Two Americas - 0 (Addison was right)
Tax Cuts for the rich - 3 (Expected more)
Halliburton - 5
Medical Costs - 8
Glad I didn't play. I would be hammered.
Addison - Cheney did blame the lawyers for heath care costs and I could not believe the solution the Poodle and Babyface have come up with. Let lawyers decide whether the suits have merit. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I cannot believe Babyface was able to come up with that one with a straight face.
I missed about five minutes of the debate after Babyface said the Dimocrat Party was the party of moral responsibility. I fell out of my chair and was banging the floor and laughing my ass off at anyone saying that the party of Ted Kennedy (murderer), Bill Clinton (sexual harasser and rapist), and Robert Byrd (Kleagle of the KKK) was the party of moral responsibility.
I do have to say that I was pleasantly surprised at the excellent job that Gwen Iffel did. She actually asked Babyface some tough questions. Too bad he didn't answer all of them, like the second question when she asked if Saddam Hussein would still be in power if Kerry had been president.
It would be nice if we could have Cheney take Bush's place Friday night.
Dick Cheney beat poor old John like a rented mule.
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on October 5, 2004 11:28 PMI was kind of hoping Cheney would pull a WWE move and clobber that idiot with a folding chair when he was spewing his nonsense. Did anyone notice Edwards hand work? What a pile of shit that came out of his mouth too. Kerry and Edwards...Dumb and Dumber
Posted by: Ahnold on October 6, 2004 02:10 AMI don't know if anyone else was counting, but I heard one "he served his country as a young man" and one "John Kerry blah blah blah Vietnam". Kind of knew they couldn't resist slipping it in somehow.
Posted by: Eric on October 6, 2004 08:28 AMWhat really got me was how edwards managed to mention Vietnam and Halliburton in the same response. I watched some of the NBC coverage after the debate because I felt I needed Tom and crew to tell me how to think (joking of course), and I was actually surprised that they defended the whole Halliburton deal, saying that it was not a No-Bid contract, it was a Nobody Else Can Do It contract. Apparently, they were the only company in a position to perform the work in the required time.
If the Republicans were trying to portray Cheney as a conversation with Grandpa, like I have heard, then they did an excellent job. If the Democrats were trying to portray edwards as a downright asshole, then they too did their job. The first response was a direct attack on the vice president complete with the finger pointing I expect from an inferior candidate and a scummy tril lawyer.
What was the purpose of pointing out that Cheney's daughter is gay? To me, this is not something that should be brought up at a debate. Although edwards tried his best to sugar coat it, I still perceived it as a direct personal attack and was actually offended at the arrogance of edwards. This is why I could never run for public office. The debate would have ended right there with me pimp slapping babyface on national TV.
Last point, I almost cheered out loud when Cheney spoke of edward's attendance record in the Senate and stated that in 4 years of presiding over the Senate, this debate was the first time they had met.
I've read some of the transcript and what the debate looks like is a sit down between an impetuous and obstinate child and a seasoned erudite professional.
Cheney could have hurt him more but that may have crossed into territory where people thought Cheney was picking on Edwards.
I see lots of people giving credit to Ms. Iffel. One major thing I must fault her for is her reluctance to apply a swift rebuke to Edwards when he consistently broke the rules by "...before I answer that, let me go back..." Against. The. Rules. You had your chance, rookie. Move along.
Posted by: addison on October 6, 2004 11:21 AMYeah, I was laughing at that phony lawsuit solution as well...phony describing the solution, not the lawsuits.
I do wish Cheney had done a little more bitch-slapping. He refused the 30 second "last word on the topic" more than once, and that irritated me.
Personally, I liked the Presidential debate better.
BTW Denny, what up with referring to me and Edwards by the same pet name?!
Posted by: Key on October 6, 2004 12:43 PMUnfortunately, Vice President Cheney Lied (Link) about meeting Edwards for the first time. They even sat next to each other at a national prayer breakfast, where Cheney thanked him by name
(source wonkette)
Although I'd have to agree with Denny, I'd be more scared if Cheney was doing the debate Friday. Despite his habit of scare mongering, hunching over and not speaking clearly at all, and not really telling the truth... he present a more solid case than the fumbling, bumbling, stumbling Bush.
Posted by: Robin Palm on October 6, 2004 02:28 PMRhetorical question:
What if you were absent from your job 70% of the time? What would your employer do?
