Kerry says US needs its own 'regime change'

[bsobel]

I found this Kerry quote to be extremely stupid. By definition, as a member of congress, Kerry is part of the U.S. regime.

Bill

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think the American people are entitled to a democratically elected president no less that the Iraqi people. (I'll get over it when it's over with)
And as far as Bush's support, big deal. Look at his daddy. He had enormous support during gulf war, but was given an early retirement by Bill Clinton.
It's the economy, stupid. This war distractions are going to wear off unless the economy turns around. Bush's economic policy is a dismal failure. He doomed this country to a decade of deficits, with nothing to show for it.

Yup, if there was no war people would have to pay attention to other issues. The war is going well, but everything else is getting worse. Hopefully Bush didn't start this war for political reasons(doubt he did), if he did he started it 1 year too early.

 

[Wag]

As I said before, Kerry's a good guy- out of touch, maybe. But what multi-millionaire poltician isn't? He's as good as the Dems got. I can't see a better candidate, but I don't see him winning right now.

What's a bit concerning for me is Sharpton- He's a big wildcard right now, and who knows what kind of support he'll get from the African American community? Will he get 5% of the Dems behind him? That could be enough to lose an election, especially if he doesn't throw his support behind someone more likely to win- and we know Sharpton has a huge ego.

At least Kerry's not a criminal. Lol.

 

[Grey]

It is time for a change in the democratic party, which is becoming increasingly ridden with jokes for representation in the government. The Scandals, BJs, look at me I am different approach isn't winning many new voters.

 

[Parrotheader]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
There is only one reason Bush 41 didnt get a second go, his name was Ross Perot. Clinton got re-elected based on his false economy, of which we all see how it was achieved by all the scandals being now revealed to get the stock market to shoot through the roof.

I dont think the dems will have near as easy a time to remove Bush, unless Bush does something real stupid before the re-election. IMHO

We have gotten enough distance now that it is kind of easy to forget how big an impact Perot had on that race. I believe he ended up getting right around 20% of the popular vote which is absolutely staggering when you think about it - by far the most popular third party candidate in a long time. I'm sure somebody has the time to track down a link to prove me wrong, but it would seem that a majority of the people who voted for him would have been most likely to have voted Republican had Perot not been in the race since his position on most issues was fairly similar to the Republicans. His main rallying cry was not too different from Clinton's - the economy. I remember hearing the argument at the time that a vote for Perot was baiscally a way NOT to vote for Bush and there's certainly something to that. But his stand on most issues seemed to be very Republicanesque if I'm remembering correctly. It's just another example of people going WAY overboard heaping too much blame/credit on a president for the economy because it's a lot easier to point to one person than it is to try and struggle to understand the vast array of variables which truly drive the economy. The Taco Bell chihuahua could've been president during the 90s and we would've pretty much seen the same economic growth IMO.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Wag

WeRd. He just busted a few of his financial supporters.

He doesn't need any financial supporters- he can fund the whole campaign himself if he wanted to. His wife's family is one of the richest families in the US.

He's a good guy- he's also a war hero, so the Republicans won't be able to accuse him of being unpatriotic.

Still- even though he's my Senator, I don't see how he could beat Bush right now- he's the best candidate the Dems have, but we need a better one.

oh, but I thought all rich, white guys were Republicans.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: bsobel
I found this Kerry quote to be extremely stupid. By definition, as a member of congress, Kerry is part of the U.S. regime.

Bill

You have to forgive the Pols, sometimes they get a little carried away.

It's kind of funny how he positions himself now, contrary to some of his comments in years previous. When the campaign races get rolling, he'll be called on the carpet about it. And I'm not sure how his newfound love for the UN is going to play out with the general public considering a great many support the war and the decision to go to war.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Wag

WeRd. He just busted a few of his financial supporters.

He doesn't need any financial supporters- he can fund the whole campaign himself if he wanted to. His wife's family is one of the richest families in the US.

He's a good guy- he's also a war hero, so the Republicans won't be able to accuse him of being unpatriotic.

Still- even though he's my Senator, I don't see how he could beat Bush right now- he's the best candidate the Dems have, but we need a better one.

HAAHAHA! You actually think the Heinz endowment would give any money to Kerry? I mean she is pretty much the head of it, but her poltical wavering have caused QUITE a few Heinz family members to be MIFFED about a lot of things. Remember this lady was a registered Republican until very recently, and has an eye for politicans(former Hubby was Heinz from PA).

Please you are way off. He needs the funding as much as anyone else.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
There is only one reason Bush 41 didnt get a second go, his name was Ross Perot. Clinton got re-elected based on his false economy, of which we all see how it was achieved by all the scandals being now revealed to get the stock market to shoot through the roof.

I dont think the dems will have near as easy a time to remove Bush, unless Bush does something real stupid before the re-election. IMHO

There are no eye rolls great enough for this mis-information.

You also know that if Nader hadn't run in 00, George II would still be governor of Texas.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: mastertech01
There is only one reason Bush 41 didnt get a second go, his name was Ross Perot. Clinton got re-elected based on his false economy, of which we all see how it was achieved by all the scandals being now revealed to get the stock market to shoot through the roof.

I dont think the dems will have near as easy a time to remove Bush, unless Bush does something real stupid before the re-election. IMHO

There are no eye rolls great enough for this mis-information.

You also know that if Nader hadn't run in 00, George II would still be governor of Texas.

Maybe you should get Nader and Perot to run in '04, then nobody would win!.

