Thought This Was Great!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Reason that Kerry's Vietnam service is relevant, but very boring:

    http://varifrank.typepad.com/varifrank/2004/08/farewell_john_k_1.html

     
  2. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    There is not one word in there about why vietnam and what kerry did or did not do or where he was or was not is important.

    All that was was a bunch of kerry bashing. Not that the man does not deserve to be bashed, but bashing is not proof that vietnam records are important. And if you people want to bash kerry, couldn't they at least bash him on something important to the office he is runnig for such as his support of the assult weapon ban or his support of federal government involvement in things not outllined in the constitution (like education).

    Travis
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Unfortunately bashing is where this election is at---- time is ripe for a GOOD third party to come along!
     
  4. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Bashing is where most presidential elections have been at for a while now. I would mention a good third party but then people would complain.
     
  5. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    A good third party is exactly what this country needs. The elections in Australia are a great example of how to incorporate them. Voting for you 1st-4th choices, and having the votes tabulated accordingly. The candidate with the least 1st place votes is eliminated, and his first place voters' second choice get his votes. Etc. etc. until only 1 remains. Would infuse more parties into a flawed system which allows a minority to elect the president. And also avoid unethical actions like the GOP supporting Nader to shave votes from Kerry.
     
  6. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    I see nothing unethical about that. unethical actions are actions against the rules. They are following the rules. If Dems were smart they would do the same thing. Good luck trying to get that system in the US. The system has been moving away from third parties for quite some time now. McCain Feingold was just the latest attack against third parties. I think unlimited campaign donations need to come first before we can ever expect either party to change the election methods.
     
  7. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    What would be unethical about helping him get on a ballot when it apparently isn't unethical to block him from getting on a ballot? I'd like to hear the opinion of someone supporting "the party of inclusion".
     
  8. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    Couldn't he at least run on something that is important to the office? Kerry made his Vietnam service relevant because that's what he chose to make the face of his campaign.
     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yeah, Kerry decided to run on his vietnam service. i am guessing it is because it is not relavent to the office he is running for and if he ran on his actual policy ideas he knows he would lose. In other words he is trying to distract the voters. If people would just let him run on something as stupid as I was a vet vote for me. Meanwhile his opposition ran on policies (both what they support and against what kerry supports kerry would be left looking like an idiot for blabbleing on about being a vet when the rest of the nation did not care. Instead republicans are playing into his game by dwelling on the whole vietnam vet/lie thing.

    Travis
     
  10. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    A lot of that's true, yeah. The Republicans as a whole are concentrating on the Vietnam thing, but when Bush speaks he does concentrate on the war on terror/Iraq, the economy, etc. The Dems keep screaming about getting to the issues, but Bush has been talking about the issues all along, they just don't give him credit for it. When reporters ask him questions, they ask about the swift boat thing and such, and he has to answer those questions. Other wise, Bush has spent most of his time on the issues for months.
     

Share This Page