They would fire you. Plain and simple. I would if I were the employer. If you can't be trusted to show up and do the job that you were hired (elected) to do, then you don't deserve the pay/privileges that go with it.
Edwards has failed to show up 70% of the time. Kerry is about the same. I'm not voting for them.
And if I didn't show up 70% of the time to my place of employment, I don't think anyone would recognize me, either.
Elizabeth
Imperial Keeper
Yep! One whole lie about meeting him for the first time. So he met him how many other times? The point is Babyface and the Poodle have not been showing up for the job they were elected to do. Lurch bitches about Bush taking working vacations while he takes actual vacations. How many meetings of the intelligence committee has he missed? Hmmm?
When Bob Dole was running in 1996 the press took him to task for not doing his senatorial duties so he resigned from the Senate to campaign. Just another example of how the press holds Republicans to different standards than they hold Dimocrats. Liberal bias? Naaahhhh!
Posted by: Denny on October 6, 2004 03:22 PMCheney and Edwards met before. So what? Is this something to even care about? If this is all the media has to grasp onto then you know who won the debate.
Cheney doesn't speak clearly? Are you high?
Edwards looked very uncomfortable in my opinion, and quite goofy at times.
Cheney's attacks were based on facts (awful Senate attendance record), and Edwards were based on opinion (you are not being striaght with the American people).
Posted by: Erik on October 6, 2004 04:05 PMMaybe Cheney did meet Edwards before, but he surely did not rememebr it. Cheney lives in a different world than that teeny-bopper. I saw an analogy tp Cheney as the Star quaterback and Edwards as the mousy freshman co-ed. Same planet, different worlds.
Posted by: ERic on October 6, 2004 05:26 PMYou guys are amazing. I'm glad I come here though. Competing with you guys makes it much easier to trounce all the dumb Republicans around here.
Cheney's whole statement about never meeting Edwards was the crux of the "missed attendance" tidbit. If Kerry/Edwards record is SOOOO bad, why does the vice president have to lie about it?
Wait... let me say that again... just for emphasis.... if the Kerry/Edwards record is so bad that it speaks for itself, why does Dick Cheney have to lie about meeting Edwards?
Now that the main stream media picked up on the lie... It COMPLETELY overshadows the point he was trying to make. I would expect Cheney to be smarter than that.
Why does Cheney have to add in Iraqi casualties to Edwards truthful statement of 90 percent of COALITION casuality numbers are American? Who's Cheney counting? Police? Civilians? Insurgents?
I especially like the fact that Cheney himself advocated tons of weapons cuts after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a point which Edwards brought up.
And factcheck.com going to George Soros' site is pure hilarity.
The crux of the poor attendance statement is that John Edwards "missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, [and] almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee." Your parroting an inference made by CBSABCNBCCNN et al. that they've been pushing all day.
Let's be reasonable, do you think that Cheney was really trying to lie? Something so obviously easy to check? Give me a break.
Your boy got sent to the shed last night.
Posted by: Erik on October 6, 2004 08:35 PM
Erik,
Actually, I came up with that inference by myself. As I was watching the debate last night, and Cheney said that... i thought to myself "that really stings... But I really doubt it's true" I said that to the girl I was watching the debate with (1st date and all). She agreed it seemed a little far fetched.
Today, I stop by Wonkette... lo and behold, there's the picture.
You know, I honestly hope he lied, Erik... otherwise instead of being caught trying to pull a fast one, he's just a forgetful idiot. Something I wouldn't credit Cheney for being.
This sums up the entire administration... Outright Lies... or simply not knowing the truth? are they lying to us? Not telling the whole story? Or they are completely ignorant of reality and don't check the facts?
Misleading the people? Bad Intelligence?
Anyway you paint it. It stinks.
Unfortunatly, no matter how you paint it, it was a mistake, and Cheney's going to get taken to task for it. It was his most memorable line from the ENTIRE debate... and it wasn't even true.
How bout them apples. Can't wait till Bush drops another ball on Friday.
Posted by: Robin Palm on October 6, 2004 08:47 PMSee that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives rely on facts and logic. Liberals rely on emotion and opinions. Hey maybe Cheney was using hyperbole. That's a favorite liberal trick. Howza 'bout those 1 million blacks that were disenfranchised during the 2000 election? It's a made up number but the press allows the Poodle and Babyface to repeat it over and over again without challenging it or requiring any proof. Just like every election they scare old people by saying Republicans want to take Social Security away from old people. The newest scare tactic is that Republicans want to reinstate the draft. Cheney doesn't remember one meeting with Kerry and the press is all over it. Liberal bias? Naaah!
