DVD Talk
Which candidate just said this? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Which candidate just said this?


IMRICKJAMES
10-21-04, 05:18 PM
"I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me."

One clue


It wasn't President Bush

So the question is...why is President Bush's faith denigrated so much by the Democrats when Kerry seems to have the same outlook. They both have faith and both say that faith will guide them, so why is ones religion better than the other?

DVD Polizei
10-21-04, 05:22 PM
Because Kerry has a plan...rotfl

Th0r S1mpson
10-21-04, 05:37 PM
The article I read earlier today said that Kerry will be emphasizing his faith in the days leading up to the election.

Between that and the hunting photo op, can anyone really take this as anything less than last minute shenanigans?

He's going for the swing voter, and hard. Who can blame him? I just wonder if there's any chance he could lose some of his base over these issues. Their banking on "no," here, likely because of the anti-Bush sentiment.

We shall see how the next 2 weeks play out. Hopefully there is a clear winner with a clear concession. If it truly goes as people are expecting and the lawyers and accusations come out regardless of results, we will be setting the worst example possible to the world, especially when you consider Afghanistan and Iraq right now.

If we, in our wisdom and hundreds of years of democracy, are in such a mess, how can they expect a democratic leader to ever be accepted?

My only hope is that this is not only not worse than 2000, but far better. Even if it's Kerry who ends up on top. America needs a clean election. Fingers crossed.

General Zod
10-21-04, 05:42 PM
Because if it's coming from Kerry than it's A-OK! If it's coming from Bush than its evil and part of his plan to take over the world.

Mordred
10-21-04, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by IMRICKJAMES
So the question is...why is President Bush's faith denigrated so much by the Democrats when Kerry seems to have the same outlook. They both have faith and both say that faith will guide them, so why is ones religion better than the other? I would assume it's because Bush takes his faith seriously and when Kerry says something like this, it appears to be a cheap attempt to pander to the religious who don't like Bush.

drunkrob
10-21-04, 06:14 PM
Look where faith got George Michael. Kerry should play the devil card. It's them goths who aren't turning out. They are too busy posting pics on Live Journal.

Tracer Bullet
10-21-04, 06:24 PM
This was discussed in depth a week or so ago: http://dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=390600&highlight=atheist

Myster X
10-21-04, 06:25 PM
Seriously, just how many so-called plans has the senator proposed? I mean the guy had a plan for EVERYTHING but would not reveal them.

mikehunt
10-21-04, 06:29 PM
I pointed this out in one of the debate threads and was mocked

natesfortune
10-21-04, 07:41 PM
Yes, he's out wearing camo and shooting Geese, professing he's going to carry his faith with him to the White House(glad he probably won't have the chance), and "let it guide" him. He has also said he is the "candidate of Conservative values" and absolutely will not admit to being what he is - a liberal. He is hypersensitive to being called that or even "progressive" or any other similar word.

It is a pretty clear illustration of the times we live in, and how much to the right the country has moved since the Reagan Revolution.

Today only 19% of people describe themselves as "liberal". Over 40% describe themselves as "Conservative".

joshd2012
10-21-04, 07:47 PM
Kerry doesn't impose his faith on other people. That is the difference.

Mopower
10-21-04, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by joshd2012
Kerry doesn't impose his faith on other people. That is the difference.

I'm a Bush supporter and I can't tell you how many times he's made me go to church since he came in to office. Oh wait yes I can. Zero times. That damn Bush. -rolleyes-

Birrman54
10-21-04, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Mopower
I'm a Bush supporter and I can't tell you how many times he's made me go to church since he came in to office. Oh wait yes I can. Zero times. That damn Bush. -rolleyes-

you're lucky. Bush sent the digital brownshirts to my home and forceably baptised me.

birrman54

IMRICKJAMES
10-21-04, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by joshd2012
Kerry doesn't impose his faith on other people. That is the difference.

