

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam"s regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material.

Snip...

"I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America"s credibility and credibility to me because if he lied he lied to me personally," he said.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Good find, ProSense!
You are one amazing fact-finder, y'know? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. So apparently he decided to use "lie" before he decided against it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Nicely played, Karl!
Now run off and play...

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Make a point, get called a freeper
You guys are nothing if not dependable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Why did you use that Repig talking point?
Out of ammo....again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Would you be OK if I just called it a "botched joke"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. Wow. Are you going to be at a local Comedy show? Man!!!
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. Your clever use of rolly-eyed smileys has reduced my argument to ashes
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Oooh -- I have more. Do I win now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. Did you read the words? Er...um...
Could you refute what I said or are still on that holding pattern of ignoring facts in favor of thumb in the mouth gibberish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Oh please. You surely can do better than that.
So cliche of you.

Why the fixation on the word "lie" anyway? I don't understand how that one word is all that important. Why play vocabulary games when we could be discussing all the ways in which Kerry does NOT lie? We could be talking about his honesty, his integrity, the merits of his ideas on how to resolve the bloody debacle in Iraq. We could be discussing his "Dissent" speech or what his views are about faith and politics, from the Pepperdine speech. We could be (and probably need to be) talking about the role he will play in helping us preserve net neutrality, and what we need to let him and his staff know about how we feel about the need to keep the internet accessible to everyone.

There's a wealth of substantial information that he's made available to us on a variety of really important subjects. I don't see the point in bitching about whether he used the word "lie" or "mislead" 2 or 3 years ago. What purpose does that serve? Let's talk about things that really matter.

So, what did YOU think of the Dissent speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Sorry -- it was too hard to resist
"I don't see the point in bitching about whether he used the word "lie" or "mislead" 2 or 3 years ago. What purpose does that serve? Let's talk about things that really matter."

Agreed. How 'bout we discuss someone who actually has a snowball's chance in hell at the nomination?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Such as?
Go ahead--give me a list and reasons why you think each person would be a good president. I'm actually quite interested in seeing such a post, because all too often it seems that all I see is posts saying "We need someone who can win" but no examples follow it.

Maybe you'll think I'm too idealistic, but sometimes I think this "we need someone that can win" argument is actually MORE destructive to our country. As my parents taught me growing up, "winning isn't everything." What good does it do if our Democratic candidate does win, but lacks the ability to lead or refuses to make good decisions? So...we "won" but at what cost?

I can't guarantee that Kerry would win. Nobody can guarantee that any Democratic candidate will definitely win. But, to me, it's irresponsible to make that my main criteria of who I vote for. We need now, more than ever, to support leaders who have integrity and who have experience and the intelligence to make good decisions. We need to have a president that has earned the respect of the rest of the world.

This isn't about winning or losing. It's about the future health and well-being of our country. It's about regaining our moral integrity with the rest of the world. And it's our job as the voters to make sure that the focus is shifted OFF mere "winning" of an election and onto the much more vital aspects of governing the country.

Who would do the best job of being an honest, wise president? Getting that person elected is what I consider to be "winning." Anything less than that is a loss that our country can't afford.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I honestly don't know
I'm looking at Kucinich, Gore, Clark, and even Edwards if he can come up with a reasonable explanation for his IWR vote. Of course, whomever gets the nom gets my support, even if I have to hold my nose in the voting booth (read: Hillary).

For me, Kerry's at a strong disadvantage because he' already a proven failure as a candidate, and that failure has cast strong doubts on his ability to govern as President. I'd rather go with an unknown - and, yes, I'm treating the 2006 Al Gore (v2.0) as a relative unknown when it comes to the 2008 campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StoryTeller Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. I do appreciate your honest answer.
I can't say I agree with your assessment of Kerry as a candidate. To me, he was an electrifying candidate. Honestly, he was. I didn't pay any attention to him until after he won the nomination, because I was a Republican and was agonizing over the realization of what my support of that party had resulted in. I wasn't politically aware before that time. I committed the awful mistake of believing what my faith community and parents told me about what I should believe politically. When I finally faced up to how horribly at odds my faith and the political party I aligned myself were, it was devastating.

It's a terrible thing to be taught your whole life that politicians are corrupt, but that we should trust and respect our political leaders. It created a cynicism in me that was followed up by a lot of guilt for feeling that way.

So when I finally started learning more about Kerry, his integrity and attitude that public office is an opportunity to serve and do good for the people REALLY impacted me on a very deep level. I'd been taught to actually FEAR Democrats in general. But discovering what John Kerry was like gave me hope and reassurance that this was a party that I could support and that better aligned with my deeply-held beliefs than any other political party. He's the reason I became a Democrat.

