You are right. The only reason I don't vote 3rd party like I used to, is that someone with a real chance of winning control needs to balance this extreme rightist regime. Maybe if the Democrats can get in, they will provide a counterbalance, resulting in government more in the center. Or perhaps they can at least put some brakes on this runaway train.
I am no fan of the Demcratic or Republican parties. Most of the 3rd party efforts are one-issue agendas or people off their nut. I would vote Libertarian, except they have no chance in you know where of gaining power in the near future, and I part with them over social conscience issues, while applauding their small government stance.
I believe that ideas the third parties bring are eventually co-opted by the big 2 if they become widely supported. Here in Colorado, our ballot has issues the Libertarians are for, as am I, including same sex domestic partnerships, and legalizing marijuana possession of 1 oz. or less for adults 21 and over; so you see their influence on the public discourse.
Anyway, like I said before, a pox on them all!!
Kerry Slams Our Troops Again
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Oct 31, 2006.
Page 4 of 8
-
-
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553167,00.html
John Kerry, Still One Step Behind
Once again, the former Presidential candidate deals with a gaffe by trying to compensate for his last mistake. Karl Rove is cheering
By KAREN TUMULTY
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006
You've got to wonder about John Kerry's eye-hand coordination. His career is falling into a pattern. Whenever Kerry is confronted with a big decision, he tries to compensate for his last mistake. He voted against the first Iraq war, which turned out to be a success. So when the second one came around, he swallowed his misgivings and voted for it. That also turned out to be a mistake. So when it came time to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war that he had voted for, he produced what must be the single most damaging sound bite in modern political history by voting for it before he voted against it.
So now, when U.S. troops are suffering their worst casualties in nearly two years, he insulted them. Could Karl Rove have dreamed up a better October surprise than having the Democrats' most recent choice for Commander in Chief suggest that the men and women are dying there because they weren't smart enough to get into law school? -
Amen to a pox on both parties. As to the comment Kerry is too little too late, we will see the day after election day when the House and Senate control are decided.
-
-
-
-
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=
Kerryism [Victor Davis Hanson]
Kerry surely must be one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around. Some afterthoughts about his latest gaffe, which is one of those rare glimpses into an entire troubled ideology:
SNIP
(4) This is not the first, but third, time he has denigrated soldiers in the middle of a war-and there is a systematic theme: John Kerry's assumed superior morality allows him to pass judgment from on high about supposedly lesser folk who become tools of a suspect military: thus we go from limb-loppers and Genghis' hordes to terrorists to dead-beats. The only constant is that the haughtiness is always delivered in the same sanctimonious, self-righteous, and patronizing tone.
(5) The mea culpa that Democrats are blaming the war and not the warriors is laughable after Sens. Durbin, Kennedy, and Kerry have collectively compared American soldiers to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, Stalinists, terrorists, and Baathists. -
Kerry, or anyone, may state whatever they wish, and live with the consequences of their speech; just as Bush, or anyone else, does. -
Want to talk about suppression of free speech? How about the administration's supressing photos like these, fearful they will turn public opinion against their war. During Vietnam, these were regularly shown on the news. Now the media is sanitized by big brother.
There is honor in dying in the defense of the nation's freedom. There is no honor in sending young American's to die in a foreign civil war.
-
I commend Senator Kerry for being a man and stepping up to the plate and apologizing to anyone offended by his remark.
I consider this matter to be closed now. -
Just because I consider myself a democrat doesn't mean that I approve of all democratic politicians. -
My vote will have no influence on a national level in this election regardless of how I vote. Neither of my U.S. senate seats are up this election and my Democratic Congressman is a shoo-in for re-election with only token opposition. -
Wow . . . I can agree with you once in awhile.
:thumbs:
-
It's why I didn't vote for Kerry, even though Bush was (and is) in line for the title of worst president ever.
-
It just makes me ask the question I asked in 2004 of the Democrats...
"You mean...with all the ammo you've been given, this is the best you can do???"
John Kerry makes Michael Dukakis look good. -
They both make a lot of bad people look good.
That is sad.
:saint:
-
I know I'll get slammed for saying this but this is my take.
1) Soldiers enlisted in WWII because of a true sense of patriotism and because they wanted to be a part o stopping Hitler from taking over the world (and the Japanese.
2) Soldiers were primarily drafted into Viet Nam, especially enlisted men.
3) The all volunteer army joined to take advantage of the military benefits for college or the military's own educational opportunities. Of course this is different for those who joined after the war had started or seemed emminent.[/LIST] -
2. The vast majority of Vietnam veterans were volunteers.
3. It follows that you are just as wrong with your generalities in #3 as you were in #1 & #2. -
My husband was a marine in Viet Nam. His tour of duty was between his masters and PhD.
It is difficult to make accurate blanket statements about any group at anytime. -
Page 4 of 8