Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
puck7x

John Kerry for US President!

Recommended Posts

I'm not an American , I'm not a follower of policital news , I dont care about Kerry's stance on any of the issues or which side he's on... This is all that matters...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rry_hockey_dc_2

mdf455494.jpg

mdf455446.jpg

I'll even forgive him for being a Bruins fan ... Its just cool that a presidential candidate is a huge hockey fan (and a pretty decent player from what I can tell) ....

Heck , Clinton and Bush cant even pronounce the names of NHL players correctly when the Stanley cup winner visits the white house ... (Remember yzerman , or should I say "yezzz-er-man")

[Edited on 2004-1-26 by puck7x]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, I dunno, puck. I'd prefer to see someone with more substance, charater and of course ANIMATION in the running. some one like:

T7humo.jpg

[Edited on 2004/1/27 by habitual_hab]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerry served his country and was wounded

Bush is a draft dodger who was AWOL for a year

That right there shows the difference between the men. Kerry is honourable, Bush isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still no proof that Bush went AWOL. He has provided numerous documets that support that he did not go AWOL. And although many can't say for sure if they remember him or not, don't you think somebody would take notice that the son of a rich man and growing political power was missing?

And if you liked Clinton, just remember how honorable he was. Lying under oath, smoking pot, draft dodging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really care who runs that stupid country. Too many guns in too many hands = anarchy. Just you wait and see. They spend too much on military adventures and not enough on their own peoples needs. There will be a revolt in the states within the next 100 years. Just my opinion, but hey, aren't we here to talk hockey, who the heck brought politics into the rink?

:can::can::can:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by johnnyhasbeen

Don't really care who runs that stupid country.

I do. Ralph Nader for Prez! Democracy in the US is a joke! The Republicans and Democrats are just two wings of one political party - the one owned and operated by US business elites. (like former Prez Madison said, those who own the country should run it.)

Empire building and world hegemony aren't big on Nader's list of things to accomplish - in contrast to:

neo-conservative think tank bent on world hegemony

Oh, and isn't this "The Lounge" where any topic is permissible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in many respects Nader is a very respectable and accomplished man, however I do not believe that he serves his country best as a political candidate. He is most effective as a advocate and agitator. He forces issues to the fore, but he is not a concensus builder, a patient thinker, or a sympathetic character. He cannot become president nor ought he.

While I would generally agree that the democratic part is far to similar to the republicans (in canada i was NDP), there are several important and recognizable differences, if only that the democrats are less wedded to christian fundamentalism and more open to civil rights. One reason the democrats often don't seem so great is that for so long they have been running scared, and when an American politician runs scared they run to their right.

:ghg:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

in many respects Nader is a very respectable and accomplished man, however I do not believe that he serves his country best as a political candidate.  He is most effective as a advocate and agitator.  He forces issues to the fore, but he is not a concensus builder, a patient thinker, or a sympathetic character.  He cannot become president nor ought he.  

While I would generally agree that the democratic part is far to similar to the republicans (in canada i was NDP), there are several important and recognizable differences, if only that the democrats are less wedded to christian fundamentalism and more open to civil rights.  One reason the democrats often don't seem so great is that for so long they have been running scared, and when an American politician runs scared they run to their right.

:ghg:

Don't know too much about Nader "the man" but if you were an NDPer in Canada you can probably understand that the differences between Nader's policies and those of the Democrats/Republicans are far greater than any policy differences between the the Democrats and the Republicans themselves.

The same situation exists in Canada. Are there really any major policy differences between the Tories and the Liberals? Few and far between. Whether you like them or not, the NDP do offer policy differences - and those differences are essential for a vibrant democracy (where the paramters of "allowable" political discussion are much wider than in the US) to function.

Yes there is a modicum of difference between the Reps and Dems in both their policies and their support base but that's why I refer to them as opposing factions of the same Party. I view their differences as superficial overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would tend to generally agree with your thesis, and i might have said much the same thing during the 2000 campaign. However, after four years of bush i have become more yellow-dog democrat than ever before. I am very concerned by the rightward swing that the US is in and the reprecussions for Canada and the rest of the world (see beef,logging, gay marriage, and pot).