His example and his life is also what inspired me to become more politically active and get rid of the cynicism I'd held toward politics. The three debates were the most amazing thing I'd ever seen to that point. They were the clincher of changing my political persuasion.

I don't tend to have a lot of heroes. And I don't tend to make a very good follower. I just don't find many people whom I think deserve that kind of admiration. Kerry is one of the very few people whose life and actions elicit that high level of admiration from me.

He may have lost an election, but when you consider that my story is not the only one of its kind, I would have to conclude that he was a terrific candidate and that he won in ways that are the most important. That's the sort of president I'd love for our country to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
35. You have a point, a flawed RW point, but a point!
Your point about the use of the word "lie" ignores the word "if."

And to pick up where your next post will certainly leave off, blah, blah, blah...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. The ignore list is your friend, ProSense
If you don't want to read my posts, you've got an easy way to avoid them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
92. No I like to see the people
who are making a fool of themselves!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Note
the use of the word continues, upt to three years later, and without "if," here and here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. hmmm....so 2003 is 2004 in your world?
That explains a lot, actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Let me expand on the premise of your post:
blah, blah, blah...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. You forgot "Ginger"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalUprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
81. Ummm
Apparently kerry said "if he lied"

That is NOT the same as saying bush lied.

you kerry worshipers never cease to amaze

Good comedy stuff though, keep it up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. He hoped he wouldn't have to.
That he could win the election by being professional, knowledgable, by stating his views and facts, without personal attacks.

AND HE DID WIN! WONDER OF WONDERS!

As it turned out, the majority of voter had no problem with Kerry's not calling Bush a liar. It wasn't necessary at the time. He showed the administration to be dishonest and liars without having to say the word. I say that was very intelligent and honorable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Of course, why bother speaking truth to power if you don't really have to?
On the other hand, when he actually DID have to speak truth to power -- for example RIGHT AFTER HE WON THE ELECTION -- he decided to take a pass. It's very hard to gloss over that failure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. If you had no proof of a crime, would you accuse someone of a crime?
At the time immediately after the election, there was no tangible evidence of voter fraud. There were symptoms, but not solid evidence. Votes disappeared in thin air. You couldn't say that an exit poll vote equals a real vote. It had to be investigated. Perhaps you didn't know that Kerry was a prosecutor...he knows the drill.

Had Kerry known that Carville had been a snitch turncoat RAT and informed his wife that Kerry was going to protest the Ohio vote if he had the 250,000 votes to use as leverage, he might have been able to use that as a source of corruption between the Bush/Cheney election team and Ohio Sec. of State Blackwell.

All they could immediately do was investigate. Unfortunately, Kerry couldn't use the "King Kong" option and trounce down to the White House, pick it up and shake it...and demand a concession from Chimpy. It doesn't work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. For god's sake, he's not in a trial, he's running a campaign
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 01:15 PM by jgraz
You can accuse people of all kinds of things, as we've seen in what the Rethugs did to Kerry.

He didn't have to make a blatant accusation of fraud. He could have just said that there were several irregularites and he was withholding his concession until the were investigated. He could have done anything but what he did, which was to give up a stolen election without a fight.

Edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. OK, so here's your idea of the scenario
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 01:51 PM by zulchzulu
The election results come in. Bush is declared the winner by every media channel. Kerry, getting merely hearsay and unproveable (at the time) evidence, declares that the election was stolen from him. :crazy:

Kerry then goes on every news show and says that the Ohio election results are wrong. Perhaps he asks that exit poll votes be counted as real votes. Does he have verifiable proof that the electronic voting machines (which are paperless, hence unverifiable) have the votes? He says, "No, but...I just have a hunch." :crazy:

The investigation would have to take at least six months or more to get tangible proof. In the meantime, I'm sure the MSM and the Bush administration would have just sat on their hands winking back that the election was being investigated and that, gee whiz, that's just fine with them. :crazy:

The media would just say that Kerry needs to investigate the election, so there will be no inaugural parties for a while. They would just stand back and not accuse Kerry of being a sore loser. :crazy:

The war in Iraq would continue and the military wouldn't mind not knowing who their commander in chief is. They would idly stand back and say that Kerry needs to investigate the election, so the country and its leadership should just remain in limbo. Yeah, no problem... :crazy:

I'm sure you'd be right there with Kerry as he takes arrows from all sides.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Gee it's so much easier to win an argument when you supply both sides
Of course, you know I never said Kerry should get up and declare that the election was stolen. I'm just saying he should not have conceded -- let the fight go to Congress if it has to. Kerry had more than a hunch. He's on record the night of the election saying that he knew votes were being flipped.

