John Kerry compares Bush to a Terrorist

I'm calling it now: "He wasn't elected...blah, blah, blah..."

OK, here you go.......

Q&A

Q: Did the majority of the people elect him?
A: No!

Democracy:

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

From www.m-w.com

Agree or disagree with him, he's trying to gain visibility amongst a number of democratic presidential candidates.

Or maybe it was a momentary burst of truthfulness and, for a politician, insanity. That was toned down at a press confrence later on.

Either way, it seems that politicking is alive and well.

Did you read the full definition? Here's the part maybe you skipped over: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (Emphasis added).

This definition includes representative democracies, which the US is. A more accurate term, though, is that the US is a republic.

The distance the liberals will go.
this is going to make my webpage i think.

if this isnt liberalism i dunno what is.

And what I read was- "it is a time for a change in this government" which is what they ALL say when they are running for office. To make the leap that Kerry is comparing Bush to a terrorist is absurd and proves only one thing: you see what you want to see. In your case, you want to see anything that will bash what you label as "liberal".

Jeezus, buddy. It is a POLITICIAN making a POLITICAN statement. Run of the mill campaign babble. ANd you turn it into an act of sedition?
Wow.

And if this isn't paranoiac opporunism on your part, I dunno what is.
Jeez. You are JUST LIKE the folks you rail against.
How positively Swiftian. Except you are serious.
Damn, man. Just... damn.

WHy is it that Pink Floyd does not make your list of " rabid anti war liberal freaks"? Because, you know... they ARE.

Jeez. I just re-read the title to your thread, here. Ditch your user name and take on "Minister of Propaganda". Because this is just plain yellow. Is this how far conservatives are willing to go?
Answer is NO. Once again, YOU are giving conservatism a bad name. This spin is just out of control. Actually, it is not just spin. It is an out and out LIE.

Now, I'm no expert, but from what I understand the US is more of a Republic:

a:
(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b:
(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Secondly, the form of government we use requires an "electoral college":

: a body of electors; especially : one that elects the president and vice president of the U.S.

Since each of the electors in the electoral college is required to cast all of the state's electoral votes towards the candidate who garnered the most votes in that state, the number of electoral votes may differ from the number of people-votes...which happened in the previous election.

These are the laws of the land, my friend.



*all definitions from m-w.com

Of course John Kerry thinks there needs to be another President in January 2005 - HE WANTS THE JOB. Why would he run if he thought Bush was doing a great job?

Personally, I can't wait for November '04. Once Bush wins that election in a landslide all the "selected, not elected" crap will stop...

The US IS a republic. I didn't know that was a debate.

That remins to be seen - and I'll wager relies heavily on the outcome of this war. Not winning it, but what happens afterwards.

It's still "too close to call"

Why would you say something like that? You have zero idea what the future holds. There is no lock, here. WAY too many variables. And with this country fairly evenly split between right, left (or "wrong" as fzzlbeek would have it) and the remainder uncommitted to a party, I would think such a prediction would be almost foolish at this stage.

Pure speculation on my part. Call it confidence.

I was speculating. Obviously nothing is set. I wasn't saying it is.

That was just what I WANT to happen.

well, i disagree, but you're certinally free to speculate.

This whole era should be interesting to study in 150 years.

Yes, it should be... doubt I'll be the one studying it though.

But, on the other hand, by then, the new G5 PowerMacs will be out.

I dont think its that far off of a speculation. Bush has a huge approval rating for this war alone. I can imagne after this whole thing is over, he will still maintain a lare approval rating.

Agreed that there is no lock. And I don't know what the future holds, most of the time.



Well, that being said, would you agree that it is probably foolish for Sen. Kerry to say things like this, at this time? From a strategery point of view, of course.

Sure, it may align him with the part of the DNC that could get him the nomination, but he could alienate himself from those "middle grounders" that are important in the general election, too...

I think if hid choice of words were different he could hav had a powerful statement even though I dont agree with it what-so-ever.

See Dave? I like you. You call it what it is, where it lies and are up front about your opinions without being just plain derisive.
Just wanted to appreciate you for that.

As for Kerry- well, having lived with his interesting brand of politics for a while now, I know what he's about.
Again, I look at it as an interestingly worded election geared ramp up utilizing zeitgeist language. Standard political jabber.
I think he poses little or no threat at all as far as winning a nomination, so I dismiss it. I certainly see zero cause to think he's comparing Bush to a terrorist.

Oh- dave- extra points for "strategery".

We've gone round and round on that topic and gained no ground, so we'll just call that one quits, shall we?

Kerry is a lively as Dukakis or Leiberman. I don't think he's capable of a powerful statement.

No, the Anti-Christ is alive. That means there isn't much time before the End of the World(tm). More like 30 years, max.

How did the idea of an Anti-Christ start? The notion is absurd.

An anti-God? I think not. There is only one God. He is all. Some people just can't get over the fact that it means he does the 'bad' things as well as the good. Evil is only possible in human beings. Not in God.

Fugheddaboudit. I just went on a rant /rant

I agree.

Heh heh...mostly I was just ribbing.

Anti-Christ/End-of-the-World(tm) stuff was in another thread...thought i'd cross-pollinate threads...

Just havin' a little fun, sheesh.

Oh...

well, when you put it that way - this all seems kinda pointless, huh?

Here, have a beer.. and some cheese. It's on me.

Yes I think he would still run in 2004. like you said HE WNTS THE JOB. You know he didn't mind going to Camp LeJeune on Airforce 1 with the "terrorist" Today.

np, it was me who went on an uncontrolled rant and realized it much too late