... he would have had troops in Haiti already. What? Without the UN on board or perhaps a coalition of the Carribean Superpowers?
Speaking of which, where is Kofi and the UN??????
Evie ![]()
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
... he would have had troops in Haiti already. What? Without the UN on board or perhaps a coalition of the Carribean Superpowers?
Speaking of which, where is Kofi and the UN??????
Evie ![]()
Now would that really be the approach that an "internationalist" would take? Flip, flop, repeat.
I see a baaaaaaad case of "buyers remorse" coming on amongst his supporters.
DE
I'm sure ol' Drudge will come up with something else soon enough though. Perhaps a real estate scandal.....nah, that's been done......hmmmmm, drug trafficking? Nope, done too........serial killer? Also done......don't worry, you guys will come up with something.
Josh, it's early in the campaign. Wait a while, things will get nastier. Remember, in the last elections, it even got down to the canidates kids. Kerry has 2 daughters and 3 sons. Also, considering Clinton's trying to give Hillary a role in national health care, sooner or lster Kerry's wife will become political fodder. Driving records, casino or other personal records, and no end of other things, sooner or later the fur will start flying. Remember previous attacks against Republicans when it starts and you are tempted to cry "foul!".
BTW, I'm curious to see if "you know what" comes up in Senator Byrd's next election bid.
Frankly I wish both sides would concentrate more on the issues. Whether or not Bush used cocaine may be an interesting question but it's not going to affect my life or the outlook for this country over the next 4 years.
Will "you know what" come up in Byrd's next election bid? I guess that's a question best asked of the people of West Virginia. If it doesn't bother them, then what the rest of us think doesn't really matter.
Josh, I don't think such things won't be raised. You just gave a perfect example. You said that you wished both sides would concentrate on the issues, and in the next breath bought up cocaine.
On the Byrd situation, did it ever dawn on you that a great many voters in that state were not aware of it? But with a not too long ago slam at a Republican and a remark at a birthday party that got so much air time, that situation was learned by many voters who had not known it before. Josh, my wife is friends with a member of the family, and she did not know it.
Yup, I brought up cocaine, because frankly in this forum the right side of the aisle seems to dish it out a lot better than they take it.
But now that I've brought it up, doesn't it bother you even a little that Bush was willing to flatly deny using cocaine during certain time periods but not others?
Obviously, Josh, I must ask what Kerry said when asked the same question. You know what, Josh, I don't really remember the question being asked of Bush, whenever it was. Curious that someone who wanted to talk about the current political issues brought it up, so I had to ask about Kerry's response, as you want to being it into play. For both sides, Josh, or just one?
I don't think Kerry (or any of the other Democrats) have been asked about cocaine. I did see one debate in which each of them was asked whether they'd smoked pot. I think Kerry said he had but I'm not sure.
I don't really think it's a valid question but I think if it's going to be asked, the best course is a truthful response. If Clinton had just admitted it right off rather than trying to dodge it and then using the "didn't inhale" line, there would have been a lot less flap over it.
What got people buzzing (sorry for the pun) about Bush wasn't the idea that he might have used coke so much as his unwillingness to just say he had rather than refusing to deny it but not admitting it.
He doesn't look like a man who's using drugs, and I don't think he inclined to lie about things. Why would I disbelieve him? He's also never discussed the possible meanings of 'is'.
Nobody I know has suggested that he's using drugs presently. You say that he doesn't look like a man who's using drugs. What does a man who used drugs 20-30 years ago look like?
If so, how he looks would depend on what he took, for how long, and how much he took. If it was minor, it probably wouldn't show at all. It would also be totally irrelevant to anything happening today, except to say 'Congratulations on overcoming the drugs'.
During the 2000 campaign, he denied having used cocaine during a specific time period, but refused to address any time periods prior to that. Actually, he never outright denied it at all. His response to the question was "I could have passed the [FBI] background check on the standards applied on the most stringent conditions when my dad was president of the United States - a 15-year period," as opposed to the simpler and more direct "I have never used cocaine."
Whether he meant the 15 years prior to the 2000 campaign, or the 15 years prior to the date his father took office, is open to interpretation. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was saying 15 years prior to 1989. That brings us to 1974. All efforts to get him to deny having used cocaine prior to 1974 were met with the response that it was a personal question and none of anyone's business. Fair enough (and I agree), but as I've said before, if the question gets asked, just answer it.
Interesting thoughts on spotting drug users though. Aside from obvious cases like Keith Richards, I wonder how many people on the street you could identify as drug users by their looks. It's a skill you might want to tell your local police department about; could be a great job opportunity for you.
You know, Clay, I don't know offhand where you live, nor with what product your business deals, but I'd ask them one question: "How your product will make me money?
It's the same with a new politician (To me, 19 years political duty elsewhere is of little moment). New seller of a different political product, tell me how and why your new product is better. How will your new product make my life better? What will your product do that my current one does not do? Forget that you would have me believe that my current brand is "bad", What would this new "brand Kerry" do for me that is better for my business, personal and real world. Specifically, exactly what would "Brand Kerry" do? "Brand Kerry" can't remain silent for 8 months until election day, you've got to "make the sale" before the customer hits the checkout line.
Makes you wonder why some members of this forum are trying so hard to create scandals around Kerry rather than simply posting why they think Bush would be a better President, doesn't it.![]()
It was to Kerry's advantage to bring it out, get the facts known, and put it behind him. It's an advantage to the Republicans if its shelved for now, and used when there is more to be gained.
.
Only choices that have a prayer of being elected is to be further left than your opponent is right, or vice versa.
It no longer matters if there is sensibility or practicality about any proposal. It's either business catering conservative or bleeding heart liberal.
It's not about balence anymore to anyone, it's about demonizing all disagreement. That applies equally to all political parties IMO.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com