As far as taking arrows for Kerry, I was on the phone booking a flight to Ohio when news of his concession broke. Where were you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. So Kerry should not have conceeded?
Indeed, that would not mean that he is protesting the vote, now would it... :crazy:

As for me, I would have gone to Ohio in a heartbeat had there been a reason. I followed the campaign nationally and am finishing up a documentary about it. So you could say I was kind of involved...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Yes, he should not have conceded
Again, you put words in my mouth about protesting the vote. Not the best quality for a documentarian.

He should have called for an investigation and said that until the recounts were certified he was not conceding.

Just curious, what will your film say about his decision to concede? Will it included Edward's side of it? Will it revisit Kerry's promises about counting the votes?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
75. Oh, I see.
"Of course, you know I never said Kerry should get up and declare that the election was stolen."


Of course you didn't say that. You simply said he should have said it was a "fraud"...LMAO!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #53
73. And Bill Clinton comes out and says Kerry is not thinking straight and needs to move on
and what a shame that the toll of the campaign has taken such a toll on what used to be a strong voice in the party.

Bet on it. Clintons didn't want Kerry in the oval office opening the books any more than the Bushes did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
89. The point where Kerry's wording changed was when
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 05:28 PM by karynnj
the Downing Street Memos came out. Until then, it is possible that Kerry, while he knew Bush was inaccurate, did not KNOW for a fact that Bush KNEW what he was saying was untrue. Until Kerry knew that Bush was not just wrong, but that he lied, he was principled and disciplined enough not to call him a liar.

Even a casual reader of Kerry speeches would know that extreme value he places on telling the truth. It also matched what both of his daughters said - that the thing he most demanded from them was honesty. I don't think Kerry would call someone a liar unless it was 100% certain that he lied. This also explained the "if" in the 2003 statement - and that Kerry did not take this casually.

Now, if your response was that you knew he was a liar - defend how you had knowlege on what he knew and his intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Here's what he said
From the online, searchable, Congressional Record for 7/20/06

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting. I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights.

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.


For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights, this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here

wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.
This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.


Sorry to mess up your discussion with facts. It happens.

Also, The viewable file, with transcript available, shows that Sen. Kerry repeatedly called the Bush maneuvers in Iraq and in manipulating the US government to get what he wanted in Iraq Lies.

Washington Post: With Eye On 2008, Kerry Goes After Bush

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 15, 2006; Page A07

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) barely said hello to the New Hampshire Democrats who filled a banquet room here Friday night before unloading on President Bush.

"This war in Iraq is a disgrace," he said in the second sentence of his speech at a party fundraising dinner.

Thirty-two minutes and 14 standing ovations later, the man who lost the 2004 presidential campaign left little doubt that if he runs again in 2008, he intends to be the chief prosecutor of the record of the Bush presidency.

"A lie, a lie, a lie and a lie," he said after recounting Republican claims that Iraq is not in a civil war, that North Korea's nuclear advancement is former president Bill Clinton's fault and that Democrats were behind the release of salacious e-mails that Mark Foley sent to former House pages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400554.html?nav=rss_email/components


Gulf News reported it too:

Kerry likens sex scandal to the war in Iraq
AP

Manchester, New Hampshire: Senator John Kerry, a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, likened the congressional sex scandal to the war in Iraq, saying Republicans have lied repeatedly.

"A lie, a lie, a lie, a lie. What we have in Washington is a house of lies, and in November, we need to clean house," Kerry said on Friday night during the New Hampshire Democratic Party's annual fall fundraising dinner.

"They tell us we're making progress in Iraq and that there is no civil war. That is a lie," he said. "It's immoral to lie about progress in that war in order to get through a news cycle or an election cycle."

Kerry criticised the Bush administration for blaming the North Korean nuclear test on former President Bill Clinton.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/10/15/10074936.html


The actual speech transcript is up at: http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=17

It says, in part:

This war in Iraq is a disgrace.

Bob Woodward’s right – they are in a state of denial. But it’s worse. They’re also in a state of deception.

They tell us we’re making progress in Iraq and that there is no civil war. That is a lie. There is a civil war and it is costing American and Iraqi lives every single day and we must change course in Iraq.

They tell us the Johns Hopkins study on Iraqi casualties is phony. That is a lie. And we can see the truth on our television sets every single day.

They tell us the Congressional Page scandal is a Democratic plot to win the mid term elections. That is a lie. This issue is here because of a Republican cover-up. And those from the Party that preaches moral values that covered this up, have no right to preach moral values any more.

They tell us the North Korean nuclear test is the fault of Bill Clinton. That is a lie. North Korea’s nuclear program was frozen under Bill Clinton. When George W Bush turned his back on diplomacy, Kim Jong IL turned back to bomb-making – and the world is less safe because a madman has the Bush Bomb.

A lie. A lie. A lie. A lie. What we have in Washington is a house of lies and it is time to clean house in November.


