posted July 30, 2004 11:47 AM              

I have not liked John Kerry since the primaries, when he was losing badly beforehand, when he was miracuously winning, or when perhaps he did some dealings to smack Howard Dean off the ballad, which in my book includes him in the department of lying cheaters. John Kerry in my opinion is a bunch of fluff, most people who don't know whats going on, can actually see his two-facedness, his duplicity, and internationalism not nationalism right through his face.

All that being said it's deeply branded in his chart. Don't you know that he voted for the Iraq War? People are voting for John Kerry for one reason alone, because they hate George W. Bush, what else could there be? Everything that John Kerry says he's fighting for, George W. Bush is fighting for too? Bush has a lot more experience than you realize, so Kerry with no REAL experience, thinks that he can stabilize the war effort better than Bush, because he went to Vietnam? Yah, right. Kerry's wounds were not even serious, he should not have even recieved purple hearts for it, and thats just one thing. Like Randall, I think Kerry is a garanteed loss, my opinion is that the Democrats want him to lose, so that they can put Hillary Clinton in office, and what better way to set that up in four more years? Internationally speaking, Kerry will make us far more weaker, of course the world will like us then, when they see us kneeling down, they can kick us in the head, and what kind of message does that give to the terrorists?

If Howard Dean was running in the race, I would have had a much more different tone of voice, but it's John Kerry, therefore, I can still see George W. Bush having a second term. As for the movie, it hasn't changed my opinion on Bush, and those who will be voting for him feel the same way too. Michael Moore, bless the man I still like him, but he has done nothing but hurt people with the movie, he's hurt Bush pretty badly, and the men and women just coming out of the war. My cousin who fought in Iraq, was extremely angry at the movie, it portrayed soldiers as idiot pawns going there for no reason at all. But to him, he doesn't believe that, he knows he went to war for a good reason, and he's still voting for Bush.

The movie is unamerican, I saw it, and now I know I'm not going to let myself be fooled by it. What Kerry says is what everyone wants, but Bush will say it too, and then you'll have to see which candidate is more credible, a newbie with the same pedigree, or the one you've already got. I'm chooing the old one, because I have absolutely no trust for the newbie. He'll just make things worse, maybe not as apparent as Bush, but in a subtle way that we'll have to pay for later. That's what Clinton did, and now look at us.

posted July 30, 2004 01:01 PM              

Democrats capped Sen. John Kerry's presidential nomination last night by showing a Hollywood-produced movie of his life, featuring amateur film clips and testaments about his service in Vietnam as commander of a Navy river patrol boat.
But a group of former sailors who served with Mr. Kerry are telling a different story. Rather than depicting Mr. Kerry as a war hero, they are quoted in a new book accusing him of exaggerating and falsifying his experiences.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040729-111509-4130r.htm

posted July 30, 2004 01:13 PM            

Second, where in the world did you ever get this idea that Hillary Clinton was running, I mean, you got to really think about it...

FIRST: If she HAS all of sudden, decided to run, she is WAY TOO LATE, the Democratic National Convention is over, she would still have to wait for another four to five years in order to run now! Either way, no matter who is president in the next four years.

SECOND: Your taking bogus stated language from jounalists, which right off the bat, is NOT such a great idea(I don't think, I take it from the "horses" mouth instead ) ,she might have stated that she pondered the fact, but over all, she also stated that she would "leave it more or less to the runner ups at this time", so if you think otherwise, that only goes to show that it's more "sound based" as a wish of the people and NOT by the Clintons!

THIRD: The thing with Dean was ALL a coincidence, I really don't believe that someone planted anything in his mic to make him seem like as if he was screaming over the crowd like he did. Nobody... I mean NOBODY saw that coming, not even Bush himself did!

And finally FOURTH: You are absolutely right, NOTHING of what any candidate(before he becomes president) EVER turns out the way they would expect and your also right about the fact that it's because it's to do with what the public always wants to hear and what they expect to hear(all the same)! WELCOME TO THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF PRIMETIME! I(myself) would NEVER want to vote for a president that is going to tell me that he or she has no given idea on how the next four years of they're presidency is going to turn out, but they WILL do the best they can and hope for the best! The first two years of ANYONE'S presidency is nothing of what they said that it will be, but that is the focus that they have they're eyes on, THAT'S IS THE PRIZE that they are going for and I rather hear THAT then someone that might be totally clueless into what is going on!

posted July 30, 2004 01:52 PM              

Bush Derides Kerry as Man of Few Achievements -By Adam Entous
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040730/ts_nm/campaign_bush_dc&cid=564&ncid=2043

-StarLover

posted July 30, 2004 02:09 PM            

It seems to me that the GOP runs people when it's 'their turn', and that the Dems run whomever they think can win (the point is, neither party offers up the man who can do the best job at it IMO). There are exceptions to those trends, Bush being one, because they probably saw that they had to get someone in there before the Clintonesque Dems ruin the country, so Bush got moved to the front of the line because he was more electable than whatever elderly GOP man was next in line.

The primaries are a joke anyway IMO - the fact that most candidates in the Dem primaries dropped out before they even got to the CA primaries speaks platitudes about the fairness and effectiveness of it IMO.

posted July 30, 2004 02:20 PM            

quote:

---

Starlover, I still don't see how you figure that if Bush (or Kerry) wins that Sen.Clinton will get to the White House any sooner,she never really said that she was going to run and it has nothing to do with Kerry being in office anyway either, so please explain to me of what you mean!

---

So you see, it's not in contrast at all to what StarLover was saying.

You need to slow down a bit, you get all riled and your responses don't necessarily fit the posts you're replying to, or they give one the impression that you don't read them thoroughly. And I really really really don't mean that offensively (I'm hoping your Scorpio self won't take it that way).

posted July 30, 2004 02:26 PM            

But if you want to go in THAT direction Starlover(by the power of the Distict of Columbia),why don't we just move this argument across the street to the Building of Congress,where we can meet Katherine Harris, since she's the one that had the power of putting Bush in the White House in the first place!

posted July 30, 2004 02:40 PM              

P.S. Never take anything offensively Ozone, it's just a debate. Peace Ozone.

posted July 30, 2004 02:57 PM            

I think that your losing my point Starlover, Kerry being in office has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton running for office,none the less even winning any Presidential Election in anytime in any future that this country might end up having. That all goes to a "choice" that is is made up by two types of people, the people and the Electorial College, what part don't you understand? Unless... you know something that I don't, but I don't think so.

posted July 30, 2004 03:21 PM            

And how many times did the Royal Saudi Family get a kiss on the @$$?! ...or how about the bin Laden Family, HUH?!

You never even given Kerry a chance and it's obvious that you never will, but WHAT HAS BUSH DONE WITH NORTH KOREA, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING!

Let me tell you about Foriegn relation experience, my Dad served in Veitnam and while he was alive, he told me that in spite of the Communism that was being occupied, my father made the best of friends to the South Veitmese and THAT was the PEOPLE there! How many soldiers that come back from Iraq will say the same thing?

posted July 30, 2004 03:34 PM              

My cousin came from Iraq, and he said he was greeted and treated like a noble. They offered to let him sleep in their house, and take a shower, he didn't take a shower for many weeks. He played with kids and got to hold babies.

The civilians who didn't like one another, would tell the soldiers that one of their neighbors would have weapons in their homes, so the army had no choice but to raid them. This was a trick being played by the civilians on one another.

posted July 30, 2004 03:39 PM            

...and that was months ago, but NOW the "Media" told this to us just a few days ago! Where was Bush then, sleeping?