At some level I hold the stupidly optimistic belief that if the dems were able to concentrate their power they would be able to dissasociate themselves from the right wing co-options that you and I detest and that they feel they must adopt in order to cut into the republican fringes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you feel that Nader is to blame for the election of GW Bush? Myself, I find that view both ingenuine and myopic. Firstly, Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court and not elected. Secondly, Gore plainly blew the election. I mean if you can't win a debate with GW Bush on policy issues then how useless are you? Thirdly, democracy in the US is as stale as my humour. (Not that Canada's-first-past-the-post Parliamentary democracy is any better.) The US needs a more political parties and more grassroots political input in order to bring vibrancy back to its democracy. In Australia, I believe, voting is mandatory by law - and that's something that Canada should look at, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think nader was a spoiler, that's not what i was saying. I was saying that nader simply wouldn't be a very good president. Also, that while the same could be said for bush and to a slightly lesser extent gore, nader is not an electable figure, regardless of how one organizes the vote. He is not comparatively a very good politician. Often I wonder whether an NDP prime minister would be good for the country, but I am certain that having an NDP opposition is good for the country - it keeps the others slightly more honest. Nader is similar (although I tend to prefer NDP politics to the Greens) - he keeps the others a little more honest and forces his issues to the table.

Without even the minimal party structure that the Greens bring and with Nader's stigma as a spoiler, he does not possess enough influence this go around to even promote his issues or influence the general electorate.

Basically, I don't think that we are dissagreeing, I just think it is a difference between theory and practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore lost the Democrats the election, not Ralph Nader. That election was Gore's to lose, and well he lost it. He was the worst Presidental nomination in decades. He didn't carry his home state, he didn't carry Clinton's, he was just a miserably failure. Democrates should stop blamming Nader and start blamming the real person at fault, Gore.

Howard Dean was further proof that no one likes Gore. Dean looked home and cool to the get the Dem nomination until Gore gave him his support. Since then, he has gone down the toilet.

Kerry is an honourable man who will bring back dignity to the White House, that has been lacking since Jimmy Carter left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously question Kerry's honor. While getting all kinds of medals and ribbons over in Vietnam, he did nothing to stop the killing of civilians that he later claimed happened. After he got into politics, he blasted the war for it's killing of innocent civilians. When asked why he didn't say anything back then, he avoids answering directly.

Also, he is very fickle. His voting records show that he has constantly flip-flopped on most issues. It is good for somebody to change their ideas sometimes after being presented with new information, but not on most issues. That is a sign of a weak mind with no convictions.

If Kerry is elected, you can bet the terrorists will be happy. He will pull the US out of Iraq and reduce the war on terror. Right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq happened. We can't just pull out now. We have a responsibility to the people of Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you liked Clinton, just remember how honorable he was.  Lying under oath, smoking pot, draft dodging.

According to your profile, you live in the US. So, you wouldn't avoid a draft if you were in a draftee's position during Vietnam/WW2? You have to remember that this is war people are being sent to. Losing legs, arms, and even death, just because you were drafted.

TIME magazine actually had an aritlce on the draft being reinstated in the USA.

Clinton, was a better President (as in leader), than Bush. He didn't get into wars, and really cleaned up the streets of USA, Harlem is an example. He use to be poor, so he knew how bad it was suffering under poverty.

Sure, he lied under oath...but he still did good things. And he smoked pot, that's legal in certain Countries (Canada). He didn't INHALE it though. :)

Don't really care who runs that stupid country. Too many guns in too many hands = anarchy.

That's not the problem. It's more the mantality of the people with the guns and how constantly angry and motivated they are to hurt people.

Just my opinion, but hey, aren't we here to talk hockey, who the heck brought politics into the rink?  

It's the lounge: No hockey.

If you really want to debate politics, PoliticalCrossfire.com is suppose to be exciting.

If Kerry is elected, you can bet the terrorists will be happy.  He will pull the US out of Iraq and reduce the war on terror.  Right or wrong, the invasion of Iraq happened.  We can't just pull out now.  We have a responsibility to the people of Iraq.

That's not even an option for Americans. Bush took you this far, it's way too late to leave Iraq in shambles. You guys will have to finish the goal - cleaning Iraq politically. The real problem is Israel though. They are the ones the surrounding Countries hate, and they won't back down, give-up the gaza strip etc. Without the US, they have nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Ribeiro

According to your profile, you live in the US.  So, you wouldn't avoid a draft if you were in a draftee's position during Vietnam/WW2?  You have to remember that this is war people are being sent to.  Losing legs, arms, and even death, just because you were drafted.  

TIME magazine actually had an aritlce on the draft being reinstated in the USA.  

As an American, it is my obligation as a man to register for the draft. If I did not want to risk ever being drafted, I would move to another country. If I were drafted, I would most definitely report.

Originally posted by Ribeiro

Clinton, was a better President (as in leader), than Bush.  He didn't get into wars, and really cleaned up the streets of USA, Harlem is an example.  He use to be poor, so he knew how bad it was suffering under poverty.