 

[Phokus]

The US needs a president who will support curtailing the ever expanding size and scope of government. Therefore, nobody should vote for Kerry or Bush.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: mastertech01
There is only one reason Bush 41 didnt get a second go, his name was Ross Perot. Clinton got re-elected based on his false economy, of which we all see how it was achieved by all the scandals being now revealed to get the stock market to shoot through the roof.

I dont think the dems will have near as easy a time to remove Bush, unless Bush does something real stupid before the re-election. IMHO

There are no eye rolls great enough for this mis-information.

You also know that if Nader hadn't run in 00, George II would still be governor of Texas.

Why do you consider it to be MISinformation?
Look at the 2000 election
George W. Bush (REP) 48%
Albert Gore (DEM) 48.3%
Patrick Buchanan (RFM) 0.4%
Ralph Nader (GRN) 2.7%


and then look at 1992 results
Bill Clinton (43.3%)
Bush (37.7%)
Ross Perot (19%)

Perot ruined any hopes for a Republican Presidency

 

[DoctorPizza]

The US needs a president who will support curtailing the ever expanding size and scope of government.

Why?

Therefore, nobody should vote for Kerry or Bush.

Why not?

Vote Libertarian

Why?

The communist/fascist/nationalist/warmonger known as George W. Bush is a prime example of why we need a government that is limited in both size and scope.

"Communist" and "fascist" are, economically speaking, diametrically opposed. How do you propose that W be both?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Phokus
The US needs a president who will support curtailing the ever expanding size and scope of government.

I'll second that sentiment

 

[colonel]

the guy is a Vietnam veteran, I like he has the balls to speak up against this gov. and is true, we dont expect to build a bridge with the European countries for a long time.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Wag
You don't live in Ma then. We've been hearing it constantly- from Kerry and Kenedy.

Kerry gets my respect as a Vietnam veteran....too bad I can't stand his politics.

Kennedy...Mary Jo Kopeckne anyone?

 

[Queasy]

So Kerry wants to go from a representative democracy to what...? Communism? A dictatorship? Anarchy? Mob rule?

Surely, someone as smart as Kerry realizes that when you call for a regime change, you are calling for the complete demolition of the current government and the installation of another form of government....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right not Kerry is the front runner for my vote. Never voted for a Democratic presidential hopeful before, but Bush has converted me. Right now I would vote for a yellow dog as long as it's not Bush.

 

[tcsenter]

So Kerry wants to go from a representative democracy to what...? Communism? A dictatorship? Anarchy? Mob rule? Surely, someone as smart as Kerry realizes that when you call for a regime change, you are calling for the complete demolition of the current government and the installation of another form of government....

Well, if you remember Kerry's platform while running for the Democratic nomination, he was further left than Al Gore but not quite as left as Nader. So somewhere in between liberal democrat and ardent socialist is about right.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Right not Kerry is the front runner for my vote. Never voted for a Democratic presidential hopeful before, but Bush has converted me. Right not I would vote for a yellow dog as long as it's not Bush.

lol... i hope some people get over the meaningless patriotism, and follow suit.

Just because he was selected to be president by his daddies cronies - The Supreme "Justices" - doesn't mean we have to tolerate him.

Anyway...The Democratic party has proven to be very pitiful as of late. They seem to be so divided, it's hard for the general public

to identify themselves with the party anymore -- unless you are a minority -- and have a moral obligation to show disfavor over the money

grubbing republicans. - tax cuts? why not, we are only increasing our deficit with the onset of war, and are in recession.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So Kerry wants to go from a representative democracy to what...? Communism? A dictatorship? Anarchy? Mob rule? Surely, someone as smart as Kerry realizes that when you call for a regime change, you are calling for the complete demolition of the current government and the installation of another form of government....

Well, if you remember Kerry's platform while running for the Democratic nomination, he was further left than Al Gore but not quite as left as Nader. So somewhere in between liberal democrat and ardent socialist is about right.

I think Kerry should have been clearer in his definition of what form of government he plans to setup after his successful coup attempt. He needs to go ahead and write a new plan of the form of government he wants; ie how many branches of government, how elections are held (or not held), power structure, courts, etc. I'm sure once he lays it all out before the American people he'll get many supporters for his upcoming coup.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So Kerry wants to go from a representative democracy to what...? Communism? A dictatorship? Anarchy? Mob rule? Surely, someone as smart as Kerry realizes that when you call for a regime change, you are calling for the complete demolition of the current government and the installation of another form of government....

Well, if you remember Kerry's platform while running for the Democratic nomination, he was further left than Al Gore but not quite as left as Nader. So somewhere in between liberal democrat and ardent socialist is about right.

I think Kerry should have been clearer in his definition of what form of government he plans to setup after his successful coup attempt. He needs to go ahead and write a new plan of the form of government he wants; ie how many branches of government, how elections are held (or not held), power structure, courts, etc. I'm sure once he lays it all out before the American people he'll get many supporters for his upcoming coup.

I think he wants to put you in front of a firing squad. If you hurry, you just might make it out of the country in time. Be careful though, I think they have your room bugged too

 

[exp]

The US needs a president who will support curtailing the ever expanding size and scope of government.

I'm with you on that one.

 

[Marshallj]

This just in... Gore lost the election. The Gore supporters can go home now.

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but Gore would have been worse.

 

[kylebisme]

well i felt the same way up until a few months ago Marshallj, but i can't stand by that argument any more.