What is wrong with counting the Iraq military/police causualties? Are you demeaning their participation in trying to take control of their own country like Flipper and Babyface? Geez Robin, you say Republicans are dumb? I say liberals are unpatriotic. You want us to lose the war on terror. If you lived thirty years ago you would have wanted us to lose the Cold War also. I really wish I knew what made people like you tick.
I'm glad you continue to come here. Maybe, just maybe, some of the intelligence you encounter here may wear off on you. Maybe you'll actually learn something. I can always dream the impossible dream.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on October 6, 2004 08:48 PMVery good Robin. Keep repeating those liberal 101 talking points. Bush lied. Gosh. Never heard that one before. Kerry/Edwards are telling incredible whoppers too. The biggest issue is who would better fight the War on Terror? The people who were on the wrong side of history during the Cold War, and Flipper was one of the leaders, or the people who won the Cold War. Easy choice unless you want us to lose.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on October 6, 2004 08:56 PMI set next to Joe Pinner and Rick Henry of Columbia's WISTV news station for over three hours at a football game in a VIP box.
I would never say that I met them because I sat right next to them. I said "Hello" and that was the extent of our "meeting".
If Senator Kerry said he had never met George Bush before the debate and the best picture that could be found was Kerry standing behind Bush, I would say Kerry was right. The word 'meeting' connotes to enter into conference and to become acquainted with. Being in the same room with someone and even saying "Hello" does not mean meeting. That would mean every person who ever took a picture with any rock star or celebrity "met" that person. Not so.
Additionally, the point still stands that Edwards is "Senator Gone" with an atrocious attendence record.
I especially like the fact that Cheney himself advocated tons of weapons cuts after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a point which Edwards brought up.
Digression: You can always spot a liberal's writing because it immediately brings to mind something written by a high-school cheerleader. Lots of misspellings, capitalization problems, capitalized words (for effect, no?), no coherent thought path, and always full of self-righteousness and pomposity.
Posted by: addison on October 6, 2004 09:21 PMHere are some things that are a bit off-topic but drive home a point I made long ago about the scumbags that are drawn to the Left side of the aisle.
Michele Malkin notes the loveliness of the Left. Here is another.
Posted by: addison on October 6, 2004 09:37 PMI said it once, I'll say it again, if that statement is the "most memorable line," then you know who won the debate.
I'm concerned with substance over form.
Posted by: Erik on October 6, 2004 10:20 PMAlso, nice job avoiding the actual facts of Edward's attendance, the whole point my post.
Posted by: Erik on October 6, 2004 10:22 PMRobin - Check out Addison's links to just how tolerant your fellow liberals are. It's amazing that conservatives are supposed to be the Nazi's but it seems to me that all the thugishness and the hate speech comes from your fellow liberals on the left.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on October 6, 2004 10:32 PMDenny, you missed my point on Bush. I didn't say he lied, it's the back and forth between "lie" "mislead" and "bad intelligence"... what is it? "We honestly didn't know" versus "Misleading the American public on purpose?" The parallel being that Cheney made an "honest mistake" and "his intelligence was bad" on having met Edwards before.
The thing that is wrong with counting Iraqi casualties is that for one, the are not part of the 'coalition' of invading regime change nations. Two, is that there is no accurate way to confirm Iraqi casualties. Cheney can make up any number. Three, is that the Iraqis don't have a choice whether to be there or not. It's their homeland. I wouldn't classify them as part of a coalition of the willing. As for their sacrifices, I think they are doing a great and brave thing. The risk that those men and women take is nothing short of heroic. Especially since they know they have the target painted on their heads.
I say people who constantly question others patriotism are themselves unpatriotic. Instead of trying to form compromises, people will just accuse the other side of being "Un-American" and say they are just as bad as the enemy. What a complete load. I love my country. I wouldn't be anything if I wasn't an American. I'd probably be dead by now if I was born in Africa, or certain Latin American or Asian countries. But just because I love my country and owe it a huge amount of gratitude for simply having the privilege to live in it doesn't mean I cannot question the actions of my government. It doesn't mean I see everything that America has done has been the right thing to do.