Sure, he lied under oath...but he still did good things.  And he smoked pot, that's legal in certain Countries (Canada).  He didn't INHALE it though.  :)

The good that Bush has done is quietly sweeped under the rug by the most of the media. If you look at things like the economy, it is in much better shape than the liberals would like you to think. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the exact statistics I found to provide any proof of this.

And about the pot, I trust Clinton about that about as much as I trust it to snow in July. He has been proven to be a very dishonest person, but people don't seem to care. People call Bush a liar all the time about WMD, but that was not even his fault, he had bad intelligence. Clinton has lied under oath and was found guilty of insider trading. That just starts the list.

[Edited on 3-23-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad intelligence is another right-wing scapegoat phrase.

Bush was clearly going to invade Iraq when he took office in 2000. Apprently he was planning it a good 10 months before 9/11. And even than, their was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Bush knew AQ was the real threat and that they were planning more attacks but he did nothing. The one I find the most hilarous is Rice didn't even know who AQ was when she took office. LOL.

It must piss off the right-wing to know all these former White House staff at coming forward and saying the same thing. Bush knew about AQ, did nothing about. Bush wanted a link between Iraq and 9/11 but couldn't find it so he used "WMD". He hoped WMD's would be found and he'd look like the good guy. They haven't and it's not becoming more clear that he lied.

Should be fun to see Rice testify under oath. You know she'll be lying so the right-wing can't use this "But Clinton lied under oath" anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUSH IS GREAT but if he doesnt win then J.P Dumont would be a great president! OH YEAH HES CANADIAN but still he is good at everything:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan Puck33: you are wrong about the terrorists being happy if the US leaves Iraq. The US presence in Iraq is the biggest boost to terrorists yet. It gives credence to the fundementalists claims that the USA wants to dominate the Muslim world and every civilian casulty and every image of tortured prisoners just adds to it. GB provided terrorists with the recruitment campain of their dreams.

I dont know what kind of advice GB was getting or if he listened to it, but as someone who has lived in the Middle East for the last five years I can tell you that anyone who has lived in the ME for more than five minutes would have predicted what happened in Iraq.

Bush is an idiot and he wanted to oust Saddam from the very first. WMD were just an excuse. It is a leaders resoponsibility to establish an exit plan before beginining this kind of action and it has been painfully clear the GB and co have been making it up and they go along.

If they had of devouted all the resources wasted in Iraq to hunting down Bin Laden and the other terrorists world opinion would still be on the side of the USA and the terror network might have been eliminated or at least seriously weakened.

GB has no credibility in the world except with Tony Blair and Sharon. His election would be a disaster for the world.

Don't take my word for it read some of Michael Moore's books, read some of the English papers from the ME. Study some history, but don't take the Republicans word for it because lying or not they obviously don't have a clue.

Pmac

[Edited on 2004/5/3 by PMAC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, do not even get me started on Michael Moore. I can respect other people's beliefs and views, but not when they do it like Moore does.

And yes, pulling out of Iraq would be loved by terrorists. It would prove to them that they can succeed. If the US pulls out, it will show terrorists that they are winning, and should continue their battle against the US. The US cannot allow the terrorists to believe they are winning. (And on a side note, if this was an oil grab, why am I still paying outragious prices for gas?)

And who said the search for bin Laden has been given up? There are troops fighting in Afghanistan still today, hunting down bin Laden and his henchmen. Recently, Afghan and US troops almost caught bin Laden's right hand man. Unforunately, he escaped through a series of tunnels.

And I cannot vote for Kerry. He cannot make up his mind on anything, and contradicts what he says he stands for. I recently listened to him say how the US was not properly equipped with the best technology to go into Iraq. What he doesn't mention, is that he voted AGAINST a bill that would give the military more money to allow for such technology to be used. He says he supports out troops, but he voted AGAINST paying them more for their services. After Vietnam, when his political career as blossoming, he condemned the war for the civilian casualties. No records show he did anything about this while he was there. Why not?

At least Bush has a plan and sticks to it. The fight on terror was right. Saddam was a brutal leader. The MAJORITY of Iraqis are grateful. It is the minority that is performing the acts of terror.

And somebody mentioned bow Bush knew about Al Qaeda before 9-11, but did nothing about them. What did Clinton do? Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

I trust Clinton about that about as much as I trust it to snow in July.  

Not that it matters that much, but my birthday is in july and I seem to remember it snowing a little bit on my 10th birthday (in Montreal....) maybe....

As far as the draft is concerned, I am a naturalized american and I would like to think that I would report. Of course, this is all very theoretical since I am old enough that only a WW2 style draft would call me up.