When has he ever imposed his faith on anyone?? Quit reading talking points from the DNC

OldDude
10-21-04, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Mopower
I'm a Bush supporter and I can't tell you how many times he's made me go to church since he came in to office. Oh wait yes I can. Zero times.

I'm pretty sure you are right. I'm an atheist and I think I'd have noticed if I'd been forced to go to church.

sfsdfd
10-21-04, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by IMRICKJAMES
So the question is...why is President Bush's faith denigrated so much by the Democrats when Kerry seems to have the same outlook. They both have faith and both say that faith will guide them, so why is ones religion better than the other?
Because one candidate has gone on record as saying, repeatedly, that <i>he can't mandate his personal views for all of America.</i> And the other has tried to do just that.

The issue is not the presence of faith. The issue is what each one <i>does</i> with that faith. And they're pretty goddamn different in that regard.

- David Stein

kvrdave
10-22-04, 01:23 AM
There is no difference. If there really is one, it is that one means what he is saying and one doesn't. Because taken at face value, they are saying the same thing.

But just like liberals didn't bitch and whine about Clinton always refering to God, I still believe it is because they don't believe he meant any of it. The man knew how to speak, and that was just part of it.

DeputyDave
10-22-04, 03:32 AM
Because just like Clinton (who refered to God many more times than Bush does in his speechs) the left knows Kerry really doesn't mean it. He's just "playing to the sticks".

chess
10-22-04, 08:18 AM
Just a few of the decisions that Bush has made based either on faith or pandering to the christian right that impose his religious views on american citizens and others.

1. Federal tax dollars going to "faith based initiatives"...whatever the fuck that means...apparently it's open for interpretation.

2. Bible thumping backwoods judges in the federal courts.

3. A constitutional amendment...A FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT...stating that no gay person shall ever have equal rights...ever.

4. Oh, and I almost forgot...a pet crusade (yes, he called it a crusade).

5. "God wanted me to be president right now" or something to that effect.

I'm sure somebody out there can add substantially to this list, and I am confident that Kerry will do none of these things.

Venusian
10-22-04, 08:26 AM
1) it goes to any faiths, not just Christian
2) name some
3) he has no part in the amendment process
4) he used the word, so?
5) he said that? so? how does that change anything?

Venusian
10-22-04, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Because one candidate has gone on record as saying, repeatedly, that <i>he can't mandate his personal views for all of America.</i> And the other has tried to do just that.


wouldn't his faith guiding him mean that whatever he mandates will be his faith?

Originally posted by sfsdfd

And they're pretty goddamn different in that regard.


HEY! stop forcing your religion on me! always referring to god -ohbfrank-

weargle
10-22-04, 08:30 AM
Faith and hunting are great October Surprises!! Thanks Terry!!!

chess
10-22-04, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Venusian
1) it goes to any faiths, not just Christian
2) name some
3) he has no part in the amendment process
4) he used the word, so?
5) he said that? so? how does that change anything?

1. First of all, Riiiiiiiiiight. Second of all, I don't want MY tax dollars going to any religious organization.

2. I distinctly recall him nominating some dude from Miss or Ala with a clear agenda to preach from the bench to a district seat. His name won't come to me...looked relatively young. Somebody help me.

3. He is clearly proposing one. Does his removal from the legislative process give him license to say whatever he wants because it doesn't matter? Please.

4. SO???? So, the word "crusade" has a much different connotation in the middle east than it does here, as I'm sure you might imagine. I can't think of a worse thing for a sitting president to say while talking about liberating Iraqis from thier oil.

5. The man believes he has a divine mandate....and you don't see this as a problem?!?!? No matter what conclusion he comes to, it must be right, because Jesus picked him. -ohbfrank-

Venusian
10-22-04, 09:21 AM
1) there are TONS of things I dont want MY tax dollars to fund, yet they do

3) he has the right to say whatever. Bush is against gay marriage, Kerry is against gay marriage. one might be willing to go further with the law than the other, but both are against it.