I heard someone say something the other day that I thought was profound. I'm not sure where I heard it, but it stuck. Conservatives love their country like a little kid loves its mother. Liberals love their country like an adult loves their parents.
Conservatives maintain that the country does no wrong, and anyone who chastises the country must be a bad person. "Unpatriotic! Un American!" They say.
Liberals love the country, yet see its faults. They see that for as much as America has been right, it also has been wrong. No one's perfect, not even your parents. But in the American system, of compromise and popular government, lies the hope to right the wrongs of society and to make the world a better place.
Denny, I'd venture to say the policy of Containment was started by Truman, and followed by both Democratic and Republican presidents until the fall of the Soviet Union.
Thanks Addison. I can always count on you to toss a couple of unwarranted insults in any debate.
As far as "meeting" versus "sitting next to someone", Cheney referred to Edwards by name in that National Prayer Breakfast. And sat next to him. Next.
Addison, those same weapons systems that Cheney wanted to cut after the fall of the Soviet Union are the votes that the current campaign is using against Senator Kerry as being "soft on defense". Can't have it both ways, you can't say that every vote Kerry has done cutting weapons programs was bad for the country while at the same time advocating cuts.
Yes, sometimes I use capitalization for effect. Sometimes you use italics for effect (or maybe a side note in parenthesis, no?) I would venture to say that insinuating that someone else writes like a high school cheerleader when they are merely of the opposing view as yourself is the height of self-righteousness and pomposity.
Please, respect that someone can be just as intelligent as you are, yet have a different outlook on the world.
Posted by: Robin Palm on October 6, 2004 10:54 PMHi Denny,
About Edwards' idea for tort reform, I believe that he is talking about a panel of experts (like doctors--not lawyers) acting as gatekeepers prior to a case being filed. This is not a new idea and I don't believe that I have ever heard of a Plaintiff's Personal Injury Lawyer supporting the idea.
I was absolutely floored when he talked about the "3-strike and you're out" rule for lawyers who file 3 frivolous lawsuits. Did you notice the really panicky look he got in his eyes as he discussed that? I think that he was worried about what his buddy and money source John O'Quinn might think about that idea.
I firmly believe that this is just some talking point given to him by a handler to counter the "Trial Lawyer" stigma.
Posted by: Sue Bob on October 6, 2004 11:08 PMErik... unfortunately, the american people prefer form with some substance. Many a campaign has been lost on presentation. Nixon sweating, Gore sighing, Bush Sr. looking at his watch. That's what the public remembers. The public will remember that Dick's most sweltering attack (I even said "ouch" when I heard him say it) was a lie. No one will care about them missing all those Senate meetings now. I don't agree with missing that much Senate, but I assume it's because I don't know much about Senate operations. I'd like to see numbers of every other senator in comparison.
Sure, I care about substance over form, too. That's why I respect and fear Cheney. He knows what he's talking about. But does America care? Do they understand the nuances of the Section 6 tax loophole or how some 1984 Medicare bill approved by Kerry somehow raised Medicare premiums by 17% now? No, they don't. It's just numbers. They only go so far.
I never said Liberals were sacrosanct, Denny. Of course there are going to be people who are just plain idiots. I think the proper term is moonbats, but you're a little more liberal with the term than I would be.
We're talking about half the population, here. Plenty of examples of bad apples, morons, and general normal asinine human civilization. As much the attention is fun, I'd rather not be representative of the entire liberal establishment. There are about as many differences within the "liberal" side of the fence as there is between you and me. Same goes for "conservatives" Just as you would have some disagreements with a religious rightist.
Robin - The only people who are are upset about Cheney's "lie" is you and your fellow leftists. The people on the right thought it was neat. Just like you people on the left think nothing of the 1 million black disenfranchised voters. Using your own argument, if Republicans so obviously disenfranchise black voters why do Dimocrats have to make up fraudulent numbers like 1 million? The difference is the lamestream media called Cheney on his "lie", The lamestream media gives the Dimocrats a pass on their lies.
The policy of containment was indeed started by Truman, but during the Johnson Administration the left took over the Dimocrat Party and started the anti-war effort. Ever since, the Dimocrats have been against a strong America. Everything in the world is the fault of the United States. Look at how your party honored Michael Moore an anti-American leftist who wants us to lose in the war on terror. The higher the body count the happier he is. Unfortunately, he has become the mainstream of your party. The Christian fundamentalists are not the mainstream of the Republican Party.
