Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

More Kerry Gems f/ Ann Coulter

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by firefighter184, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. firefighter184

    firefighter184 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Posts:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Barrio
    There's been a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth among the Democrats since Vice President Cheney said if the country makes the wrong choice on Election Day, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." (I mean there is weeping among Democrats who aren't actually rooting for us to get hit again because "we deserve it!")

    I believe this is one of those "issues" Democrats claim to be champing at the bit to discuss – in lieu of discussing the charges of the Swift Boat veterans. In fact, there is no more important issue in this election: Which candidate will best protect America from terrorist attack? Hint: It's not the guy whose running mate (sounding so much like Sean Hayes from "Will and Grace" it was eerie) said their message to the terrorists was: "We will destroy youuuuuuu!"

    Of course, it gets complicated trying to do a side-by-side comparison of the candidates' positions on terrorism since we don't know which John Kerry is running for president. The one who opposes war with Iraq or the one who supports it? The one who opposes the Patriot Act or the one who voted for it? The one who wants to work with the allies, or the one who ridicules them when they support America?

    The only way Kerry's constantly changing positions on little matters like war would seem rational is if we found out he was using a Ouija board to determine his positions – much as he's using a crystal ball to predict when we should start removing U.S. troops from Iraq. Six months – whoops, no, four years. Stupid crystal balls – they never work!

    Republicans have been having raucous fun trying to predict what Kerry's next policy shift will be. Education? AIDS? Pollution? Dang! He picked women's rights! OK, here's another dollar. Give me three more balls, please.

    While waiting for the Ouija board to give us Kerry's final answer on the Iraq war, perhaps we could get an answer on something simpler – like whether or not Kerry owns an SUV.

    During the Democratic primaries, Kerry went to Michigan and bragged to the Detroit News: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban." He was starting to sound like a used-car dealer in a giant cowboy hat peddling his wares in a cheesy, low-budget late-night TV commercial: "We got Jeeps, we got PT Cruisers, we got minivans, and they're priced to move, folks ..."

    But a few months after Kerry won the Michigan primary in February, the feckless opportunist told a bunch of environmentalists: "I don't own an SUV." When pressed on the apparent contradiction, Kerry explained: "The family has it. I don't have it." We're still waiting for reaction from some group calling themselves "SUV Owners for the Truth."

    As I recall, when it came to funding his campaign last January with a $6 million mortgage on the "family" home in Boston – owned by Kerry's billionaire wife – he was not so picky about what he owns and what she owns. Back then, Kerry had somewhat more liberal views on the notion of "community property" – or maybe that was just the pre-nup talking.

    The "family" angle could also explain Kerry's positions on the wall in Israel: His wife supports it and he opposes it!

    Speaking to an Arab group in Michigan in October 2003, Kerry called Israel's erection of a wall between Israeli and Palestinian areas "another barrier to peace."

    But a few months later, Kerry got on the fence on the subject of the wall. Adding clarity to the subject, his campaign issued a memo in February, saying Kerry took the precise opposite position of his earlier position. The memo said: "John Kerry supports the construction of Israel's security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel. The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense ..."

    So the wall was either (1) a barrier to peace or (2) a legitimate act of self-defense. The campaign then said Kerry had meant to say the real barrier to peace was Pink Floyd's "The Wall."

    While Kerry works out his positions, apparently the voters have decided that their legitimate act of self-defense is to vote for Bush.
     
  2. ncbloodhound

    ncbloodhound 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Posts:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indian Trail, NC
    [ QUOTE ]
    The campaign then said Kerry had meant to say the real barrier to peace was Pink Floyd's "The Wall."

    [/ QUOTE ] /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif
     
  3. Shaggy

    Shaggy 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Posts:
    6,737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Banos, CA
    Unfortunately I find Ann Coulter hard to read since she spins stuff pretty hard. All of the statements in this may be true, but based on her history I would need to fact check all of them before I beleived them. That's not exactly good journalism. She strikes me as a journalist in the liberal sense of the word, appealing to people's emotions rather than logic. She's preaching to the choir, and as such her rhetoric is not helpful for anything other than pissing some people off and making other people say "Get 'er done!" or whatever. She certainly won't make anyone see the light of conservatism with her style of writing.

    Look at the first sentence in this article, she's taking the Dummocrat spin on the statement from the speech and defending what the Dems say that it meant. Where's the logic in that? All that's going to do is cement the flawed interpretation of the statement in the liberal's minds, when instead they should learn the context of the statement. Does anyone actually beleive that Dems think we deserve to be hit with another terrorist attack? Maybe some ultra liberal whack-jobs think that, but they wouldn't be democrats.
     
  4. firefighter184

    firefighter184 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Posts:
    2,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Barrio
    Yah, she's kinda overboard with the spin thing, but she cracks me up, and I thought you guys might get a kick out of her too. /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif
     

Share This Page