Comments on: Vietnam? Ain’t Nuthin Compared to His Senate Record

By: peejz

peejz — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:29:23 +0000

There is a reason the Republicans have all those seats. The voters in the states don’t like the alternative.
Can anyone explain how one is to be taken seriously when one demonstrates naked on the streets of NY?

By: shiloh

shiloh — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:08:15 +0000

American Girl -
you ask why i go after Bush, not Kerry. well, you guys have the White House, the House, the Senate, (the Supreme Court)and a majority of govenerships.

you’re the guys right now.
le grande fromage. (sorry for the French)

one goes after POWER to make changes, not the chumps who lost and look like are trying to lose again.
the demonstrators in New York @ the RNC aren’t gonna be democrats, necessarily. they’re Americans who’ve lost jobs, angry about Iraq, the economy, the enviornment, underfunding ‘No Child Left Behind’, underfunding AIDS, angry that 800,000 more children live in poverty since 2000, over a miilion people losing their health insurance and stuff like dat dere.

best

By: American Girl

American Girl — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:38:15 +0000

I have a question for you, Shiloh. Why is it that you choose to ignore Kerry's track record, yet you love to dig up and display every single negative aspect of Bush's career every chance you get because, hey, the country will be in Bush's hands essentially? If you are not completely pro-Kerry here, wouldn't it make sense to judge them on an equal ratio? After all, one of these two will eventually be leading this country by next year, so shouldn't we be entitled to the full track record (read: resume) of both? Why should you treat Kerry any differently than you would treat Bush if you were indeed not completely devoted to Kerry?

By: American Girl

American Girl — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:33:57 +0000

For the record, answering your question, Shiloh, when a person is being interviewed for a business, it is to see what good he or she would do that business, and whether or not that person would be worth that investment. The same goes for selecting a President, only on a far grander scale: namely whether or not that person would be a worthy investment and good for the country rather than one single business.

That would make the stakes far more higher, wouldn’t you say?

By: American Girl

American Girl — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:30:55 +0000

Businesses do not make routine practice of hiring individuals who show a complete disinterest in their company’s well-being. Why should Americans do so when choosing their leadership?

You know, Shiloh, that's an excellent question. Wonder how many times you ask it when looking at Kerry's track record, meaning his actual track record rather than the track record trumped up by his people? This door swings both ways. And it's a door you should ask yourself whether or not you want to see what is behind it regarding the person you support, or rather the person you will wind up with should the person you wish to lose does indeed lose. In other words, how much do you have to lose under Kerry, given his tendancy as a waffling, no-show wild card?

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:46:50 +0000

Actually, Egret, at the Victory Vigils in San Diego, the so-called Peace activists target children for abuse and terror. Such slime on the left.

By: Snowy Egret

Snowy Egret — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:38:28 +0000

Just think folks the same bunch who were calling vietnam vets child killers are abortion supporters such as bill clinton and hanoi jane(fonda)and a lot of other liberals becuase remember waco the branch dividians and what clinton reno did to them the real child killers are the usial bunch of antiwar peace-niks who dont know what peace means in the first place:smile::cool::grin:

By: PCD

PCD — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:52:13 +0000

Shiloh, those that fried, died because they killed innocent people. Afraid that Kerry will be fried for killing unarmed villagers in Vietnam?

By: shiloh

shiloh — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:38:34 +0000

no one is suprised that Romney & the Massachusetts Republican want Kerry to resign. the good Bay-staters have known his record and have re-elected him.
would Bush have been free to leave the state so often if his Lt. Gov was a liberal democrat? also the ‘weak-Governor’ system rules there, marginalizing the power of the office. no one missed him and he didn’t miss any death-row inmates he could lay his signature on.
.
there are so many reasons for the fellow to go – i stutter.

By: LisaS

LisaS — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:25:51 +0000

Which is why there have been voices from the state of Mass. requesting Kerry’s resignation as Senator. His poor voting attendance record goes further back than the time he’s been campaigning. Be that as it may, even during times of campaiging – he should fulfill his responsibility.

Take a look at Senator Liberman’s voting record during his campaign time — it’s pretty stellar. Senator John McCain’s is too. Campaigning is no excuse.

And I caught your nuance about Bush taking time off from being governor of Texas to campaign – - lucky for him, Governors are afforded time off by having a second in command (deputy) to fill in for them – -not so for Senators. When the Senator has gone missing, the voice of the constituency is not being heard or represented in the Senate.

You seem like a lot of anti-Bush people I know, shiloh. They really have no passion for Kerry-As-Candidate, at all – - where their passion lies is within the “Anyone But Bush” concept.