Kerry aide: Bush 'flat out lied' on Iraq

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

I didn't drink the kool aid, I'm still in the same boat as you and can't decide if I should vote Cobb or Kerry. But, if you want to call my positive responses to such great patriots as Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton "drinking the kool aid," go right ahead because I like 'em. And I like Kennedy, too. It seems to me that if someone likes anyone in the Democratic party, they're not a true liberal in your eyes. Who knows if that's how you feel or not, but that's how it comes off.

One thing I can guarantee to you, though, is that Nader will not get my vote this year or ever again. He's pitiful.

Sharpton is the only one with a set. Too bad no one really takes him seriously. Kucinich folded like a cheap suit, and that's very disappointing. Braun has class, but do you really think the party takes her seriously? Really, tell the truth.

I didn't realize you remain undecided. You were coming across as having allowed them to succeed in the brainwashing. Power to you, then, my friend.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Sharpton is the only one with a set. Too bad no one really takes him seriously. Kucinich folded like a cheap suit, and that's very disappointing. Braun has class, but do you really think the party takes her seriously? Really, tell the truth.

I didn't realize you remain undecided. You were coming across as having allowed them to succeed in the brainwashing. Power to you, then, my friend.

I don't think they take Braun seriously, but I could care less if they did or not. I take her seriously and that's all that matters. I was a Braun fan from the beginning and that hasn't changed one bit.

Kucinich did fold, but I wouldn't go to the extent you would. He held out the longest and kept his integrity.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

I take her seriously and that's all that matters.

Right. Sometimes you just have to decide for yourself what is right, as opposed to falling in line because the party says so.

The tactics of the party bosses in running that convention, and how they muzzled people, were nothing short of tyrannical. Which makes Sharpton's speech that much more delightful and important.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

That's some pretty warped logic, Johnny. Nader stayed true to liberal and progressive principles all along and when he and like-minded thinkers are abandoned by the Democratic Party because they are too afraid to stand up to the fascist right, then he is a traitor for staying true to his principles!? You can't possibly believe that.

Clinton promised to change the policy on gays in the military. As soon as he took office he reversed himself when he couldn't take the pressure, and settled for that joke of a policy, "Don't ask, don't tell."

Kerry claims he supports gay unions but he's against gay marriages.

These guys want to have it both ways. They are the ones who are betraying the cause.

There's a difference between losing faith in a politician, and saying one thing to a friend's face while doing something else behind their back.
Nader is so intent on making himself look like the good guy, that's he's willing to bash longtime friends (even going so far as trying to ruin some careers), in order to appear as if his nose is clean.

And, again, I was not happy that Clinton wimped out on some of his promises to the gay community... but hell, that "don't ask, don't tell" policy was sure better than what we had before. Which, for the record, was nothing.

I'm also going to say right here and now that if Kerry pushes gay unions but opposes gay marriage, I'm fine with that.
What is at stake is the fact that, as of now, gay couples have NO legal recourse or rights. If our unions are recognized, we will have that.
Being allowed the right to marry would be the ultimate victory, but if the religious and conservative zealots are so hell-bent on owning the word "marriage," then fine, let them have it. I don't need a word to define my relationship anyway, just so long as I have the same rights and protections as everyone else.
It's a compromise I am willing to make.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Sometimes you just have to decide for yourself what is right, as opposed to falling in line because the party says so.

And then there's going to extremes out of the fear of appearing to be a conformist.

I don't vote for anyone "because the party says so," I vote for who I feel is the best man for the job.
And right now I believe that Kerry is the best man for the job. "The Job" being both as a president and as the candidate most likely to win out over Bush.

As I said before, I don't have to agree with someone's every opinion to feel that they're the best man for the job.
If I wanted someone who shared 100% of my opinions and stances, I'd have to run for office.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

The tactics of the party bosses in running that convention, and how they muzzled people, were nothing short of tyrannical. Which makes Sharpton's speech that much more delightful and important.

I agree. There were many people, myself included, who were at that convention and cursing McAuliffe. He's one of the biggest pr*cks you'd ever meet.

[jwd]

Is it so illogical to think that someone wouldn't vote for either candidate (Kerry or Bush) because they felt they were equally as bad? So be it.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by jwd

Is it so illogical to think that someone wouldn't vote for either candidate (Kerry or Bush) because they felt they were equally as bad? So be it.