If you want to talk about in-depth statistical analysis of the economy during the Bush administration you have to check out Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed writer at the New York Times. A lot of his stuff is available on their website at www.nytimes.com You can also check out the severly right rebuttals from William Safire and David Brooks, also Op-Ed writers at the times. Unlike Fox news they are both erudite and balanced. Safire's a punk.

I really would like to hear about the good things that Bush has done during his tenure, because I am quite unaware of anything. Please post links to where I can find some info. My taxes haven't gone down, my insurance premiums keep going up, I want to move but I cant find jobs anywhere, my cable bill is soaring and I have to buy fox sports in order to get ESPN classic, my telephone coverage sucks, my flights are always late, most airline coverage to my parent's small town in the midwest has been cut and my gas is $2.00 a gallon and my wrist hurts from repetitive stress from my non-osha workstation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moore is a big mouth, but he's not the only one. Look at some of the right-wing big mouths?

Bill O'Reilly is a disgrace to the country, and Limbaugh's brain is fried from too much drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is Bill O'Reilly a disgrace to the country? Sure, he is right wing on most issues, even a little too much for my taste at times. But he always gives the other side a chance to defend their points. True, normally he doesn't see any validity to other people's views, but he puts it out there. He isn't a total right-winger though. A true far rught-winger would support Bush and the Republicans no matter what. I have seen Bill bitch about Bush and republicans on numerous occasions. He may not allow people to change his mind, but his program puts other's ideas out there. That is more than you can say about the vast majority in the media. Watching O'Rielly is much better than watching, say Dan Rather, who will only present the liberal side of a matter. The O'Reilly factor may not be a true "no-spin zone", but it's better than most shows.

As for Limbaugh, I have never cared for him. He makes good enough points a lot of the time, but he is an asshole about it. I was flipping through the radio the other day and Limbaugh was airing a live Kerry speech. Now, the points Rush brought up about the speech were perfectly valid, but he brought them up by laughing at Kerry as he gives the speech. Limbaugh I can do without.

And as for Moore, I can tolerate his views, but the way he goes about it is worse than Limbaugh.

This whole argument is probably useless though. Liberals always think the media is too conservative, and vice-versa. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing the son of a 9/11 victim on and attacking him verbal because he opposed to the war, not to mention threatning to beat him up. I don't see how you could defend someone like that.

Course it's hard to like a guy who says "bomb those communist Canadians and their medicare system".

Now inless you agree with him, you cannot deny say idiotic things like that gives your country a bad name.

I have no problem with right-wing broadcasters WHEN they use logic, same with liberal broadcasters. Bias isn't the problem. It's being unlogical and not showing both sides of the story. I find alot of liberal broadcasters in Canada are fair. Than when I watch right-wingers in the US like Fox or whoever, they only give 1 side. They turn it into one of those "Well your party did it to so it's ok" childish nonsense. It's all attack the other guy no matter how screwed up our side is.

I like broadcasters who bring a balanced point of view from both ends. O'Reilly doesn't, Limbaugh doesn't, FalseNews doesn't.

Michael Moore makes great films and I agree with alot of the things but their is something about him I don't like. Wish he'd present himself like a real American hero like Noam Chomsky.

[Edited on 2004/5/4 by Leafs Suck]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'reilly, hanity, coulter, and limbaugh only disagree with the president and the republican leadership when they run to their right. I have never heard any of the above columnists espouse a single left leaning view. O'reilly claims to be anti-death penalty, but he has never spoken against a particular instance of it. He is pro drug-legalizations only from the libertarian argument.

o'reilly constantly cuts off his guests when they try to make points and when he is a guest on a show he is pouty and childish. See his interview with terry gross on NPR where she asked him to make a rebuttal against charges laid down by Al Franken in his rather incindiary book about him. O'reilly walked out of the studio. If any of you listen to NPR you know that Terry Gross isn't really a "tough interview", he just can't stand to have anyone else moderating the debate because when he loses that advantage he loses the argument. The same can be said for Anne Coulter et al. I never saw rather as such a liberal and I rarely see him do any sort of editorializing on the stories of the day. O'reilly is really beyond the pale.

Moore is jerky and I dissagree with him often, but at least he can be funny. Limbaugh just makes me ill, he hates people, many people. He hates homosexuals, he hates liberals and brands people such as myself as evil anti-americans. His vitriol renders his arguments null and his hypocrisy, most recently evidenced in his drug use, is awe-inspiring. His practice of placing voice-overs on sound bites is stupid and childish and allows him to cut the bites to the point where all original meaning is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...