4) "liberating Iraqis from thier oil" -ohbfrank- you can't even discuss this without spouting crap like that?

5) he thinks God put him there. If Kerry wins and he really believes what he says, he'll believe the same thing. That doesn't mean everything he does is right.

Geofferson
10-22-04, 09:24 AM
There was already talk about this in the 'athiest' thread from a few days ago where I posted the following:

In debate #3, Kerry was talking about being animated by faith in his public life. He stated, "Everything in my public life is guided by my faith, but I will in no way legislate that article of faith on other people."

Is that not a mutually exclusive statement?

Red Dog
10-22-04, 09:26 AM
This 'issue' is so very very tired. If this issue is that important to you, I suggest voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush.

chess
10-22-04, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Venusian
1) there are TONS of things I dont want MY tax dollars to fund, yet they do

3) he has the right to say whatever. Bush is against gay marriage, Kerry is against gay marriage. one might be willing to go further with the law than the other, but both are against it.

4) "liberating Iraqis from thier oil" -ohbfrank- you can't even discuss this without spouting crap like that?

5) he thinks God put him there. If Kerry wins and he really believes what he says, he'll believe the same thing. That doesn't mean everything he does is right.

1) Does the U.S. Constitution prevent those things that you don't approve of?

2) No response? I'm sure given some time, I could find some great quotes from that dude.

3) The right to say whatever? He's the PoTUS for chrissakes! If he says we need a Constitutional amendment, folks are liable to take it seriously. Kerry has made clear that said amendment is far beyond a rational response.

4) Fair enough, but it's not like I called it a crusade. Now THAT would be heinous. Incidentally, you didn't really reply, did you?

5) Bush clearly believes that everything he does is the will of God. You may not see it as I do...or hell, you may even agree with him. :eek:

Venusian
10-22-04, 09:33 AM
1) I would say it does. Just like I would say it permits faith based charities

2) I was waiting for a name or quotes.

3) yes he has freedom of speech too. okay, kerry doesn't want an amendment. there is a difference between the two, but how big is it? Is this really something you want to use to distinguish the two? one has a conviction he will make law, the other has one he'll make an amendment?

4) do you really believe that Bush sees the iraq was as a religious war? Is there any proof of this other than one speech with the word "crusade" in it?

5) Any proof of this?

Venusian
10-22-04, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Geofferson
There was already talk about this in the 'athiest' thread from a few days ago where I posted the following:

In debate #3, Kerry was talking about being animated by faith in his public life. He stated, "Everything in my public life is guided by my faith, but I will in no way legislate that article of faith on other people."

Is that not a mutually exclusive statement?

i would think the use of PUBLIC LIFE would imply that it would effect others

Red Dog
10-22-04, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by chess


3) The right to say whatever? He's the PoTUS for chrissakes! If he says we need a Constitutional amendment, folks are liable to take it seriously. Kerry has made clear that said amendment is far beyond a rational response.



Yeah - and it sure worked wonders on the Hill a few months ago. :lol: I've said it once and I'll say it again, the Prez stating his preference is a moot point. Here's a little secret just btwn you and me: the overwhelming majority of people who support Bush support the amendment. Bush doesn't need to influence them. Furthermore, there are many many people such as yourself who can't stand Bush and wouldn't listen to anything he has to say in this area. His preference is not going to change many people's opinion on an issue such as gay marriage.

Oh and I think I know which judge you are talking about - William Pryor. I'm not a big fan of him either but for different reasons. If he is such the bible-thumper, then why did he come down hard on Roy Moore for his defiance of the federal court for his 10 Commandments monument.