Joe, my friend, it is illogical to me, because Kerry hasn't even had the opportunity to do the job yet.

[Johnny Stew]

I thought this was interesting.

Timeline Comparing The Lives Of George W. Bush & John Kerry

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

And then there's going to extremes out of the fear of appearing to be a conformist.

Fear, Johnny, is the last word you should use to characterize my position. If I were as fearful as you and the rest of the Democrats, then I surely would vote for Kerry. For, you see, I don't believe the nation is so fragile that it will crumble under four more years of Bush, as the Kerry people would have me believe.

The Democratic convention was an affront to the idea of free speech and did nothing to explain why Kerry is the better choice to get us out of the morass the Bushers got us into.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by jwd

Is it so illogical to think that someone wouldn't vote for either candidate (Kerry or Bush) because they felt they were equally as bad? So be it.

No. What's illogical, and I suspect you'll agree with me on this, is voting for a man who voted with the current administration and now is trying to position himself as being so diametrically different.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Joe, my friend, it is illogical to me, because Kerry hasn't even had the opportunity to do the job yet.

Whaaat!!!??? It's illogical to vote against Kerry because he hasn't done the job yet?

That is about one of the silliest statements anyone's ever made in regards to elections, Johnny. If it's illogical for me to vote for Kerry because he hasn't had the chance to do the job yet, then I must vote for everyone who hasn't done the job yet just to see how well they would perform. Not only is that grossly illogical and unrealistic, it would completey redefine the concept of democracy.

Very silly, Johnny.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Right. Sometimes you just have to decide for yourself what is right, as opposed to falling in line because the party says so.

The tactics of the party bosses in running that convention, and how they muzzled people, were nothing short of tyrannical. Which makes Sharpton's speech that much more delightful and important.

True, but it seems you fault anyone who is voting for Kerry and accuse them of not deciding for themselves. I think most people, like me, who are going to vote for Kerry have done just that - I decided for myself that no candidate is perfect, they all have done things I am not wild about. Kerry just represents the best shot at winning the WH and ousting W, which mostly is my goal. That is why I, being a realist and practicle person, am voting for him. I think it is erroneous to think that any satement made by voting for someone like Nader or another third party candidate who will NEVER win. I think thinking "what the hell" four more years of W may have the effect of waking America up is inaccurate. I think four more years of W will cost decades of work to advance civil rights and further belie America's credibility in the world - Kerry can restore these and he differs on W on almost all of them. I do not think four more years of W will in any way have the effect of awakening America and miraculously transforming the political parties in America. So, Kerry it is for me. Note: I am just saying why I am voting for Kerry - I am not expecting anyone to agree with me or to vote for him as well. In my statement, I am also pointing out why I think the logoc behind your conclusion that I and others are blindly following anything or anyone is incorrect I realize I am somewhat cynical in my thought that a third party candidate has no hope ever of winning - and I hate that it is that way. But, that is the reality of things, and I want W out of office - Moreover, I know you do not, but I believe in most of the things Kerry has done and those that he says he is going to do So, I submit, I am not blindly following anyone - rather, I considered my options and chose with knowledge.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

The Democratic convention was an affront to the idea of free speech and did nothing to explain why Kerry is the better choice to get
us out of the morass the Bushers got us into.

FOUL

Please show me where anything much less the First Amend. says anyone has the right to say anything they want at a private function, which the convention was Moreover, show me any political convention by anyone at any time that has not urged each speaker to keep a civil tone, asked them to limit themselves to certain topics, etc. So, saying free speech, which you seemingly and erroneously ordain as an absolute in this situation, was egregiously harmed is a fallacy.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming now

P.S. Can you tell I am in a pissy mood on this Monday

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

No. What's illogical, and I suspect you'll agree with me on this, is voting for a man who voted with the current administration and now is trying to position himself as being so diametrically different.

FOUL (somewhat) - he voted to allow W to have the power to go to war, which BTW W did not need to go to war. Then, he realized the path W took with that power was erroneous and voted not to fund it. That is a contrite act IMO. But, I know I know - you think W and Kerry are the same, which is just wrong and you know it, but unexplainedly continue to espouse it - so be it