The reason I call Dimocrats unpatriotic is not because they criticize the gummint, it's because they undermine the war effort. I remember Viet Nam and how we didn't lose the war on the battlefield, we lost it here at home. The people now running the Dimocrat Party are the same people who were against and undermined the war effort in the 60's and 70's. They are hoping to relive their glory and do now what they did back then.
Partisan to a Dimocrat is when Republicans do not agree with Dimocrats. Bipartisan is when Republicans do agree with Dimocrats. Bush has reached across the aisle many times, but the Dimocrats, bitter about the 200 election, have been playing crybaby politics ever since. Bipartisanship is a twoway street. It's a shame your party doesn't realize that and puts their lust to regain power above the good of the nation.
I would like to see a viable loyal opposition party. Unfortunately, the Dimocrats do not meet that test and the nation is worse off for it. Bush lied, people died is not sumpin' to base an election on, especially when the people making the accusations of lying lie just as much if not more than those they accuse of lying. The party of Truman has become the party of Michael Moore.
How sad. How very sad.
Being intelligent has nothing to do with making the right choices. So, I have absolutely no respect for that, and I should not have to, given the real-world consequence of certain ideas.
The programs Cheney is called on were the M-1 tank, F-14, and F-16. The problem is that Cheney did not oppose their creation, only the further procurement of more. He felt we had enough, not that we should not have them at all, that being the position of John Kerry. The tu quoque falls flat.
I say people who constantly question others patriotism are themselves unpatriotic. Instead of trying to form compromises, people will just accuse the other side of being "Un-American"...
Conservatives maintain that the country does no wrong, and anyone who chastises the country must be a bad person. "Unpatriotic! Un American!" They say.
I cannot recall calling anyone unpatriotic other than, say, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and I don't even remember if it's on the Internet. I do not bandy about the charge because I don't question motives; I question the logical outcome of the idea. Jimmy Carter, while President, make America weaker but I would not have called him unpatriotic because I would not have assumed he was doing so purposefully.
Conservatives love their country like a little kid loves its mother. Liberals love their country like an adult loves their parents.
Thanks Addison. I can always count on you to toss a couple of unwarranted insults in any debate.
I would venture to say that insinuating that someone else writes like a high school cheerleader when they are merely of the opposing view as yourself is the height of self-righteousness and pomposity.
...some 1984 Medicare bill approved by Kerry...
The public will remember that Dick's most sweltering attack (I even said "ouch" when I heard him say it) was a lie. No one will care about them missing all those Senate meetings now. I don't agree with missing that much Senate, but I assume it's because I don't know much about Senate operations...
I find the progression from "no one will care" to "I don't know much..." particularly sad but particularly clarifying. You make a point of attempting to speak for everyone by misusing the word 'lie' because you feel that way and then admit you don't know squat about the Senate, undoing the whole point of your attack. The hubris is amazing.
For the record, as of June 23rd of this year, Kerry has missed 89 percent of the Senate's votes this year (118 of 132) as of June 23rd (couldn't find anything more recent), and 64 percent last year (2003).
Edwards is significantly better at around 59% missed (link accurate to May 11th).
What does one need to know really other than they are absent from their job, as an elected servant of their constituents, over 50% of the time when called upon to vote? No private sector employer would tolerate it; why should the American people tolerate it from their elected officials? Neither has the class to step down. Kerry is afraid, as he has nothing to do if not a Senator. Edwards needs to finish his term for his résumé and future political aspirations. So, they shirk their constituents and show their deep selfishness (Bob Dole took the opposite route).
Posted by: addison on October 7, 2004 12:30 AMAddison, as to insults. Them being true? Whatever, Denny himself has complimented me as being a fairly intelligent, reasoned person who (tries) to back up what I say... even though he disagrees with everything I say.
As to me insulting the readers of this site, the sentence in which i used the phrase "dumb republicans" was complimenting the posters of this site. And that wasn't my first post on this thread... get it right.
The quote:
"You guys are amazing. I'm glad I come here though. Competing with you guys makes it much easier to trounce all the dumb Republicans around here."