Geofferson
10-22-04, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Venusian
i would think the use of PUBLIC LIFE would imply that it would effect others
my point exactly.

chess
10-22-04, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
Yeah - and it sure worked wonders on the Hill a few months ago. :lol: I've said it once and I'll say it again, the Prez stating his preference is a moot point. Here's a little secret just btwn you and me: the overwhelming majority of people who support Bush support the amendment. Bush doesn't need to influence them. Furthermore, there are many many people such as yourself who can't stand Bush and wouldn't listen to anything he has to say in this area. His preference is not going to change many people's opinion on an issue such as gay marriage.

Oh and I think I know which judge you are talking about - William Pryor. I'm not a big fan of him either but for different reasons. If he is such the bible-thumper, then why did he come down hard on Roy Moore for his defiance of the federal court for his 10 Commandments monument.

Don't get me wrong. I know he wasn't serious about the amendment and that it was pandering.

Thanks for the name. I don't believe he came down on Moore for the 10 commandments, but for defying the order of a federal court...but it's been a while. Did you ever see an interview with that guy? He is clearly a bible thumper trying to look as moderate as he could...which is to say, not very.

The Moore thing also, i think, helped his chances of getting approved...just as it helped Moore in his run for whatever it is he plans to run for.

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by chess

Thanks for the name. I don't believe he came down on Moore for the 10 commandments, but for defying the order of a federal court...but it's been a while. Did you ever see an interview with that guy? He is clearly a bible thumper trying to look as moderate as he could...which is to say, not very.



If he was that much of a bible thumper, he would put the bible ahead of the law (court order) and do nothing about the monument. He didn't. Isn't that what this discussion is all about?

I am very familiar with William Pryor. He is very religious. However, that certainly should not disqualify him from serving on the federal bench. My problem with him is that he has made comments very critical of several members of the SCt. It leads me to believe that he would be a loose cannon on a lower federal court - not apply SCt precedents (that he does not agree).

sfsdfd
10-22-04, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
Here's a little secret just btwn you and me: the overwhelming majority of people who support Bush support the amendment.
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.

This is hardly a new trick, of course. Singling out a minority group for ridicule is a strong uniting force. And gays, like Jews and blacks, have been the preferred and undeserved targets of thousands of manipulative leaders throughout history. Why should things be any different in 2004?

- David Stein

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.

This is hardly a new trick, of course. Singling out a minority group for ridicule is a strong uniting force. And gays, like Jews and blacks, have been the preferred and undeserved targets of thousands of manipulative leaders throughout history. Why should things be any different in 2004?

- David Stein


Of course. The point remains, Bush's words on this are hardly going to change anyone's opinion so why do people keep bringing it up? Plus Bush is right about one thing - if you don't believe in gay marriage, then the constitutional amendment is the only way to ensure that it can't happen because whether it takes 10, 20, or 50 years, DOMAs will fail and the 14th amendment argument will finally win out.

chess
10-22-04, 10:27 AM
Pryor in his own words:

On Roe v. Wade

“the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history”

"I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children."


On Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_b.htm

“an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness”


On “states’ rights”/federalism

“With the New Deal, the Great Society, and the growing federal bureaucracy, we have strayed too far in the expansion of the federal government”


On future Supreme Court justices

“Please God, no more Souters”


On the American government

“the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are rooted in a Christian perspective of the nature of government and the nature of man. The challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.”


On the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore

“I’m probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter.”


On overturning “sodomy” laws that criminalize private consensual sex between same-sex couples

“… a constitutional right that protects ‘the choice of one’s partner’ . . . must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’).”


On “sodomy” laws targeting only gay people, even if not enforced criminally

“Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced . . . has significant pedagogic value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders. The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences.”


On what he calls “the erosion of self-government”

“For more than 30 years, the liberal agenda has been pushed through the courts, without a vote of either the people or their representatives. The courts have imposed results on a wide range of issues, including racial quotas, school prayer, abortion, and homosexual rights.”


On the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by the exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute, a public, taxpayer-supported school

“We now have new rules of political correctness for decisionmaking in the equal protection area.”


