Comments on: Kerry Blasting Bush

By: Ellis

Ellis — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:49:10 +0000

18. Obviously I understand that, peejz. My point, again, was that “phrases have different meanings, and could be interpreted differently.”

By: peejz

peejz — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:43:30 +0000

17-Uh no as we don’t go by the most popular votes, but by the most electoral votes:roll:

By: Ellis

Ellis — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:27:05 +0000

16. Semantics, Reilly. Reading your words literally as may folks here are bent to do (re: “received the most votes”) are you acknowledging that Al Gore won in 2000? He did receive the “most votes.” Don’t answer, I know what happened. Just pointing out that phrases have different meanings, and could be interpreted differently.

By: Reilly

Reilly — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:17:20 +0000

#15 – - The “guy who won” received the most votes from the American people – - therefore he is not the wrong guy – - he is the guy chosen by the citizens of the United States. You simply voted for the other guy – - who didn’t win

By: Ellis

Ellis — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:43:32 +0000

14. If your tirade was directed at me, snowy, I was disappopinted at the election results but not sore. I think the wrong guy won, but we’ll have to live with that until he’s out of office.

By: Snowy Egret

Snowy Egret — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:38:45 +0000

I guess he just cant take losing just like most of the demacratic party he is a sore loser just like al gore and like director OLIVER STONE who is blaming everyone for the fact is he is a lousie director and his last film ALEXANDER was a flop what a bunch of idiots and komrad kerry is the biggest idiot around:roll:

By: Ellis

Ellis — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:28:49 +0000

10. My reference to “shameless” was predicated on my thoughts that Bolton will never be able to work diplomatically to achieve what the UN should be doing given his attitudes and beliefs. It’s not shameless that he feels as he does; that’s his business. It’s shameless that someone with those feelings be placed in the position of Ambassador.

By: peejz

peejz — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:21:58 +0000

11- You really don’t get it do you Sandy. There are many that don’t believe in this UN and there really is no need to keep up the charade. Either they get their shit together and do their job, or we can pull out. It really isn’t that complicated. You have whined for months about Iran and our lack of action. When you are asked what is wrong with the countries handling it, your reply is they are weak. There is an excuse for every non-action of the UN.

By: sandyb

sandyb — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:16:08 +0000

10,
I believe we need someone between ‘Chamberlain’ (why is Chamberlain always the example of appeasement? The US political establishment in 1935-1941 is a much better example) and Bolton. As long as the US works within/with the UN, it should have someone who at least believes in the institution. Never forget, either, that the conservative critique of the UN ignores 90% of its work and focuses on the Security Council and humanitarian missions that support conservative political claims. That’s an easy game to play. When Europeans, Muslims, and Canadians play it with American politics and history conservatives call it ‘anti-Americanism’.

By: Reilly

Reilly — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:11:07 +0000

#5 – - You brought up Bolton. You wrote “Bolton shamelessly opposes the UN”

What is so shameful about his stance against that particular organization? An organization that is drowning in scandal.

I think it is a good idea to have Bolton in the UN – - he has forgotten more about the UN than most of us will ever know and he isn’t one to lie down and just take it from them. He will keep the best interests of the United States in front of him.

We don’t need a Neville Chamberlain wannabe sitting in the UN – - we need a man with guts and the ability to make things happen. The entire UN needs to be either reformed or it needs to not exist and Bolton is the only man for the job with the way that organization is structured today.