That's a compliment. Because, yes, there are smart republicans, and there are dumb ones. The ones I run into from time to time are dumb. You guys have some brains and some brawn to back up what you say. I enjoy that challenge. I enjoy the realization that I get shouted down and lose every argument on this site. It helps me be better prepared and not look like an idiot in the future. What I do not enjoy is the personal belittling that you do when you choose to respond to people. It's simply rude. Yeah, you have your facts down, sure enough... but try to be congenial to people at least. While it's ok to present your case and disagree with people, one can do in a better manner than a japanese pit viper.
As far as Republicans questioning Democrats Patriotism, they do it all the time. You personally? Maybe not so much, but I wasn't using you as an example. How about Sean Hannity's new book "Deliver Us From Evil" where the evils are "Terrorism, Despotism, Liberalism". I'm guessing that's an attack on patriotism. All of the books equating the american left with the radical Islamic terrorists, (Michele Malkin's new book, and another book Terrorism and the Liberal Left). Any time the Flag Burning amendment or the "Under God" in the pledge comes up, liberals are "unpatriotic". And the impression that liberals will put up a welcome mat for terrorists is absurd. I could go on. Pretty much every Conservative pundit is guilty of it. Bill O'reilly shouting down the 9/11 victim's son Glick, and then saying Glick was insinuating Bush had pre knowledge. Cheney isn't being exactly fair when he says terrorists will attack if Kerry wins. There is name calling on the other side too, I realize. I'm not an ideologue here. The Democratic party is far from pristine.
As far as the "child" and the "grown up", party. I wasn't talking about policies, such as cradle to grave welfare. I was talking about how one loves their country, and their ability to find faults in it. I'm sure you realized that.
I admit it, I don't know the intricacies of Senate functions. Neither does the average voter, and that was the impression I was trying to ascertain. I do know that plenty of procedural votes are more or less meaningless. I did Model United Nations in high school. Fun club: mixture of debate, learning about international politics, and the inherent problem of no nations agreeing with each other. Anyway, out of 100 votes, only 10 or so were on anything substantive, and out of those, only 3 were actually important. I don't know what Kerry was doing, but apparently the voters of Massachusetts have felt he was doing a good enough job. As if that means anything to you guys.
As far as that site with stats with votes missed? Wow, National Republican Senatorial Committee. They have no reason to skew facts. Not only that, they only cite 3 of Edwards' votes. Each vote was by a wide margin as well. Again, I would like to see other senator's records in comparison. This is where I admit to not knowing much about the Senate, since I am not sure how much time senators actually have to be there. Every time I click on CSPAN, no one's in there. What gives?
Cheney's statement was prepared. Edwards was not prepared to immediately recount exactly when he met the vice president. You can easily tell by how flustered he was. Since Cheney prepared that statement, he had to have thought about it before hand as to its veracity. The statement was false. It's a lie. More importantly, in the sense of the election, that's how the public will perceive it. I'll tell you what. You guys can call Cheney's statement: "Fake... but accurate." Which, as we all know is code for wrong.
So, next time you want to attack me or my opinions, just go for broke and give me a "yo momma" joke. At least then it will be amusing. It seems you're much like Cheney himself in that you have all your facts and policy down, but your form and presentation needs a little work. Enjoy life, addison. Encourage and welcome intellectual discourse. Be open to another's point of view. Maybe even from the left side of the fence. It's not too hard, really.
The reason I'm here is to read and respond to opposing views of my own. I don't exactly hear those opinions on a daily basis, living in downtown Richmond and all. Maybe you should show a little respect.
Posted by: Robin Palm on October 7, 2004 02:36 AMRobin - You are sounding more and more like a Dimocrat with every thread. Saying someone is weak on defense is not questioning his patriotism. It's saying he is weak on defense. Nothing more. You and your party try to defuse that by accusing Republicans as saying that Dimocrats unpatriotic. I think some, like Michael Moore are. Others are just stupid or incredibly naive. That is why we get weak vacillating presidents like Jimmah Carter. Kerry will be just as weak and vacillating.
Saying Dimocrat policies make the country more dangerous is not questioning anyone's patriotism it is saying those policies make the country more dangerous. They've been trying this bullshit ever since Max Stumpy Cleland. The Republicans never questioned his patriotism as your party claims. Never! I live in Georgia. What they said was he put union jobs over Homeland Security. That is not questioning anyone's patriotism. But, if the shoe fits.
Posted by: Denny Wilson on October 7, 2004 09:26 AM