On proponents of a death penalty moratorium

“the death penalty moratorium movement is headed by an activist minority with little concern for what is really going on in our criminal justice system.”


A warning to businesses on his fellow attorneys general

“If you think that the office of state attorney general in your state is an unlikely source of mischief, think again. My warnings this morning are not based on speculation or conjecture. I know my colleagues. We meet regularly at conferences of the National Association of Attorneys General. We discuss our philosophies and agendas. Many of my colleagues are enemies of free enterprise.”


On guns

“As a law enforcement official, I know crimes are caused by criminals, not by the gun industry. Indeed, by providing good-quality firearms at reasonable prices to law-abiding citizens and lawmen, the gun industry helps reduce crime.”

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:31 AM
I agree with him on some of those things. I think Roe was an abomonination too - not for those reasons though.

Venusian
10-22-04, 10:31 AM
out of all those quotes, there is one that mentions religion. how is this guy "Bible-thumping"? you seem to have a bigger issue of him being a conservative

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Venusian
out of all those quotes, there is one that mentions religion. how is this guy "Bible-thumping"? you seem to have a bigger issue of him being a conservative


The only one that stood out in that regard was the Christian perspective one. The funny thing is that if this guy is so bad and such a bible thumper, you would think chess could have remembered his name. :lol:

chess
10-22-04, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Venusian
out of all those quotes, there is one that mentions religion. how is this guy "Bible-thumping"? you seem to have a bigger issue of him being a conservative

Ugh...

I would have no problems with these quotes were they from a politician...or even a dvdtalk poster. But a Federal appeals court judge? Are you serious?

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by chess
Ugh...

I would have no problems with these quotes were they from a politician...or even a dvdtalk poster. But a Federal appeals court judge? Are you serious?


So how do you feel about judges who make comments saying that jurists should look to the way things are done in foreign countries to come to conclusions on certain issues?

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by chess
Ugh...

I would have no problems with these quotes were they from a politician...or even a dvdtalk poster. But a Federal appeals court judge? Are you serious?


Bash him for the right reason. Call him a right-wing ideologue. Say he is disrespectful of current SCt members (his comments about Souter - as much as I dislike Souter - would be enough for me to vote nay at his confirmation vote). Don't call him a bible-thumper though.

chess
10-22-04, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Red Dog
So how do you feel about judges who make comments saying that jurists should look to the way things are done in foreign countries to come to conclusions on certain issues?

context?

are we talking about the death penalty?

Red Dog
10-22-04, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by chess
context?

are we talking about the death penalty?


Well that is one area.

Geofferson
10-22-04, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.

This is hardly a new trick, of course. Singling out a minority group for ridicule is a strong uniting force. And gays, like Jews and blacks, have been the preferred and undeserved targets of thousands of manipulative leaders throughout history. Why should things be any different in 2004?

- David Stein
:rolleyes:

Words cannot express my disgust with your oversimplified generalization about this.

:(

chess
10-22-04, 10:42 AM
If we are the only industrialized nation to still be doing something (in this case, executing minors), I think it's a valid and objective point in that it's a matter of FACT not BELIEF.

Still, it's not the sort of thing that should move policy, legislation, or court rulings.

chess
10-22-04, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.

This is hardly a new trick, of course. Singling out a minority group for ridicule is a strong uniting force. And gays, like Jews and blacks, have been the preferred and undeserved targets of thousands of manipulative leaders throughout history. Why should things be any different in 2004?

- David Stein

Words cannot express how pleased I am that someone else recognizes pandering to the worst of our nature.

:up:

kvrdave
10-22-04, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by chess
1. First of all, Riiiiiiiiiight. Second of all, I don't want MY tax dollars going to any religious organization.


Under Clinton, didn't faith based organizations get money for things like Meals on Wheels?

chess
10-22-04, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Under Clinton, didn't faith based organizations get money for things like Meals on Wheels?

I don't know, but if it did, I'm just as concerned.

Why is it that you believe that putting Clinton's name in front of something would change my opinion about it?

Venusian
10-22-04, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by chess
Ugh...

I would have no problems with these quotes were they from a politician...or even a dvdtalk poster. But a Federal appeals court judge? Are you serious? so is the problem the bible thumping or the conservative viewpoints? its okay for politicians to biblethump? Like bush?

kvrdave
10-22-04, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.


Just as liberals are united in their love of terrorists.

Iron Chef
10-22-04, 10:52 AM
http://img39.exs.cx/img39/5931/eagleheadflag.gif

nevermind
10-22-04, 10:54 AM
Bling Bling!

Nazgul
10-22-04, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.


Really? I thought you were better than this. I'm a bit disappointed.

chess
10-22-04, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by kvrdave
Just as liberals are united in their love of terrorists.

-notrolls-

Red Dog
10-22-04, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by chess
I don't know, but if it did, I'm just as concerned.

Why is it that you believe that putting Clinton's name in front of something would change my opinion about it?


In most cases, it exposes hypocrisy. ;)

bhk
10-22-04, 11:02 AM
Just as liberals are united in their love of terrorists.


Despite their protestations to the contrary, you sir have them pegged.

;)

bhk
10-22-04, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by sfsdfd
Yes, it's a whole group of people united by one thing: their hatred of gays.
From a moderator no less, Sheesh.

Contactsport1
10-22-04, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by bhk
From a moderator no less, Sheesh.

Based on some of the napalm you frequently sling, I find it interesting you're willingness to judge.

See your previous post in this thread.

bhk
10-22-04, 11:14 AM
My previous post has a winkie while sssffffffddddd was serious.

Contactsport1
10-22-04, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by bhk
My previous post has a winkie while sssffffffddddd was serious.

Maybe. I have to say that IMO the winkie has lost some of its meaning around here. So many of the posts I read that are followed by the winkie are done so just to hedge on potential return flame from a clearly hot statement. This seems especially prevalent here in the "election" forum. Sorry, if I misunderstood your post.

chess
10-22-04, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by bhk
My previous post has a winkie while sssffffffddddd was serious.

Dude, seriously, you may just want to admit that you are a homophobe. ;)

note the winkie. :p

Venusian
10-22-04, 11:56 AM
Enough with the winks and all. Address the topic at hand or move on

Chew
10-27-04, 12:16 PM
Here's another interesting Kerry quote. Bonus points for guessing when it was said:

I'm willing to accept the horror that goes with war when the interests or the stakes warrant it. But my belief through every fiber of my body, Mr. President, is that our impatience with sanctions and diplomacy does not yet warrant accepting that horror -- and my fear is that our beloved country is not yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to this war. The question of being ready and certain is important to many of us of the Vietnam generation. We come to this debate with a measure of distrust, with some skepticism, with a searing commitment to ask honest questions, and with a resolve to get satisfactory answers so that we are not misled again. I might add that I also come to this debate determined that whatever happens here, we will not confuse a war with the warriors. I am determined that our troops will receive complete and total support and that if we do go to war, Mr. President, I am committed that we do everything in our power to accomplish our mission with minimum casualties and to bring the troops home to the gratitude and to the respect that they will deserve. There is a rush to war here. There's a rush to have this thing over with.

JasonF
10-27-04, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Chew
Here's another interesting Kerry quote. Bonus points for guessing when it was said:

Is this the part where I guess that it was in the run-up to Iraq, and then you jump out of the bushes and go "Ha ha! I tricked you! He said it about Bosnia, when Clinton was President! You're a Democrat and you must support Clinton, but you must also support Kerry! Now your head will explode!!!!!111!!!1!!"

Chew
10-27-04, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by JasonF
"Ha ha! I tricked you! He said it about Bosnia, when Clinton was President!

You're getting warmer.