I am deeply sorry that little sources like The Washington Post and CNN are too small for your notice. That is no excuse however for fibbing out it and pretending it didn't happen.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. Same as anything. It all depends on which day it is & which way the wind is blowing
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 11:46 AM by mtnsnake
And if the wind is'nt blowing, you won't hear anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Your wind must not be blowing
If you haven't heard the consistency of Kerry's stance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Not true.
I is interesting that the people who are opposed to Kerry on this thread cannot site their sources. They consistently refuse to back up their statements with anything but personal opinion, which they state as fact without benefit of any actual sourcing.

Tell me why I should credit anything these folks say? It is based on smokes, mirrors and personal opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I was wondering why...
...I had that person on "Ignore"...ya gotta love that feature...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
72. Oh, yeah, I forgot about the "ignore" thing...
Good option when you ALWAYS know what someone is going to say. Thanks for the reminder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. Got that right, Tay.
Thruout this thread, this person has been shown, over and over, to be wrong, but still will not acknowledge it. I find that very steange, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
76. Not true, not fair, and not kind
Edited on Mon Dec-18-06 04:23 PM by WildEyedLiberal
There is absolutely no purpose for your comment whatsoever on a Democratic messageboard. I frankly expect to see that kind of baseless, substanceless trashing of a Democrat on republican messageboards.

Do you think flamewars are fun? Do you think slandering the character of a good man is fun? I can concede the first point - a lot of people really like to argue. That's fine. But dragging a good person through the mud in order to pick a fight with people on a messageboard is seriously not cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #76
90. Seriously, what is it about Kerry that places him above such criticism?
Saying that someone is not suited to be nominated for President is not "dragging them through the mud". Saying that you would prefer another Democrat and stating why does not mean you deserve to be painted with the Freeper brush.

I'm beginning to wonder if you Kerry-lovers will stick around for the general election. He won't be the nominee, that much is certain. So do you plan on leaving the party to form the "I Heart John" coalition?

Every one of us who criticize Kerry will turn right around a work for him should he somehow get the nomination. Can you honestly say you'll do the same for another candidate?

How about if that candidate wins the nomination by leveling exactly the same kind of criticisms against Kerry that everyone else does?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. "Every one of us who criticize Kerry will turn right around a work for him..."
Us?

You're pretty much by yourself in the wingnut league, When you say "us," are you referring to wingnuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cadmium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
49. Kerry has said that the best way
to make sure votes are properly counted is to make sure that Democrats are adequately represented in local offices like governors or secretaries fo state. All the harping in the world does not change fact elections are altered around the edges--as described in Robert Kennedy's Rolling Stone article. Conyers is no doubt saying this about the Kerry-Edwards campaign because he hears the sniping. I believe John Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
78. I'd like to correct one thing you said.
Kerry has used the word "lie" to refer to the Bushies many times in speeches lately. He hasn't spared them at all--and remains one of the more outspoken critics of the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
65. Thanks for posting. As for the bashes, well, they don't care about facts
at all, their purpose is to vent and attack Kerry for everything and anything. Their point is to try and convince people that he is wrong and not popular.On both points they are wrong. These people would blame Kerry for bad weather even though the weather was out of his control. Nope, facts are ignored, they have a different agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #65
88. Bots will be bots
A fact is just a funny looking blurry object that gets in the way of a bot. There is nothing you can do except keep on keepin' on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #88
97. and bots comes in all shapes and sizes
It would be helpful if people would accept the fact that not everyone adores their candidate of choice and that most people view political figures with little real emotional investment. Articulating such a perceived oppositional opinion is erroneously and often gratuitously labeled bashing.

I am always amused by some who aren't content to allow people to state their opinion and let it stand respectfully, instead incessantly trying various methods of marginalizing an opinion they don't agree with and don't want to hear. DU is a study of yawn-inducing because it is so predictable human behavior.

For all the posturing on these boards, the fact is such strident opinions have zero effect on the outcome of the political course of events and usually just incite and perpetuate bad feelings in a community environment. And I have zero confidence that that dynamic will ever change at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Well it certainly won't with freeper jerks like you and me around
:hi: Hey AK! Welcome to the party. :*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. Um...
I respect AK's opinion. Yours...um...not so much.

So this little game of yours is a "party"... wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. I'm about ready
to turn the hose on the lot of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. Your lack of respect wounds me to the core
I so crave it. I've almost finished my Kerry costume made out of the skins of dead presidential ambitions. I hope you like it, Clarisse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. You are full of piss and vinegar today
and that made me laugh so hard I spit coffee on my keyboard. Damn.

It's too bad these pissing matches get so intense that humor can't prevail.

I'm backing out the door now. Pay no attention to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. My "humor" is what usually gets me in trouble
Not that I plan on stopping or anything...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cadmium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-18-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. craks mi up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC