After Kerry voiced some opinions about Republicans and Social Security, the president responded by saying “What would you expect from a senator from Massachusetts?”
Well, it now seems that Mr. Bush is showing what he truly thinks about certain states and the people who come from those states. It’s too bad that since Bush thinks so little about people from Massachusetts that he doesn’t allow soldiers from that state to not have to put their lives on the line going to fight in Iraq, the war he started which was predicated on a lie. But, of course, when it comes to dying for Bush’s ill-conceived war, all folks are welcome.
Since Bush holds certain American people in such low personal regard, it just makes it more clear what a hypocrite he was for ever campaigning in places like New York, which is not exactly a place that welcomes the Republican party with open arms.
It’s too bad that Bush feels so insecure about the upcoming election that he must now try to garner support by attacking the very people, which is all American people, who he is entrusted with protecting. What a sad, sad situation.
Well let’s look at the glorious history of the other two well-known politicians from Massachusetts. Teddy Kennedy and Dukakis. What great leaders they were and have been. Any state that keeps re-electing Teddy Kennedy deserves to have as much contempt heaped upon it as possible.
[quote=“fred smith”]Well let’s look at the glorious history of the other two well-known politicians from Massachusetts. Teddy Kennedy and Dukakis. What great leaders they were and have been. Any state that keeps re-electing Teddy Kennedy deserves to have as much contempt heaped upon it as possible.
I mean this with the greatest of love.
freddie[/quote]
fred,
Kennedy has served the people of his state well. That is why he gets reelected so often. He has a compassion for ordinary people that your boy Bush will never possess.
The fact remains that Bush should try, at least try, to appear neutral as far as the American people are concerned. After all, he is suppose to be serving all the people, is he not? However, his disdain for others simply because they come from a state he dislikes is a glaring example of why the man is unfit to be in the White House.
As I said before, it’s too bad that soldiers from Mass. have to go and fight a war for a leader who clearly thinks so little of them.
Kennedy should have been arrested, tried and jailed for drunken driving that resulted in the death of a woman.
He has continued to enforce nomenklatura diktat regarding teacher union and labor union control over education to the detriment of our children.
He has bloviated about Vietnam during a crucial period in Iraq when his comments gave aid and succor to the enemy.
He has continually voted and supported socialist policies that have been dismantled in places like China, Russia and Eastern Europe. They failed, yet he continues to support them, why?
I can only surmise that you yourself are not an American Cable Guy or you would not exhibit such glaring ignorance of the tawdry, corrupt, back-room deal legacy that Kennedy has bequeathed the senate. He is a disgrace.
Which president can you point to specifically who made such disparaging remarks, excluding Bush? The man shoud be setting a good example, not showing a bias against a large group of Americans simply because he doesn’t like that state’s politicians.
Does Bush ever think before he speaks?
Well at least Bush thinks before he acts and that is far more important than thinking before you speak. If you had to choose, which one would you prefer. I mean I am sure that Kerry thinks before he speaks but he spends so much time thinking about what he is saying that he never thinks about what he should be doing and then when he thinks about it some more then he changes his mind after thinking it through only to face another group that raises some questions of nuance yet to think about it again before doing a volte face. Sheesh! Some attribute!
[quote=“fred smith”]Kennedy should have been arrested, tried and jailed for drunken driving that resulted in the death of a woman.
He has continued to enforce nomenklatura diktat regarding teacher union and labor union control over education to the detriment of our children.
He has bloviated about Vietnam during a crucial period in Iraq when his comments gave aid and succor to the enemy.
He has continually voted and supported socialist policies that have been dismantled in places like China, Russia and Eastern Europe. They failed, yet he continues to support them, why?
I can only surmise that you yourself are not an American Cable Guy or you would not exhibit such glaring ignorance of the tawdry, corrupt, back-room deal legacy that Kennedy has bequeathed the senate. He is a disgrace.[/quote]
Sorry, fred, but could you please give some examples of corruption which has come from Kennedy? The fact that he gives away his yearly salary can’t be a bad thing, can it?
Years ago he was involved in an incident which tragically resulted in a death. He was never charged. Thus, we can assume no charges were deserved in that case. (he was proven to be drunk. It was just assumed he was…facts, please fred, not just idle speculation).
The man was drunk, driving a car that went off a bridge, a woman drowned, he left the scene of the crime and was not made available to police until he was sober and was not charged. What the f**? Are you really this stupid? Who else can you think of who would not have been “charged” under such circumstances. This was a major travesty of justice that should humiliate all of America. As long as this man is in the senate, how can we talk tough about corruption and perversion of rule of law in places like Russia or China? They must laugh themselves sick. At least, Kennedy has the decency not to bring up these rule of law issues too much in the Senate. That would be quel riche! quel drole!
Also, while he may give up his salary in the Senate, he does have a large income from his Kennedy family trust. I am sure that with his very capable tax lawyers and tax accountants and offshore accounts, he does not need the Bush tax cut. He like Teresa Heinz Kerry probably averages about 15 percent on all his wealth if he pays even that. So don’t give me this crap about him caring for the poor. If he cared about the poor, why is he not demanding educational reform. This is the surest road out of poverty. Why keep the teachers unions and federal and state workers in control of education and why allow 52 cents to 76 cents on every dollar to be spent on administration? Why isn’t this going to educating our children? He is supposed to be the big education guru so why is it that he allows such dismal conditions not only to exist but also works so tireless to block every effort to push reform like vouchers?
I strongly suggest you vote for Kerry. Kerry fits your model of an ideal presidential candiate that appears as “neutral” as possible. The guy has been on almost every side of every issue … trying to remain non-committed to everything. The guy was out courting gun owners the other day.
Bush is different. Bush, on the whole, sticks to an agenda … which by the way has made A LOT of enemies.
Something you need to learn about politics cableguy (and life in general): If you don’t have any enemies, you don’t truly have any friends. If you try to straddle every issue and please all the people all the time, you will eventually walk away empty handed. Your base will hate you, and your enemies will laugh at you. No one will trust you. You need to have a position, stick up for it, and find other like-minded people to associate with. If you try to represent everything, … well, you’ll end up looking like Kerry. Leaders don’t live by polls. They lead … which by definition means that not everyone is going to like it.
Hummm. Gee, I wish many on the left would apply the same metrics to people they despise. Could you image some of our buddies saying something similar:
“Bush was never charged with AWOL. In fact, all his released records show he met requirements and had an honorable discharge. Thus, we can assume no foul play in that case.”
I wonder if OJ is still out looking for the “real killer”.
georgewbush.org/bios/dwi-record.asp has a nice copy of Bush’s drunk-driving report from Kennebunkport, Maine. I guess he lucked out because he didn’t kill anybody that time.
Bush was charged and lost his license for 2 years. He did not as you say “even kill anyone.” So what’s the reason why that fat bastard Ted Kennedy is not sitting in jail for 10 years. A felony conviction would also have ended his ability to serve as senator. Why not? Huh? Talk about a lame state. Most Massachusetts citizens probably imagine that this kind of corruption and cronyism is possibly only in illiterate, ignorant Southern small towns right? haha!
Oh, so by extension of your argument you must think that the United States is a “lame” country because the SEC held off from investigating Bush’s stock deal with Harken Energy Corp. when his dad was a sitting president. You probably think most U.S. citizens “probably imagine that this kind of corruption and cronyism is possible only in illiterate, ignorant Southern”-hemisphere nations, right? Fair’s fair, right?
So, it would appear that in order to be consistent you would have to be a typical America-hating Republican…
Whoops is that you switching gears again MFGR? I have just proved you wrong about the very link that you provided. Bush was charged, he lost his license for 2 years. Why are you still defending Kennedy who was drunk, killed someone and left the scene? Please explain how in your sick mind this works.
Fred, please explain how on earth you think America is a “lame” country.
I’d also like to know more about how Bush was able to avoid being prosecuted for SEC violations with regards to Harken Energy. It would appear that Bush has no respect for federal law or for his company’s shareholders and is willing, at the drop of a hat, to throw his scruples out the window. This sort of blatant hypocrisy does not seem to be in keeping with “American” values.
Or perhaps you can explain how he was able to avoid his military service at the height of the Cold War. Our national defense was at stake. Might not have been so dangerous as flying a Thud over Vietnam, but all he had to do was take his medical physicals and help deter the Soviets at a time when they were flying bombers out of Cuba. Cuba was just a few miles away, as you may recall. It would appear to be that Bush simply didn’t care about doing his duty, simple and relatively risk-free as it was, to protect Americans.
I am onto you. I raised a point asking why Kennedy is not jailed. You have not answered my question. Then, you posted a link asking why Bush got off, but he did not. He lost his license for 2 years. Kennedy killed someone and was not even charged with drunk driving. He left the scene of the crime, etc. YOU ANSWER THAT first. You do not get to always jump into these arguments and then try to use smoke and mirrors to distract us from our questions. I have answered yours regarding Bush. You have not answered mine regarding Kennedy and now you want to go off on a whole new tangent regarding something on Bush. NO. YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION FIRST. Why did Ted Kennedy get off? Why wasn’t he charged? Why is that fat bastard in the Senate? He should have gone to jail for manslaughter. A felony would have made him ineligible to run for senate. If he claims to care so much about the poor, why does he make education such a political issue, rewarding teachers unions and federal and state workers unions over the very quality of education that he claims to care so much about. You answer that first.
