The Hypocrisy of the DNC

[HookEm]

in 96, Bob Dole's military record didnt matter, because it was in the past.
Ditto for Clintons pot smoking, fleeing the country, etc...

Now in 2004, KErry's record matters, and anything W did does too.....




:rolleyes:

[Pro Trash]

in 96, Bob Dole's military record didnt matter, because it was in the past.
Ditto for Clintons pot smoking, fleeing the country, etc...

Now in 2004, KErry's record matters, and anything W did does too.....

:rolleyes:

I beg to differ the Republicans actually jumped on Kerry's Vietnam service record due to the fact he had it in his bio for campaign purposes. When this happened the Democrats naturally launched an all out defensive against Bush utilizing his past service records. Also the Republicans are very quick to point out Kerry's voting on past issues and not reckon with the idea that Bush has essentially zero experience in this arena due to his limited exposure as a leader in professional politics.

[TexasDevilDog]

Kerry is a Vietnam "baby-killer" Viet.

[The Punisher]

I beg to differ the Republicans actually jumped on Kerry's Vietnam service record due to the fact he had it in his bio for campaign purposes. When this happened the Democrats naturally launched an all out defensive against Bush utilizing his past service records. Also the Republicans are very quick to point out Kerry's voting on past issues and not reckon with the idea that Bush has essentially zero experience in this arena due to his limited exposure as a leader in professional politics.
no matter whos finger is pointing to who, Bush released his records, why hasnt Kerry released his?

[46Tbird]

Also the Republicans are very quick to point out Kerry's voting on past issues and not reckon with the idea that Bush has essentially zero experience in this arena due to his limited exposure as a leader in professional politics.He was governor of Texas. :confused: Which, BTFW, had a balanced budget at the time. Constitutionally mandated, of course, but balanced.

All that shows me is that in 2000, Americans were maybe a little fed up with 'professional politicians' in office.

[bulldawgs75]

no matter whos finger is pointing to who, Bush released his records, why hasnt Kerry released his?
i second that, does Kerry have something to hide. if i recall correctly wasn't it the Liberals that dug up his records from the National Guard? if i am correct then why are the "jackasses" so worried about letting the republicans see his records. just doesnt make any sense to me. seems like a double standard.

[AL P]

I beg to differ the Republicans actually jumped on Kerry's Vietnam service record due to the fact he had it in his bio for campaign purposes. When this happened the Democrats naturally launched an all out defensive against Bush utilizing his past service records. Also the Republicans are very quick to point out Kerry's voting on past issues and not reckon with the idea that Bush has essentially zero experience in this arena due to his limited exposure as a leader in professional politics.

What kind of a fucking idiot is in favor of professional politicians? That's part of the problem with the system.

[Paladin]

What kind of a fucking idiot is in favor of professional politicians? That's part of the problem with the system.

He is in favor of professional politicians because his candidate is the epitome of a professional politican.

[Pro Trash]

He is in favor of professional politicians because his candidate is the epitome of a professional politican.

For one, I am not for Professional politicians nor am I against them all either. Some of the greatest minds we have in current day politics are the very people you all seem to hate "the professional politicians". Let's name some, Chenney, Rumsfeld and Greenspan, just because I do not agree with their ideas does not mean I don't appreciate their efforts and intelligence Greenspan excluded he is ideal for both parties. I guess they should all be removed from the list of people we need supporting our government or Bush as he runs for his second term? I have taken notice to the fact that a large majority of the political discussions on here do not address Bush's abilities but rather Kerry's flaws. So don't get offended when people begin to degrade Bush for you set the standard with your tone.

Also Al P until you actually understand my ideas of politics tread lightly when refering to me as an idiot, you may serve only to make yourself look the fool.

[46Tbird]

I have taken notice to the fact that a large majority of the political discussions on here do not address Bush's abilities but rather Kerry's flaws. What is there to address about his abilities? He's sticking it to the Islamic terrorists; that alone puts him head and shoulders above anyone the Democrats are gonna put up against him.

I don't like his policy on pharaceutical companies. Err.. lack thereof. I think a thorough revamping of federal education funding is in order. I think we should be working to create a balanced budget, since I am required to live within my financial means.

Get your boy Kerry to step up to the plate and show me how he's going to rectify all this, and I'll consider voting for him. Until then, all that's coming out of his mouth is rhetoric. I'm not impressed with the current crop of professional politicians myself.

[Pro Trash]

What is there to address about his abilities? He's sticking it to the Islamic terrorists; that alone puts him head and shoulders above anyone the Democrats are gonna put up against him.

I don't like his policy on pharaceutical companies. Err.. lack thereof. I think a thorough revamping of federal education funding is in order. I think we should be working to create a balanced budget, since I am required to live within my financial means.

Get your boy Kerry to step up to the plate and show me how he's going to rectify all this, and I'll consider voting for him. Until then, all that's coming out of his mouth is rhetoric. I'm not impressed with the current crop of professional politicians myself.

I do not believe Kerry will drop the ball on the war of terror. The democrats have had a great past of dealing with agressors take for instance FDR, LBJ and JFK. They were democrats who stood fast in light of war to maintain our freedoms and way of life.

I am unsure as to how either Kerry or Bush will deal with the pharmaceutical issues at hand. The problem is they have to get through the house and senate who are influenced (to much so) by beauracrats.

Lastly I feel we are all skeptical politicians in general and concur they are not all trust worthy, regardless of party affiliation.

[The Punisher]

I do not believe Kerry will drop the ball on the war of terror. The democrats have had a great past of dealing with agressors take for instance FDR, LBJ and JFK. They were democrats who stood fast in light of war to maintain our freedoms and way of life.
.
Give me a break. Your going to compare FDR, LBJ, and JFK to modern democrats. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was the best joke of the day. You think FDR, LBJ, and JFK hold the same values of today's democrat majority? I highly doubt if any of them were alive today that they would be democrats. But LOL, thats a good one!

[fixer]

I beg to differ the Republicans actually jumped on Kerry's Vietnam service record due to the fact he had it in his bio for campaign purposes. .

vietnam magically went from an asterisk in Kerry's bio to the centerpiece of his campaign. the RNC made note of Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activities.

lets get real... the only thing he has been consistent on is pointing out that he served in 'Nam.

[Paladin]

I do not believe Kerry will drop the ball on the war of terror. The democrats have had a great past of dealing with agressors take for instance FDR, LBJ and JFK. They were democrats who stood fast in light of war to maintain our freedoms and way of life.

I am unsure as to how either Kerry or Bush will deal with the pharmaceutical issues at hand. The problem is they have to get through the house and senate who are influenced (to much so) by beauracrats.

Lastly I feel we are all skeptical politicians in general and concur they are not all trust worthy, regardless of party affiliation.

What do you base your opinion that Kerry will not drop the ball on terrorism?

Please name a democrat who is still alive that has dealt with agressors effectively.

I base my opinion that Bush will deal effectively and aggresively with terrorism from the last 4 years of his accomplishments and the results.

[HookEm]

For one, I am not for Professional politicians nor am I against them all either.


Is that you, Senator KErry?


Also Al P until you actually understand my ideas of politics tread lightly when refering to me as an idiot, you may serve only to make yourself look the fool.

BWAHAHAHAHA......this, coming from someone who's been owned more times that one of those "penny whores" from the movie Dusk till Dawn....

[mikeb]

Please name a democrat who is still alive that has dealt with agressors effectively.

LOL..... on that note, some quotes from ann coulter's book "Treason". An interesting albiet dry read. If you think you understand mccarthyism you should read this book.


"No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to "work" because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to "engagement" shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy 'win'." -- Ann Coulter, P. 143



"Liberals said Reagan was dangerous and his rhetoric scary. They ridiculed him as an idiot for believing the Soviet Union could be toppled. They opposed him on every front -- strengthening the military, aiding and arming anti-Communist rebels around the world, invading Grenada, preparing to win a nuclear war, building a nuclear shield, and waging a spiritual crusade against Soviet totalitarianism. Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire and we would prevail. He called the ball, the shot, and the pocket, and he won the game. But now we're supposed to believe he was lucky. Liberals lie about Reagan's victory because when Reagan won the Cold War, he proved them wrong on everything they had done and said throughout the Cold War." -- Ann Coulter, P. 190


There was another real good paragraph about reagan bombing the hell out of people that carter did nothing about and kicking their asses, but unfortunately it's not included on that web page.

Yeah, it's a right wing site.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/coultertreason.php

[Slncoupe]

Give me a break. Your going to compare FDR, LBJ, and JFK to modern democrats. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was the best joke of the day. You think FDR, LBJ, and JFK hold the same values of today's democrat majority? I highly doubt if any of them were alive today that they would be democrats. But LOL, thats a good one!

You doubt they would be democrats today? Are you serious? Would they be republicans? Do you think before you type?

I never thought I would read ann coutler on this board. That is a sign that this forum has jumped off the deep end.

[Pro Trash]

Give me a break. Your going to compare FDR, LBJ, and JFK to modern democrats. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was the best joke of the day. You think FDR, LBJ, and JFK hold the same values of today's democrat majority? I highly doubt if any of them were alive today that they would be democrats. But LOL, thats a good one!

No more so than I believe Bush is even half the President Reagan was. Nor do I believe Bush holds a candle in the wind to McCain as far what is best for our country. Face it the current Republican incumbent got there because of his dads name, he was a virtual nobody until the 2000 election. His name was familiar not his politics.

[Pro Trash]

You doubt they would be democrats today? Are you serious? Would they be republicans? Do you think before you type?

I never thought I would read ann coutler on this board. That is a sign that this forum has jumped off the deep end.

Well I agree they would not see eye to eye with the likes of Kerry, Clinton or Ted Kennedy. They would still be Democrats, after all Kennedy was big on civil rights, FDR brought about Social Security, the TVA and quite a few public works projects to pull our country from the great depression. They would be conservative democrats in todays world.

[The Punisher]

No more so than I believe Bush is even half the President Reagan was. Nor do I believe Bush holds a candle in the wind to McCain as far what is best for our country. Face it the current Republican incumbent got there because of his dads name, he was a virtual nobody until the 2000 election. His name was familiar not his politics.
ProTrash, whats funny about you is that you always avoid the substance of my post and spin it as another chance to bash Bush. Is this all you got? if so, its pathetic!

[The Punisher]

You doubt they would be democrats today? Are you serious? Would they be republicans? Do you think before you type?

I never thought I would read ann coutler on this board. That is a sign that this forum has jumped off the deep end. yes, I do doubt it. What values do you modern democrat liberals today that even hold a candle to FDR, LBJ, Kennedy? hummmmm?

[The Punisher]

Well I agree they would not see eye to eye with the likes of Kerry, Clinton or Ted Kennedy. They would still be Democrats, after all Kennedy was big on civil rights, FDR brought about Social Security, the TVA and quite a few public works projects to pull our country from the great depression. They would be conservative democrats in todays world.
and who is in control of the democratic party now? hmmm, not conservative democrats... Why would a conservative democrat want to vote for the most liberal senator for president?

[Paladin]

What do you base your opinion that Kerry will not drop the ball on terrorism?

Please name a democrat who is still alive that has dealt with agressors effectively.

I base my opinion that Bush will deal effectively and aggresively with terrorism from the last 4 years of his accomplishments and the results.

Any chance these questions will ever get answered by a liberal? :cool: