your views
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:03 am
wanted to see what your view where on the debates that took plce last night i though tbush did a great job. both of the canadates seemed really calm.
Page 1 of 1
your views
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:05 am
thomas i am not being a smart ass, your spelling is not good, i think there is spell check here, on my views, could that mean on anything as well? Kerry is a babble chatter to me, he likes to hear himself talk, he wouldn't be able to handle the job as president - as he frequently says, wrong or right? i think he is a loser..I truly believe he is no damn good, i have lived long enough to make some kind of decent decisions, i think the guy again $u*ks!... :sneaky: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
your views
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:53 pm
Oh come on! One of Kerry’s mansions is in Idaho. That means he isn’t all bad.
your views
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:41 am
Bush was surly and shifty in the first debate. I know something about eye movements. The side eye movements and pauses showed he was accessing memory, trying to remember what he was supposed to say. Bush got more confident in the later debates, but more smirky, as if what he said was patently obvious to everyone. The bottom line about Bush is that it's all a matter of whether you believe him or not. I just don't believe him based on his agenda and the lies he and the neo-cons tell regularly as if orwellian speech (war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is knowledge, compassionate conservative, friendly forest, patriot act, no child left behind, etc) were their native language. It has to be. They have a lot of things to hide.
Kerry's performance has been gentlemanly and consistent. It is very hard to articulate thoughtful policy in our sound-bite age. Also bear in mind that we are all in a sort of vigilante frame of mind since 9-11. What happens when a posse goes out to string up the bad guy, and someone in the mob stands up to explain the fine points of due process? We are in a period of hysteria that makes us more susceptible to propaganda and less inclined to think in detail. This gives Bush a decided edge.
Don't forget Kerry opened the Iran Contra investigation. There are people who may face some very ugly music if he gets elected, and I'n not talking about Kerry's guitar! :guitarist
Kerry's performance has been gentlemanly and consistent. It is very hard to articulate thoughtful policy in our sound-bite age. Also bear in mind that we are all in a sort of vigilante frame of mind since 9-11. What happens when a posse goes out to string up the bad guy, and someone in the mob stands up to explain the fine points of due process? We are in a period of hysteria that makes us more susceptible to propaganda and less inclined to think in detail. This gives Bush a decided edge.
Don't forget Kerry opened the Iran Contra investigation. There are people who may face some very ugly music if he gets elected, and I'n not talking about Kerry's guitar! :guitarist
your views
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:50 am
thomas40 wrote: wanted to see what your view where on the debates that took plce last night i though tbush did a great job. both of the canadates seemed really calm.
There are some extra points of view at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3740426.stm
Opinion in the media here seems to be that Mr. Kerry had the best of it in
these "debates".
There are some extra points of view at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3740426.stm
Opinion in the media here seems to be that Mr. Kerry had the best of it in
these "debates".
your views
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:52 am
telaquapacky wrote: The bottom line about Bush is that it's all a matter of whether you believe him or not.
Kerry's performance has been gentlemanly and consistent.
I wonder what the people here would think:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3743448.stm
Kerry's performance has been gentlemanly and consistent.
I wonder what the people here would think:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3743448.stm
your views
Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:59 am
tela-qua-packy? is this a term for a stuffed animal?
your views
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:03 pm
Loopie wrote: I found all the debates between Kerry and Bush to be frustrating! I walked away still undecided as a voter. I heard plenty of bashing of each other, many falsified statistics and numbers, but not enough true to the core information that would help me make a decision.Well, then don't vote for a president. Vote for future Supreme Court justices! The Supreme Court determines how our Constitution will be applied. They don't run for re-election every four years, they're in for life. At present the court is balanced by a thread between the far-extreme right, and moderate, with one leftist thrown in (Ginsberg, and she has cancer). Bush has a habit of nominating extreme-far-right wing justices who have disdain for civil rights and individual freedom.
Rehnquist, the Chief Justice, is retiring soon, and everyone believes Bush will elevate Scalia, the extreme right wing ideologue of the court, to Chief Justice, and appoint another extreme right wing ideologue to take Rehnquist's place.
The swing voter, Sandra Day O'Connor, who used to be conservative, but has been taking moderate positions to balance the scary, extreme right wing positions of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, will be retiring soon. Bush will appoint another extreme right wing justice to take O'Connor's place.
Ginsberg, a liberal appointed by President Clinton, has been under treatment for cancer and is well advanced in years. She may die or retire within the next four years.
The bottom line is that this is an extremely critical election year, the outcome of which will determine the composition of the Supreme Court for most of the rest of your life and mine. Realistically, the economy will survive somehow, no matter who gets elected- the war on terror- Do you really think Bush or Kerry can fix that problem? :wah: But the composition of the Court- you never hear about it, and most Americans are too lazy to look into it for themselves- but this is the single most important issue in this election.
Rehnquist, the Chief Justice, is retiring soon, and everyone believes Bush will elevate Scalia, the extreme right wing ideologue of the court, to Chief Justice, and appoint another extreme right wing ideologue to take Rehnquist's place.
The swing voter, Sandra Day O'Connor, who used to be conservative, but has been taking moderate positions to balance the scary, extreme right wing positions of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, will be retiring soon. Bush will appoint another extreme right wing justice to take O'Connor's place.
Ginsberg, a liberal appointed by President Clinton, has been under treatment for cancer and is well advanced in years. She may die or retire within the next four years.
The bottom line is that this is an extremely critical election year, the outcome of which will determine the composition of the Supreme Court for most of the rest of your life and mine. Realistically, the economy will survive somehow, no matter who gets elected- the war on terror- Do you really think Bush or Kerry can fix that problem? :wah: But the composition of the Court- you never hear about it, and most Americans are too lazy to look into it for themselves- but this is the single most important issue in this election.